Carbon Dating - Looking for good articles

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There are no legitimate articles against carbon dating. All of them are published by crackpot religious zelots. Same with Evolution and Global Warming.

I agree on carbon dating, but I've read some very good arguments (with good data behind them) that show global warming may not be caused by humans as much as the sun or other natural events.

 

[ed21x]

Can you clarify what you mean about "calibration is off"? If we're measuring against things of known age, why would it be off?

and therein lies the problem, we don't have anything to calibrate with when we aren't ever sure how old something is beyond our earliest record keeping. at most, a tree can only be a few hundred years old, and petrified wood is subjected to high pressure, mineralization (by Silicon dioxide), oxygen fluctuating environments, etc that even in small amounts can screw up any C14 analysis.

 

[magreen]

Hey ed21x, can you link me to some info on how radioactive decay rates can fluctuate with pressure, temp, ambient concentrarion, etc.?

Thanks. Sounds interesting.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: ed21x
it has to be true, because any argument against it goes against the concept of science and being open minded. in addition, we are going to label you as a religious zealot and insult you without even looking at your argument. this is what being progressive is all about.

Maybe you could actually put forth your view on the subject instead of passive-aggressively attacking the rationalists?

explain to me how the following typical replies constitute the words of "rationalists"

Originally posted by: Legendary
I don't think the science behind carbon dating has ever been legitimately disputed. Any search in that vein will probably take you to fundamentalist religious sites.

Also, do your own homework.

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There are no legitimate articles against carbon dating. All of them are published by crackpot religious zelots. Same with Evolution and Global Warming.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

Show an article against carbon dating that isn't written by religious zelots.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Caveman
This is not a homework assignment, but rather an exchange of information among friends who were discussing the subject last night.

As a point of interest, we all believe the bible corroborates Carbon dating.

It's hard not to view folks who assume a belief in the bible assumes a non belief in science as "ignorant"... That really is a limited viewpoint.

Huh, I must have missed the chapter of the bible about nuclear physics.

No, just the trillions of years implied in the Hebrew rendition of Gen 1:1 and 1:2. Also, the bible nowhere limits man's capability. Rather, it supports the notion that our purpose is far greater than we can conceive, even with the best science.

No, it is not implied to be trillions of years. The same Hebrew word used is used in other contexts to refer to a literal day.

If God is God, of course none of it matters, because he could have done the whole thing in one day, or one microsecond for that matter. For all the self-proclaimed "tolerance" among evolutionists, that they demand of the "religious nutbags", they're awfully intolerant of our views.

And this still doesn't answer the most important question of them all, what caused the big bang in the first place. The very concept of the big bang flies in the face of the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The fundamentalist evolutionists usually say "we don't know...yet", but truth is we'll never know because nobody was ever there. So they put their faith in a big bang and evolution, we put ours in a timeless/beyond time God who has always existed, in at least the 5th dimension (all time happening in moment).

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: ed21x
it has to be true, because any argument against it goes against the concept of science and being open minded. in addition, we are going to label you as a religious zealot and insult you without even looking at your argument. this is what being progressive is all about.

Maybe you could actually put forth your view on the subject instead of passive-aggressively attacking the rationalists?

explain to me how the following typical replies constitute the words of "rationalists"

Originally posted by: Legendary
I don't think the science behind carbon dating has ever been legitimately disputed. Any search in that vein will probably take you to fundamentalist religious sites.

Also, do your own homework.

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There are no legitimate articles against carbon dating. All of them are published by crackpot religious zelots. Same with Evolution and Global Warming.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

Show an article against carbon dating that isn't written by religious zelots.

My roommate has been wondering about this, I'll go look it up after I get back from the mall and shoe shopping. But the problem is you'd immediately claim there's some religious motivation, simply because it's against carbon dating.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
No, it is not implied to be trillions of years. The same Hebrew word used is used in other contexts to refer to a literal day.

If God is God, of course none of it matters, because he could have done the whole thing in one day, or one microsecond for that matter. For all the self-proclaimed "tolerance" among evolutionists, that they demand of the "religious nutbags", they're awfully intolerant of our views.

And this still doesn't answer the most important question of them all, what caused the big bang in the first place. The very concept of the big bang flies in the face of the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The fundamentalist evolutionists usually say "we don't know...yet", but truth is we'll never know because nobody was ever there. So they put their faith in a big bang and evolution, we put ours in a timeless/beyond time God who has always existed, in at least the 5th dimension (all time happening in moment).

Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: ed21x
it has to be true, because any argument against it goes against the concept of science and being open minded. in addition, we are going to label you as a religious zealot and insult you without even looking at your argument. this is what being progressive is all about.

Maybe you could actually put forth your view on the subject instead of passive-aggressively attacking the rationalists?

explain to me how the following typical replies constitute the words of "rationalists"

Originally posted by: Legendary
I don't think the science behind carbon dating has ever been legitimately disputed. Any search in that vein will probably take you to fundamentalist religious sites.

Also, do your own homework.

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There are no legitimate articles against carbon dating. All of them are published by crackpot religious zelots. Same with Evolution and Global Warming.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

Show an article against carbon dating that isn't written by religious zelots.

My roommate has been wondering about this, I'll go look it up after I get back from the mall and shoe shopping. But the problem is you'd immediately claim there's some religious motivation, simply because it's against carbon dating.

Sorry, I don't assume there some religious motivation. All the paper against carbon dating I've seem where written by some one with a religious motivation and all of those have been junk.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Caveman
This is not a homework assignment, but rather an exchange of information among friends who were discussing the subject last night.

As a point of interest, we all believe the bible corroborates Carbon dating.

It's hard not to view folks who assume a belief in the bible assumes a non belief in science as "ignorant"... That really is a limited viewpoint.

Huh, I must have missed the chapter of the bible about nuclear physics.

No, just the trillions of years implied in the Hebrew rendition of Gen 1:1 and 1:2. Also, the bible nowhere limits man's capability. Rather, it supports the notion that our purpose is far greater than we can conceive, even with the best science.

No, it is not implied to be trillions of years. The same Hebrew word used is used in other contexts to refer to a literal day.

If God is God, of course none of it matters, because he could have done the whole thing in one day, or one microsecond for that matter. For all the self-proclaimed "tolerance" among evolutionists, that they demand of the "religious nutbags", they're awfully intolerant of our views.

And this still doesn't answer the most important question of them all, what caused the big bang in the first place. The very concept of the big bang flies in the face of the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The fundamentalist evolutionists usually say "we don't know...yet", but truth is we'll never know because nobody was ever there. So they put their faith in a big bang and evolution, we put ours in a timeless/beyond time God who has always existed, in at least the 5th dimension (all time happening in moment).

What caused the big bang really isn't that important. It has zero applied uses.

What does "put their faith in a big bang and evolution" mean? Do you think people pray to natural selection?

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

 

[SirStev0]

Your Homework... Do it yourself.

I have no prob helping out people on here when it is a difficult concept or they need help with understanding something or doing a problem, but this is just lazyness. Go on lexisnexis and find your own articles.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

Right, and baldness is a hair colour, right?

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: ed21x
it has to be true, because any argument against it goes against the concept of science and being open minded. in addition, we are going to label you as a religious zealot and insult you without even looking at your argument. this is what being progressive is all about.

Maybe you could actually put forth your view on the subject instead of passive-aggressively attacking the rationalists?

explain to me how the following typical replies constitute the words of "rationalists"

Originally posted by: Legendary
I don't think the science behind carbon dating has ever been legitimately disputed. Any search in that vein will probably take you to fundamentalist religious sites.

Also, do your own homework.

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There are no legitimate articles against carbon dating. All of them are published by crackpot religious zelots. Same with Evolution and Global Warming.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

Show an article against carbon dating that isn't written by religious zelots.

My roommate has been wondering about this, I'll go look it up after I get back from the mall and shoe shopping. But the problem is you'd immediately claim there's some religious motivation, simply because it's against carbon dating.

Why don't you stop accusing and start linking?

 

[Newfie]

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

You get an A for effort (that's being generous).

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: magreen
Hey ed21x, can you link me to some info on how radioactive decay rates can fluctuate with pressure, temp, ambient concentrarion, etc.?

Thanks. Sounds interesting.

I typed in "effects of Temperature, pressure, diffusion" and got this as my first search result (from ScienceDirect)

This experimental study shows that large-radius cations like those of uranium can be incorporated as large amounts into mantle silicates via a diffusion process: as expected, this process is activated by high temperatures and/or long run durations, but it appears that there is no negative effect of high pressure. Indeed, pressure is known to lower the diffusion coefficients (Poirier, 2000): but after the results we obtained in this study, we can assume that the effect of temperature was substantially more important than the effect of pressure, and high temperatures combined with long run durations could efficiently activate the diffusion process of the U incorporation at high P. We obtained diffusion coefficients for U into the Al-CaSiO3 perovskite at high P and T, in the same order of magnitude than those of U into diopside observed at high T: our experiments could not be considered as so-called diffusion experiments (like those described in the review by Béjina et al., 2003 F. Béjina, O. Jaoul and R.C. Liebermann, Diffusion in minerals at high pressure: a review, Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 139 (2003), pp. 3?20. Article | PDF (214 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)Béjina et al., 2003), but they allowed us to quantify the effect of both run duration and temperature on the diffusion process of uranium into the Al-CaSiO3 perovskite. Two other characteristics are also essential for such diffusion: the size and the charge of the cation diffusing into the Ca-perovskite matrix. In fact, U4+ is slightly smaller than Ca2+, and furthermore its charge is twice bigger: these two arguments are in favour of the relatively easy diffusion of uranium at high P and T, that we could observe in this study.

from Experimental high pressure and high temperature study of the incorporation of uranium in Al-rich CaSiO3 perovskite

Steeve Gréauxa, , , Laurent Gautrona, Denis Andraultb, c, Nathalie Bolfan-Casanovac, Nicolas Guignotd, 1 and M. Ali Bouhifde (from Science Direct)

Of course this is just talking about diffusion affects of Uranium into some Silicon matrix by temperature and pressure. CaSiO3 is of course the mineral that replaces soft tissue in decaying organisms, so increasing diffusion of Uranium into this matrix at high temp/pressure will essentially make the specimen more radioactive. It's a stretch, but I'm not really trying that hard.

One thing to remember is that when searching for proofs, never type "Scientific Proofs that Radioactive dating is true/false" because that is just begging for biased whackos from the entire spectrum with an agenda. Research indirectly on factors that might affect carbon dating. For example:

another article:

Effect of pressure on the decay rate of 7Be
Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
Received 10 February 2000; Revised 25 April 2000; accepted 11 May 2000. Available online 12 July 2000.

Beryllium-7 in Be(OH)2 gel was compressed in diamond-anvil pressure cells up to 442 kbar at room temperature. By counting the activity of 7Be, the decay rate for the conversion of 7Be to 7Li via electron capture was measured. The decay constant of 7Be, ?, was found to increase, but the rate of increase decreased with increasing pressure. A quadratic regression of the data yields (?-?0)/?0=(4.87×10-5)P-(5.9×10-8)P2, where the subscript zero denotes zero pressure and P stands for pressure in kilobar. Thus, ? of 7Be increases by about 1% at 400 kbar. The observed data set can be rationalized by an increase in electron density near the nucleus of 7Be at high pressures. This result may bear some implications for the conversion of 40K to 40Ar, which has been widely adopted to date geological events.

This article shows that pressure/temperature can have an effect on radioactive decay rate of Beryllium. Of course this isn't directly asking "is radioactive dating accurate?" so that you avoid biased answers, but you can get tested information and make your own assumptions.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

Right, and baldness is a hair colour, right?

and you, my friend, gives scientists a bad name. do not ever claim to be one as you are inherently biased and close minded.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Sorry, I don't assume there some religious motivation. All the paper against carbon dating I've seem where written by some one with a religious motivation and all of those have been junk.

this is why you never search on google "is Radioactive dating true" or "reasons why christian arguments against radioactive dating is false" because all you are going to get is biased answers. If you want to actually break it down, try searching on a reputable scientific publication "affects of ambient conditions on decay rate" or something like that and avoid the entire argument alltogether in favor of small, academically sponsored studies, and then make your own conclusions from that.

 

[Newfie]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

Right, and baldness is a hair colour, right?

and you, my friend, gives scientists a bad name. do not ever claim to be one as you are inherently biased and close minded.

If a belief goes against basic scientific principles then it should not be tolerated at all. Religion, or any belief with "faith" should never hold any special status in our society, I don't care how old it is or how many people believe it.

If your belief is ridiculous and cannot apply to scientific standards, then expect ridicule.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Newfie

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

Right, and baldness is a hair colour, right?

and you, my friend, gives scientists a bad name. do not ever claim to be one as you are inherently biased and close minded.

If a belief goes against basic scientific principles then it should not be tolerated at all. Religion, or any belief with "faith" should never hold any special status in our society, I don't care how old or how many people believe it.

If your belief is ridiculous and cannot apply to scientific standards, then expect ridicule.

The problem with this argument is that we are arguing whether radioactive dating works or not, not whether religion is true. Thus we should be open to the possibility that radioactive dating might be false, and researching from that perspective is more scientific than analyzing a theory on the pretense that it is true. Everything has to be false until proven otherwise.

Now what annoys me about subjects like Radioactive Dating, evolution, etc. is that you can't work off scientific principles because neither of those theories can be observed nor replicated. The scale of both those theories makes it impossible to prove or disprove, which really makes argueing about it pointless.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Newfie

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

Right, and baldness is a hair colour, right?

and you, my friend, gives scientists a bad name. do not ever claim to be one as you are inherently biased and close minded.

If a belief goes against basic scientific principles then it should not be tolerated at all. Religion, or any belief with "faith" should never hold any special status in our society, I don't care how old it is or how many people believe it.

If your belief is ridiculous and cannot apply to scientific standards, then expect ridicule.

stfu u! i has teh proof!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: smack Down

Sorry, I don't assume there some religious motivation. All the paper against carbon dating I've seem where written by some one with a religious motivation and all of those have been junk.

this is why you never search on google "is Radioactive dating true" or "reasons why christian arguments against radioactive dating is false" because all you are going to get is biased answers. If you want to actually break it down, try searching on a reputable scientific publication "affects of ambient conditions on decay rate" or something like that and avoid the entire argument alltogether in favor of small, academically sponsored studies, and then make your own conclusions from that.

Right and you will find nothing that calls into question the idea or result of most carbon dating. You might find a few results that are bad but who cares. That isn't the point behind this thread.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Newfie

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: magreen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Please explain to me how big bang theory relates to evolutionary theory. And no, I never claim to be tolerant of your views. Your views are ridiculous and so I will justly ridicule you for them. Your belief in God is primitive and pathetic.

The words of a true religious zealot.

Right, and baldness is a hair colour, right?

and you, my friend, gives scientists a bad name. do not ever claim to be one as you are inherently biased and close minded.

If a belief goes against basic scientific principles then it should not be tolerated at all. Religion, or any belief with "faith" should never hold any special status in our society, I don't care how old or how many people believe it.

If your belief is ridiculous and cannot apply to scientific standards, then expect ridicule.

The problem with this argument is that we are arguing whether radioactive dating works or not, not whether religion is true. Thus we should be open to the possibility that radioactive dating might be false, and researching from that perspective is more scientific than analyzing a theory on the pretense that it is true. Everything has to be false until proven otherwise.

Now what annoys me about subjects like Radioactive Dating, evolution, etc. is that you can't work off scientific principles because neither of those theories can be observed nor replicated. The scale of both those theories makes it impossible to prove or disprove, which really makes argueing about it pointless.

Radioactive dating and evolution can both be observed. No one has put enough effort into observing them, but that doesn't mean they can't be observed. Unlike creationism which is 100% in the past and therefor is completely unobservable.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: ed21x
Now what annoys me about subjects like Radioactive Dating, evolution, etc. is that you can't work off scientific principles because neither of those theories can be observed nor replicated. The scale of both those theories makes it impossible to prove or disprove, which really makes argueing about it pointless.

Wow, and you criticize my scientific knowledge? Both of these theories can (and have been, extensively) be scrutinized using the scientific method. Strictly speaking the scientific method never serves to prove anything, but to disprove a hypothesis. Both carbon dating and evolution are very much falsifiable theories, yet neither has been falsified.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Carbon dating is accurate and it works, but it's not precise to the year.

I think those terms should be the other way around: carbon dating is precise but not necessarily accurate to the year.

No, he has it correct. Precision is the fine-tuned-ness of the measurement. i.e. if carbon dating said an object is "150 years, 6 months, 8 days, 14 hours and 23 minutes old", that'd be precise. If the actual age was 400 years though, the measurement wouldn't be very accurate.

If you invented a machine to throw darts at a dart board, and all the darts hit within 1 centimeter of each other, your machine would be much more precise (fine tuned) than a machine that scattered all the darts in a 3 inch diameter circle. Of course, if that 1cm cluster of darts was 5 feet away from the bullseye, then while precise, your machine wasn't that accurate. While if the 3 inch circle were centered at the bullseye, your machine would be accurate, but not precise. And, of course, hitting the bullseye every time would be both accurate and precise.

I think what you are saying may actually support what I stated. The technique of carbon dating is precise; you measure a sample today and get value x then hopefully the next day you get value x and next week you get value x and so forth. Carbon dating is in fact not accurate to the year - window of 20 something years or so. Therefore the 'exactness' of that measurement relative to the actual value is the measurement of accuracy. E.g. if the actual value of something is 1000 years old but carbon dating may say 975 years then that relative difference is accuracy. Every time you make that measurement, though, it should always be ~975 (plus or minus a reasonable standard deviation) which is precision.

Even your cliche high school chemistry 101 example supports what I stated; the instrument is precise time after time but the window of accuracy (i.e. the bullseye) may not be accurate because carbon dating will not give you the exact year/month/day/whatever.

That being said it is all pretty moot because for it's intended use carbon dating is accurate relative to the time scale one would be comparing it to.

 

[smack Down]

When talking about the method of measurement then you are talking about precision. When talking about a specific measurement you are talking about accuracy.

Of course with something like carbon dating talking about years, then they are both interchangeable because years isn't what is measured.