Now I am just a layman, everyday person. I like carbon dating, it makes a lot of sense.
- list of legitimate online dating sites;
- dating in nyc is hard;
- The Basics of Carbon-14 Dating;
- gps dating apps.
Is there anything that we know the age of which carbon dating has provided a correct age? I have yet to read or find reliable results. If there are any I would love to see them. But if the theory does not hold up to testing, it is not a strong theory which is good science. And then some other guy above says there is no evidence for the flood I guess Iif you will believe the hoax of evolution youll believe anything. God and real science are a perfict fit. Please just listen to both sides So much evidence points to a young earth Evolutionst dont like mount saint helens I guess a dot the size of period that came from nothing, blew up in outer space and turned into everything you see today Also the moon is moving further from the earth I choose to believe that there is a God and he created the world around us.
Just a suggestion, but nearly everyone who took part in this discussion and most especially the author of the "article" might want to consider enrolling in a Freshman-level course in Critical Thinking. The ignorance on display here is quite astounding. For such supposedly intelligent individuals to demonstrate a complete lack of ability to construct a sound and coherent argument supported by citable research is laughable.
You folks "know" far less than you think you do. Science and the world in general would be so much better off if the education of the masses was left soley to capable individuals with a distinct lack of any personal agendas. Truth only sets free those who don't run away from it because they don't like it.
This is full of holes as the one you tried to debunk. Anything that has error, even just a small amount cannot be called hard proof for science. Even if it is just a possibility of error. It's never accurate if there is a single anomaly in the process. Carbon dating is never accurate. Being the intellectual equivalent of hucksters and mobsters, scientists of these sort are apt to criticize the Holy Scriptures in a bid to construe evidence to fit into their pseudo-scientific bullshit.
They sift through biblical literature, pick the parts that supposedly criticize a creationist belief, and put up claims that mainstream theosophy is bogus.
- anastasia russian dating service?
- executive dating site.
- The "Thank Gawd for Shit" Campaign.
These deranged fundamentalists are not interested in biblical truths; they don't carry out any field work or research. All they ever do is throw around their banter and hope that someone, somewhere, will lap up and believe in their Darwinist beliefs, which coincidentally, have no scientific merit whatsoever. So my choices are to follow the evolutionist and refute anything supernatural to what end? Not a tough choice for me: Let love in brothers and sisters. Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow.
Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years.
Carbon-14 Dating Does Not Disprove the Bible
They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. I will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating. How does carbon dating work? Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon. Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes.
When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C, and the old C starts to decay back into N by emitting beta particles.
The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. C decays with a half-life of 5, years. Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years.
ICR creationists claim that this discredits C dating. How do you reply? It does discredit the C dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.
Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however. A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C, enough to give them C ages in the tens of thousands of years.
How do you explain this? Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium K decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation.
As Hurley points out: Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. K decay also forms plenty of beta radiation.
Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
Carbon Dating Does Not Disprove the Bible
Creationists such as Cook claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C in it at all.
If they are right, this means all C ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. Yes, Cook is right that C is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to BC, one can check out the C dates against the tree-ring-count dates.
Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date.
Sunday, 24 June 2007
It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations. When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains.
For example, pieces of wood that date at about BC by tree-ring counts date at only BC by regular C dating and BC by Cook's creationist revision of C dating as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. So, despite creationist claims, C before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C dating errs on the side of making objects from before BC look too young, not too old. But don't trees sometimes produce more than one growth ring per year?
Wouldn't that spoil the tree-ring count? If anything, the tree-ring sequence suffers far more from missing rings than from double rings. This means that the tree-ring dates would be slightly too young, not too old. Of course, some species of tree tend to produce two or more growth rings per year. But other species produce scarcely any extra rings. Most of the tree-ring sequence is based on the bristlecone pine. This tree rarely produces even a trace of an extra ring; on the contrary, a typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing.
Concerning the sequence of rings derived from the bristlecone pine, Ferguson says: In certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season's growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring.
- dutch dating sites english.
- Carbon Dating and 2+2=5.
In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers. Hence at least some of the missing rings can be found. Even so, the missing rings are a far more serious problem than any double rings. Other species of trees corroborate the work that Ferguson did with bristlecone pines.
Before his work, the tree-ring sequence of the sequoias had been worked out back to BC. The archaeological ring sequence had been worked out back to 59 BC.