Carbon Dating, please tell me how it is wrong?

Please don't take seriously what this guy Gorman91 writes.

e.g.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Life is made of proteins.
These proteins can and do mutate.

Is rubbish. Proteins don't mutate, they change because the genes encoding them mutate (DNA->RNA->Proteins, this is a very basic concept in biology). Alternatively they can also change due to codon reassignments, but this is also related to mutations in DNA, i.e. in tDNA that results in tRNA with 'new' anticodon.

or

Originally posted by Gorman91
They can make a dinosaur from a bird however. There's just a few genes they have to activate/deactivate. Because they are only a few million years apart, not 300 million like Man and insect.

Although birds are from the dinosaur lineage, there are still 10s of millions of years between dinosaurs and contemporary birds. We're not going to make a dinosaur from a bird anymore than we're going to make a giraffe from a human. Some years ago somebody managed to sequence some protein (not DNA) from T-rex tissue. That's it. How on Earth are we supposed to now know about differences in gene regulation in dinosaur and bird development?

Debate is cool, but please don't spew nonsense as fact.

Originally posted by Gorman91
I'm a Christian, but I have a brain. I know that carbon dating is real. I just cannot see where creationists get the argument it is not accurate. Please tell me how you came to this argument? NOW, before you go and tell me, allow me to review what carbon dating is, stressing certain parts with capitol letters:

Carbon dating: The dating of ORGANIC material or ONCE ORGANIC material that WAS ONCE ALIVE in order to find how much CARBON 14 has been lost through the ages. all RADIATION decay keeps constant at all times and never changes. It divides by HALF its previous amount based at a CONSTANT rate.

So to all you guys who go and say "a rock from MT. St. Helen that was one day old showed up billion of years old", you must remember it was NOT alive and therefore cannot be accurately aged based on carbon. There are other materials that can be used, however.

So, why do you not believe it.

Any radio active decay dating method used begins and ends with assumptions.

First it is assumed that the way things decay now are the way things have always decayed in the past.

second it is assumed that they know the amount of the parent particle that is being tested for decay.

third it is assumed that this thing that is being dated was kept in a clean room until it was found so they could test it. As they act as though leaching in or out of this parent particle did not take place in anyway.

forth it is assumed that large scale catastrophic events did not add to or take away from the decay rate of said parent particle.

In a nut shell it is assumed that they know how much of a carbon 12 was added to a living organism at a specific time in history as to know that the amount of decay relates to said reading.

Kind of like finding a smashed up car on the side of the road and it has 250 miles on the odometer and a half a tank of gas and assuming that it got there on the first half. Not knowing the MPG of the car and whether or not it was filled up before the crash.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Cool bro. I choose to live in reality however.

You can no more assume that there was an event of some kind that caused carbon dating to become unreliable than you can in assuming reality is false and everything we know could be wrong.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

In a nut shell it is assumed that they know how much of a carbon 12 was added to a living organism at a specific time in history as to know that the amount of decay relates to said reading.

You'd have to believe in evolution in order to challenge that. Because the rate is environmental, and has remained the same overly so. Only if an organization has evolved the ability to clean this out of its system would this be able to be said.


There are layers of Earth. These layers show the rate of distribution of different particles. There is no assumption. We know the rate, we know the number. We can calculate the date from these data.

Nothing we know has the ability to alter this decay in any significant amount, and the sun's affect on it is probably a case of entanglement, as I explained earlier. Either that or dark energy/mass of some kind.

reply to post by Gorman91


No you are missing my point. It is suggested that the decay of isotopes in relationship to sunspot activity may be due to quantam entaglement.

As such there is no proof to back up these findings. It remains in the realm of scientific speculation. So if you wish to take speculation for fact. Thats your choice.....

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

Cool bro. I choose to live in reality however.

You can no more assume that there was an event of some kind that caused carbon dating to become unreliable than you can in assuming reality is false and everything we know could be wrong.

ya i dont have to assume it, because science observed it in action and has confirmed it. hence the link i provided.

Best case scenario, we can test carbon dating to about three thousand years- so it is safe to say that it can be very accurate with a relevance of three thousand years. My issue is that we act as if it has an indefinite relevance. Assumptions are a necessary step in the developement of theory, but if they are untestable, do we just move to the next step? Science has been building ontop of unfounded theory for a long time, so it is rational to assume that current science may very well have strayed, and is close to hitting a dead end. Unfounded theory is obvious, so why is science so willing to continue building on an improperly layed foundation?

I am a Christian, but the age of the Earth bears little relevance for me, and I am only a critic of unfounded science.

Just saying, as far as sciece is concerned, 3000 years is hardly a drop in the bucket.

reply to post by purplemer


It is indeed speculation, but the realm of scientific fact says that the alteration is not substantial enough to change something from billions to thousands of years old.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


It proves there are seasonal variations, not that carbon dating is unreliable.

reply to post by Gorman91


This:

I'm a Christian, but I have a brain.

combine with this.

Mammal like species have existed for 200 million years and evolved before the dinosaurs. This is a known fact. Some of the species of the Permian are absolutely amazing.

OK - now I got it. You're a Theistic Evolutionists.

Now it all makes sense.

So Gorman91 - which side are you leaning more on - creation or evolution?

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2


No actually you don't get it.

Genesis 1 and 2 do not match, and are different perspectives. If man and God do not see time the same, and the Bible made it quite clear that God was doing things more ambiguously from man's perspective, then that means time is 100% open to interpretation and not a solid fact.

I am very much so fundie, and I very much so believe that right now, God the father, only a few days after creating the cosmos, is creating a mold spore in the room I am in, while at the same time God the spirit, eons old, is watching me, and within me.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

It proves there are seasonal variations, not that carbon dating is unreliable.

again you say seasonal variations totaly neglecting the suns effect to vary it as well during and prior to solar flares, its obvious your avoiding that part.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2

 

No actually you don't get it.

Genesis 1 and 2 do not match, and are different perspectives. If man and God do not see time the same, and the Bible made it quite clear that God was doing things more ambiguously from man's perspective, then that means time is 100% open to interpretation and not a solid fact.

I am very much so fundie, and I very much so believe that right now, God the father, only a few days after creating the cosmos, is creating a mold spore in the room I am in, while at the same time God the spirit, eons old, is watching me, and within me.

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Interesting take.

So you believe then that God created man but used evolution to advanced him?

That is, from "organic soup" to fish to amphibian to reptiles to mammals to the "great apes" to the present man?

If you do, (pls don't take this as an insult) but this is what I call a conundrum of confusion.

tc.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Actually I'm not. The seasonal variations occur. Solar flares are simply a means to add to this still negligible part. .00000003 +.00000004 Is still not 1.

reply to post by edmc^2


God wastes nothing. If there is a perfectly good species he can slightly alter, why not?

When Christ used wine and bread to represent his body and blood, he did not fabricate new foods nor new elements. He took what was there and gave something to them in spirit to make a point across. Not only that, but Christ used wine and bread. Not only are these two of the oldest types of foods consumed by man, they are also foods that cannot exist on their own. They evolve. You do not grab wine from a wine fruit, nor brad from a bread tree. You take, and then change over time, to something else.

Just an example of how God doesn't always create something brand new. Sometimes he takes from what is in order to drive a point,and show how he wastes nothing.


Evolution is simply the brush strokes of the paint God uses.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2

 

God wastes nothing. If there is a perfectly good species he can slightly alter, why not?

When Christ used wine and bread to represent his body and blood, he did not fabricate new foods nor new elements. He took what was there and gave something to them in spirit to make a point across. Not only that, but Christ used wine and bread. Not only are these two of the oldest types of foods consumed by man, they are also foods that cannot exist on their own. They evolve. You do not grab wine from a wine fruit, nor brad from a bread tree. You take, and then change over time, to something else.

Just an example of how God doesn't always create something brand new. Sometimes he takes from what is in order to drive a point,and show how he wastes nothing.


Evolution is simply the brush strokes of the paint God uses.

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

I know we're going off topic but this is kinda interesting to me.

SO how would you reconcile evolution with Christ when he quoted Gen 1:27 and said the following:

Mar 10:6 KJV - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7 KJV - For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Gen 1:27 KJV - So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And what about the redemption from sin?

Rom 5:12 KJV - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Where does this fit in your confusing belief?

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2

This is like pouring a plaster of paris to create a copy of the original thing - then dating it (the plaster) and proclaiming it as the age of the real thing.

It's only "misleading" to those who have no idea how fossilization works, a fossil is not an actual bone, I knew that when I was like ten years old even with my sheltered fundamentalist upbringing. What's being measured is the amount of time that has passed since fossilization, it's not an exact process that determines the exact moment when the animal (or plant) perished. Keep in mind that we're dealing with dates often in the MILLIONS of years range.

None of this casts any doubt on the age of the fossils themselves or on the dating techniques. All it does is cast doubt on the intelligence level of people reading scientific news and published material. If you go in without context it isn't being "misled" it's simply being IGNORANT of the subject material.

reply to post by edmc^2


lol it's not off topic. It was a Christian themed post.

Mar 10:6

Best I can say is a sort of scene in my mind. God is walking through the ashes of a burned out Earth. Who knows why it's destroyed. The war in heaven perhaps? He comes across the dust that was once human's ancestral origin. He makes man and woman from this dust, and remakes the world as well.

No body knows why, but mankind suddenly and without precedence made a leap 50,000 years ago. Before this point, 5 million years of human evolution show nothing but fire an simple tools. After this point is art, culture, religion, etc etc. I suspect this point, called the Toba event, is where God made man.

Gen 1:27

We only know the bones of our ancestors. Not the form. There isn't a whole lot to run on for how hairy they were, etc etc. I mean, we could in theory take an ape skeleton, and render it like so:




Bones are funny like that. Probably why the Bible uses them to describe cultural evolution, like the dry bones in Ezekiel 37. Bones are something to build off of. The thing that comes onto them is not necessarily the thing that once was over them. This is an analogy to the restored bodies we shall have on the resurrection, and in my opinion, an analogy to evolution itself.

For all we know, up until man, the proto humans looked like apes.

And what about the redemption from sin? Rom 5:12 KJV - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Do you know of the nephilim? They may be a case of ancient engineering, possibly evolution gone wrong by corrupted angels. All evidence suggests they were a type of man not made by God, and thus lacking the godly behavior mankind is capable of. Some interpretations claim that they cannot rise ont he last day, and are bound in chains for damnation. It is said Jesus himself went to their place of punishment after he died on the cross, just to remind them of what is coming to them in the end of days. These creatures cannot be said to be men, though they are. Some call them giants. Even so, they are bound by the same punishment as man. It is said the flood occurred for no other reason than to destroy them, and that this is why some demons flee from water, because those demons are really the souls of the nephilim, and that water reminds them of their damnation, so they run into the "arid places" as the Bile says.

What I am saying about this is this. This creature, called nephilim, was made by man and probably corrupt angels. They have no salvation. Jesus did not come into the world to save angels(Hebrews 2:16), but to save mankind. Us. We are, and were created, for him. Not homo erectus. Not "Lucy". Us. For whatever design he made this so.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by edmc^2

 

This is like pouring a plaster of paris to create a copy of the original thing - then dating it (the plaster) and proclaiming it as the age of the real thing.

It's only "misleading" to those who have no idea how fossilization works, a fossil is not an actual bone, I knew that when I was like ten years old even with my sheltered fundamentalist upbringing. What's being measured is the amount of time that has passed since fossilization, it's not an exact process that determines the exact moment when the animal (or plant) perished. Keep in mind that we're dealing with dates often in the MILLIONS of years range.

None of this casts any doubt on the age of the fossils themselves or on the dating techniques. All it does is cast doubt on the intelligence level of people reading scientific news and published material. If you go in without context it isn't being "misled" it's simply being IGNORANT of the subject material.

I guess it would be helpful if they put like a footnote like this:

”*Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution.”

*Warning: Article must be read in "context" or else you're "simply ...IGNORANT of the subject material".

tc.

reply to post by Gorman91


Gorman91, sorry but you totally lost me.

Thanks anyway for sharing your thoughts.

tc.