The unearthing of whale skeletons in a desert ignites a debate of creationism versus evolution.

reply to post by edmc^2


Jeesus wept....

Carbon dating rocks? As for the whole rock recylcing thing, if you understood what it was you were saying, you'd be embarressed. Outr undertsanding of geological processes is understood well enough that we are pretty good at knowing the ages of rocks, despite any processes they go through. In fact, those very processes are good at helping date them.

What are you on? This entire post of yours is evidence that you lack even an elementary knowledge of basic geology.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Jeesus wept....

Carbon dating rocks? As for the whole rock recylcing thing, if you understood what it was you were saying, you'd be embarressed. Outr undertsanding of geological processes is understood well enough that we are pretty good at knowing the ages of rocks, despite any processes they go through. In fact, those very processes are good at helping date them.

What are you on? This entire post of yours is evidence that you lack even an elementary knowledge of basic geology.

C14 - Rock dating in the context of fossils.

What hard to understand?

Here u go - courtesy of Astyanax:

How Do Geologists Know How Old a Rock Is?

by Mark Milligan Geologists generally know the age of a rock by determining the age of the group of rocks, or formation, that it is found in. The age of formations is marked on a geologic calendar known as the geologic time scale. Development of the geologic time scale and dating of formations and rocks relies upon two fundamentally different ways of telling time: relative and absolute. Relative dating places events or rocks in their chronologic sequence or order of occurrence. Absolute dating places events or rocks at a specific time. If a geologist claims to be younger than his or her co-worker, that is a relative age. If a geologist claims to be 45 years old, that is an absolute age.

geology.utah.gov...

"As for the whole rock recylcing thing,"...

Here u go courtesy of Wikipedia:

Crustal recycling is a tectonic process by which surface material from the lithosphere is recycled into the mantle during subduction. The subducting slabs carry volatile compounds and water into the mantle, as well as crustal material with an isotopic signature different from that of primitive mantle. Identification of this crustal signature in mantle-derived rocks (such as mid-ocean ridge basalts or kimberlites) is proof of crustal recycling.

en.wikipedia.org...

But if you say:

Absolute dating

Is calibrated or not calibrated?

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

OK cynic, debating creationist is important regardless of their def tone it still serves to expose the ultimate lie.

No it doesn't, it only gives validation to their claim.

Would you debate a child who insists his imaginary friend is real?

reply to post by edmc^2


Carbon dating only works on samples where you have organic material. Fossils, as is their nature, do not contain organic materials, but rather mineral substitutes. As such, C-14 dating is of no use.

You have already been told this.

And again, I am not sure why you feel the need to tell me something that I have already told you. The recycling of the rocks in the crust/mantle is an understood process and as such, rocks can be dated. Also, sedementary rocks, should they go through such a process, usually turn into metamorphic rock, so it is apparent when they have been subject to geological forces and therefore can be dated. Hence, any fossils found within can also be dated to the same age as the rock in which they are found.

As a side note, learn how to quote properly. You have also been told this. It serves no purpose (and is mildly confusing when replying) for you to quote the same text again and again. The whole "you said" thing is annoying too, as you nearly always take a snippet of what someone said and quote out of context, in a failed effort to prove a point. So far, you have provided zero evidence, or even a well constructed argument, to back up your position, whatever that is.....

reply to post by stumason

Carbon dating only works on samples where you have organic material. Fossils, as is their nature, do not contain organic materials, but rather mineral substitutes. As such, C-14 dating is of no use.

You have already been told this.

And again, I am not sure why you feel the need to tell me something that I have already told you. The recycling of the rocks in the crust/mantle is an understood process and as such, rocks can be dated. Also, sedementary rocks, should they go through such a process, usually turn into metamorphic rock, so it is apparent when they have been subject to geological forces and therefore can be dated. Hence, any fossils found within can also be dated to the same age as the rock in which they are found.

Also, don't forget that:

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

www.actionbioscience.org...

So a different dating process is used in order to compensate for the inaccuracies of the c14 method.

Thus:

“Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating: ·

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

link courtesy of barcs - www.actionbioscience.org...

Question is:

Are these processes (like the c14) really reliable for Radiometric Dating?

Why do you say so?


Edit:

So far, you have provided zero evidence, or even a well constructed argument, to back up your position, whatever that is.....

Well, I'm merely asking questions and pointing to the fact that such dating methodologies are still based on best guesses / estimates and assumptions.

Case in point - the need for calibration.

reply to post by edmc^2

Rocks do not contain carbon.

Therefore carbon dating is not used on rocks.

Fossils are rocks.

Therefore carbon dating is not used on fossils.

Is that simple enough for you?

reply to post by Astyanax


Here let me fix it for ya...

Rocks do not contain carbon -- if it's a igneous rock.

Therefore carbon dating is not used on rocks - like moon rocks and other igneous rocks.

Fossils are rocks - if it's a sedimentary rock

Therefore carbon dating is not used on fossils -- now you're being cute!

Is that simple enough for you?

reply to post by edmc^2

Thank you for the correction. I should have known you’d want it spelled out.

Yes, some rocks do contain carbon. For example, coal.

But rocks do not contain carbon-14. At least not in measurable amounts.

Fossils are rocks.

Therefore fossils do not contain carbon-14.

Therefore fossils are not carbon-dated unless they are less than about fifty thousand years old

I thought I had better put that last bit in, too, just in case you got yourself all worked up again.

reply to post by Astyanax



Or to use barc's source:

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

Which is actually quite accurate within it's half-life of " 5730 years" especially when it's coupled with historical facts or other equally reliable artifacts. Unfortunately - the longer the the time span - the accuracy decreases and becomes unreliable.

Thus like I said - a different dating process is used in order to compensate for the inaccuracies of the c14 method.

Among the best-known techniques are ..., potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating.

en.wikipedia.org...

Question is how reliable are these other methods in radiometric dating if they can't be used on fossils?

reply to post by Barcs



You asked:

Read this. NOW if you have specific question, please quote it and ask them. Don't make a random general statement like, "but is that fact or theory?" Read the link and learn. I'm sure you are capable.

OK.

If (according to your source):

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

what convinced you that the other processes mentioned below are reliable for radiometric dating?

“Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating: ·

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

Also why is there a need to include an "error multiplier" in radiometric dating if you're convinced that it's based on a precise measurement?

Where did the "error multiplier" came from?

I guess the first question would be...how are things older than 6000 years, or 60,000 years or 600,000 or 6 mil... you get the point. I would find it interesting how a true blue creationist can see all this and ignore it.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess the first question would be...how are things older than 6000 years, or 60,000 years or 600,000 or 6 mil... you get the point. I would find it interesting how a true blue creationist can see all this and ignore it.

Simple - because I don't subscribe to the belief that earth is on 6,000 yo or 10,000 yo. In fact according to best "estimates" the earth (strata) is around 4byo.

But when it comes to "fossil" records - as in c14 - again to quote barc's source:

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

So the accuracy is around the half-life of 5730 stretching to 70k (but becomes inaccurate at that point).

Beyond 70K (others say 50K) another process is used which IMHO is also open to wide interpretations - in the millions of years.

Thus the different ages given due to such inaccuracies - but since you've accepted these dates as gospel - hook line and sinker - then I guess there's no question as to their accuracy/inaccuracy.

But at least I'm not easily swayed / fooled by them.

reply to post by edmc^2

Thus like I said - a different dating process is used in order to compensate for the inaccuracies of the c14 method.

‘Like you said,’ eh? That’s rich, after making it quite plain that you had no idea, before it was pointed out to you a page or so ago, that the terms radiometric dating and carbon dating are not equivalent.

Why can’t you discuss anything without spouting untruth after untruth? I have noticed this repeatedly with creationists. If what you believe is the truth, why does it need all these lies to support it?

I don't subscribe to the belief that earth is on 6,000 yo or 10,000 yo. In fact according to best "estimates" the earth (strata) is around 4byo.

So when, exactly, did this worldwide inundation you’re asking about take place? Ten thousand years ago? A million? A billion?

What fraudulent nonsense you spout.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess the first question would be...how are things older than 6000 years, or 60,000 years or 600,000 or 6 mil... you get the point. I would find it interesting how a true blue creationist can see all this and ignore it.

Simple - because I don't subscribe to the belief that earth is on 6,000 yo or 10,000 yo. In fact according to best "estimates" the earth (strata) is around 4byo.

But when it comes to "fossil" records - as in c14 - again to quote barc's source:

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

So the accuracy is around the half-life of 5730 stretching to 70k (but becomes inaccurate at that point).

Beyond 70K (others say 50K) another process is used which IMHO is also open to wide interpretations - in the millions of years.

Thus the different ages given due to such inaccuracies - but since you've accepted these dates as gospel - hook line and sinker - then I guess there's no question as to their accuracy/inaccuracy.

But at least I'm not easily swayed / fooled by them.

For crying out loud, at least read up on radiometric dating before spouting complete and utter nonsense. The margin of error, even when dating stuff back to 4.5b years. is only around 1% for a ton of radiometric dating methods.

You're not "easily swayed" because clearly you don't care about facts

reply to post by MrXYZ


Of course I know my stuff...but

eh...sidestepping my question again?

So since-

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, ... the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

What convinced you that the other radiometric dating will do the job if c14 is not able to date fossils accurately after 50K (Astyanax) or 70K (Barcs)?

Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating: · Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

Hint:

Carbon is present in all lifeforms (organic) - but not on igneous rocks.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Astyanax

‘Like you said,’ eh? That’s rich, after making it quite plain that you had no idea, before it was pointed out to you a page or so ago, that the terms radiometric dating and carbon dating are not equivalent. Why can’t you discuss anything without spouting untruth after untruth? I have noticed this repeatedly with creationists. If what you believe is the truth, why does it need all these lies to support it?

my science teacher once told me - always let them underestimate you.

Of course I know my "stuff" - that's why I said -carbon dating not radiometric dating at the very beginning - although many gets confused which is which.

How about you?


So - back to my q -

What convinced you that the (other) radiometric dating will do the job if c14 is not able to date fossils accurately after 50K (you) or 70K (Barcs)?

edit:

As for this:

Why can’t you discuss anything without spouting untruth after untruth? I have noticed this repeatedly with creationists. If what you believe is the truth, why does it need all these lies to support it?

What untruth after untruth are u talking about?

this one?

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

as for this Q:

So when, exactly, did this worldwide inundation you’re asking about take place? Ten thousand years ago? A million? A billion?

Well Biblical Chronology tells us it happened more than 4K years ago.

Q - is does geology and human events support it or what about science?

now that's the question you should ask.

I have the answers but I know you wouldn't like it so tough to be you.

Originally posted by edmc^2

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, ... the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

What convinced you that the other radiometric dating will do the job if c14 is not able to date fossils accurately after 50K (Astyanax) or 70K (Barcs)?

It's been explained to you like 4 times now. Different methods are used to date different formations and layers. Why do you keep assuming they are the same? C-14 dating is used to date things within recent times. The other methods aren't based on c-14, and can be used to date older layers.

Why assume the other methods are accurate?

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.

Thanks for saving me the time to dig that up. It answers your question. You ask why, when the answer is staring you right in the face.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Simple - because I don't subscribe to the belief that earth is on 6,000 yo or 10,000 yo. In fact according to best "estimates" the earth (strata) is around 4byo.

So you are a creationalist that believes the earth is 4 billion years old?

So the accuracy is around the half-life of 5730 stretching to 70k (but becomes inaccurate at that point).

Beyond 70K (others say 50K) another process is used which IMHO is also open to wide interpretations - in the millions of years.

Yes I agree there is a tool for everything, and you are right in the case of carbon 14 that if we push it past 70k years it become unreliable, but we have many different methods of dating with some in the range of 300k years and even going all the way back to tell the age of the planet.

We also use sediment too to date... as we date layers of sediment that has turned to rock we can build a age model of each layer.

All in all when we use ALL the tools we are rather good at determining age.

Thus the different ages given due to such inaccuracies - but since you've accepted these dates as gospel - hook line and sinker - then I guess there's no question as to their accuracy/inaccuracy.

But at least I'm not easily swayed / fooled by them.

Actually as we refine the methods and learn more the dates do get adjusted....so what tools do you use?

reply to post by Barcs

So you are a creationalist that believes the earth is 4 billion years old?

"Creationalist" - as in finalist - hah! that's so originalist!!

Well that's separates me and people like me from ID'ers and Creationists - because we take science and the Scriptures at their face value - the way they are. But since I share a commonality between the two belief system - I'm lumped with them as one and the same - oh well, what can you do but make the best out it.

But I consider myself as a believer of Biblical Creation - that is God (YHWH -Jehovah) was/is the Creator of all.

As for what you said below:

All in all when we use ALL the tools we are rather good at determining age.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say!

Radiocarbon dating (c14) as used by archeologist is great for dating "fossils" and ancient artifacts. It is suitable for dating "things" where radioactive carbon (c14) is still present but up to a certain point - 5730 years - 50Ky -70Ky).

While Radiometric Dating is suited for dating "rocks" where C14 is no longer present - like moon rocks, tuff or any igneous rocks - "ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years".

And because of this known "fact", geologists used Radiometric dating to as you said "date older layers" - this method was used to find the age of the earth's strata - being 4byo.

Unfortunately, Paleontologist who are bent on proving evolution to be a fact use the same "tool" used by geologists in order to prove that fossils are millions of years old. Which obviously resulted in many known errors and confusions.

It is like - using a giant ditch digger instead of a hand shovel to plant a very delicate flower. True both "tool" will dig a hole but one of the "tool" is not meant for the delicate flower planting.

And this exactly what we've been seeing - different dates / age are given as the age of a certain "fossil" because the wrong "tool" was used!

Think about it man - if C14 can only be used with confidence at its half-life of 5730 years (up to 50ky) what makes you think that Radiometric dating will do a better job of calculating the age of a "fossil" where radiocarbon (c14) is no longer present?

And if readiocarbon is no longer present - what are the Paleontologist dating then? Isn't it the IGNEOUS rock itself?

The evidence shows YES! And how old are igneous rocks?

Well depending on the condition of the samples -that is, if it a sealed sample (nothing in / nothing out) then we're looking in the millions even billions of years.

Not only that, because the effects of the environment are unknown in the past - to gage/predict accurately the actual age of a "fossil" is quite difficult - .

notice this sample reports out hundreds:

A 1986 Science News, under the title “New Dates for ‘Early’ Tools,” reported:

“Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and his colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE. . . .

“The difference in age estimates between the two types of carbon samples from the same bone is, to say the least, significant. For example, a ‘flesher’ used to remove flesh from animal skins was first given a radiocarbon age of 27,000 years old. That age has now been revised to about 1,350 years old.”—May 10, 1986.

The latest report says:

Humans arrived in North America 2,500 years earlier than thought

Stone tools have been found in sediments 15,500 years old, before the Clovis people are thought to have arrived in America

www.guardian.co.uk...

Note the dates given from 27K down to 3000 years old - down to 1300.
But if the dating is based on other artifacts such "tool" - the age is also different.

Q is which one is correct?

Now if you're a die hard evolutionists which one will you accept /promote most?

BTW- another dating method was developed based on Amino-Acid - it's simply called "Racemization".

It's not widely used now because of its inherent inaccuracies.

Note this one report - on the famous Del Mar and Sunnyvale bones:

Uranium series analyses of human bone samples from the Del Mar and Sunnyvale sites indicate ages of 11,000 and 8,300 years, respectively. The dates are supported by internal concordancy between thorium-230 and protactinium-231 decay systems. These ages are significantly younger than the estimates of 48,000 and 70,000 years based on amino acid racemization, and indicate that the individuals could derive from the population waves that came across the Bering Strait during the last sea-level low.

error is due to heat.


Bottom line - if you use the c14 method - you'll get a much younger age while the radiometric dating method - you'll get a much much older age.

Which one is correct?

reply to post by Barcs


So barcs if:

.. C-14 dating is used to date things within recent times. The other methods aren't based on c-14, and can be used to date older layers.

Then why do evolutionist used the dates gathered from other methods other than the c14 method?

For example - this report:

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

www.sciencedaily.com...