Fatal flaw with Radioactive dating methods.
Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14)
Willard F. Libby, a physical chemist, developed this technique in 1949. Radiocarbon dating was formulated upon the understanding that neutrons are produced by cosmic radiation
There where over 300 major inconsistencies are do ented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old.
Living snails that carbon-date to 2,300 years old, a living seal that was carbon-dated at 1,300 years old, and 8,000-year-old living penguins. Not to mention dinosaur bones that dated to 20,000 years ago. Obviously carbon dating doesn't work,
Your the one that thinks it takes millions of years to petrify something. I just proved you wrong. I thought you Science buffs already knew this !Clueless...
Here is a petrified hat I suppose its a few million years old also.
How about a petrified pickle? Who knew Vlasic was around before Jesus!
So, if you guys don't think carbon dating is correct, what method SHOULD we be using to test the Earth's age? You can't just say, "That doesn't work!" without having another theory to test.
Here's an idea how about the common sense theory?
The Mississippi River annually empties four hundred and six million tons of mud into the Gulf of Mexico that's an entire football field every half hour.It would take 200,000 dump trucks — every day — on the roads [to bring] that [amount of] soil in. The Mississippi River built five million acres of south Louisiana. It built 20,000 square miles of south Louisiana. It built everything you see between Texas and Mississippi and inland about 50 miles. All of that's care of and thanks to the Mississippi River.
The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment ac ulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years. If the Mississippi River was even 1 Million years old it would be a wide as the United states by now.
"If the Mississippi River was even 1 Million years old"
and if the climate has been for the last million years exactly as it has been recently, plausible, except the climate (and river flows) have not been stable for a million years.
Much of the soil washed into our rivers (along with poisonous pesticides and synthetic fertilizer and cow/pig ) comes from land that was covered for 1000s of years in grasses that anchored the soil, and moisture, in place.
Our rivers our man-made septic flows, causing dead zones where they flow into the oceans, whereas natural rivers, the Amazon (at least for now), washes tons of nutrients into the ocean and causes extremely fertile, nourishing zones in the oceans.
eg, the 1930s Dustbowl was due to those grasses, that had survived lots of similar draughts, being replaced by agricultural plants on effectively denuded top soil. When the draught killed the agriculture, only naked, baked soil was left.
You Bible-thumping creationists are such ignorant dumb s. (which has nothing to with my at ude towards Christ and the Bible).
Argon =/ Carbon
you're just a bigot, obviously, the most ignorant of all dumb s.
and your climate change/subject changing argument is unconvincing. Try harder next time for those of us who don't blindly eat all the a scientist squeezes out.
Last edited by z0sa; 05-23-2009 at 02:29 PM.
Hate to ruin your wet dream you seem to have going on but...the truth is, I don't read the Bible or go to church. So save all your Bible thumping smack for the others.
I deal with logical and Intelligent thinking. And anyone with an 9th grade education knows the solar system, earth, and many planets, rotate differently and in opposite directions. If the Big bang really took place all matter would rotate in the same direction.Not all planets rotate themselves in the same direction. Venus and Uranus rotate in a clockwise direction. This is called retrograde. Uranus rotates around a nearly horizontal axis. This is still considered to be a retrograde rotation. Venus rotates extremely slowly in a clockwise direction.
Another thing....if the earth is over a million years old why is the largest coral reef..The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) only a few thousand years old?
Also..."Observations have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying over the last century and a half. Precise measurements of the field's intensity, or strength, have been made on a worldwide basis since 1829 that determine the state of the field at any point in time." If the earth was a million years old there would be no magnetic field left.
"In the 1970s, the late creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook, proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core. Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth
The Sun is shrinking!
Today’s rate of shrinkage (5 feet per hour) was faster years ago. Perhaps at the rate of 10 or 20 feet per hour. The sun would have been big enough to touch the earth only 20 million years ago. Evolutionists claim the earth is 4 BILLION years old. You can see why this is impossible.
If the earth was Billions of years old, then the earth would have been destroyed by the sun.
Power Hour 5
Monkey lovers 0
How Old are the Rocks? Using Radioactivity to Find Out--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a volcanic magma cools down and solidifies, radioactive "clocks" in it can be set. Geologists can use these "clocks" to find out how long ago the rock formed.
An example: the Uranium-235/Lead-207 clock.
As zircon crystals form in cooling magma, they capture radioactive uranium, but they don't capture lead. There is no lead in the crystals when the clock starts. Uranium decays into lead. So when you study volcanic rock formations, you know that the lead atoms you find in zircon crystals came from the decay of uranium. Comparing the proportion of Lead-207 to the proportion of Uranium-235 in zircons can tell geologists how long ago the magma solidified into rock.
Simple, eh? Well, no. But useful.
Some naturally radioactive elements decay very quickly, and others decay much more slowly. So there are a lot of different radioisotopic "clocks." Isotopes that decay slowly are more useful for very old rocks, and isotopes that decay more quickly are more useful for younger rocks.
Half-Life: the Time it Takes for Half of the Original Atoms in a Sample to Decay to a "Daughter" Product
The daughter product may also be radioactive, and may decay into another product.
Parent Daughter Half Change in...
Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5730 years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4,470 million years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1,280 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14,010 million years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48,800 million years
Intelligent person to gullible idiot after reading your postings.
2 to 3 minutes.
Do you even have a clue how long just one Million years is?
Man can't even agree on what really took place 2 to 6 thousand years ago and you want us to believe some text book theories that were written in the last 50 years by men who are going by data they have been told to by others? Man can't even agree on what global warming is and that is happening now! and you really want us to believe you know what took place Millions of years ago?
You think because some text book says 250 million years ago....that it has to be true? We still don't know what really happened on 9/11 and you want us to just put down our beliefs and common sense and agree with you
and your God hating Darwin worshipers because some scientist, or some machine / invention claims it knows how old rocks are and how they change?
You must really be threaten by the Bible thumpers to have to keep ensuring yourself how old the Earth is so you can have an excuse to discard any possibility of a creator. Well you have your own rights to chose your own mind like I have also.
Trust me If you igmos were to just say a long time ago there were dinosaurs etc....I would have no problem it's when you guys say 250 Million years ago..that I have an issue with. and then your well educated pals are really naive enough to actually say the Earth is 4 Billion years old?
Sorry bro but all your lab results and text book findings will never convince me the Earth and the solar system is more than 50.000 years old, and that is stretching it as it is.
Fact: Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. Here it is today, alive and unchanged. Where is the evolution?
.
The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs. Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.
A fossil find in New South Wales in 1984 indicated the platypus was once a larger animal, with teeth. That find is consistent with other indications that the platypus today has lost information possessed by its more robust ancestor
MH is on your ass you better give up now!
Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
Now that is one crunchy pickle!!!
How about a petrified pickle? Who knew Vlasic was around before Jesus!
I watched "The Link" on The History Channel the other night. Pretty interesting stuff.
Carlin playing the Bishop was comedy in its own right since he is Atheist.
From an article I found on the web... even if I don't fully buy into all their other stuff...
Just how clueless are you???Intelligent person to gullible idiot after reading your postings.
2 to 3 minutes.
Do you even have a clue how long just one Million years is?
Man can't even agree on what really took place 2 to 6 thousand years ago and you want us to believe some text book theories that were written in the last 50 years by men who are going by data they have been told to by others? Man can't even agree on what global warming is and that is happening now! and you really want us to believe you know what took place Millions of years ago?
You think because some text book says 250 million years ago....that it has to be true? We still don't know what really happened on 9/11 and you want us to just put down our beliefs and common sense and agree with you
and your God hating Darwin worshipers because some scientist, or some machine / invention claims it knows how old rocks are and how they change?
You must really be threaten by the Bible thumpers to have to keep ensuring yourself how old the Earth is so you can have an excuse to discard any possibility of a creator. Well you have your own rights to chose your own mind like I have also.
Trust me If you igmos were to just say a long time ago there were dinosaurs etc....I would have no problem it's when you guys say 250 Million years ago..that I have an issue with. and then your well educated pals are really naive enough to actually say the Earth is 4 Billion years old?
Sorry bro but all your lab results and text book findings will never convince me the Earth and the solar system is more than 50.000 years old, and that is stretching it as it is.
Fact: Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. Here it is today, alive and unchanged. Where is the evolution?
.
The radioactive decay in these substances is a measurable FACT!
Sorry sir but you will have to come up with a little more than just two line replies if you want to be taken serious. Try posting a link that disproves my quotes.
Like this....
You might want to direct that comment to the scientist and professors who I am quoting.
Roland Watts
Mr. Alexander Williams, B.Sc., M.Sc.(Hons), Th.C., Dip.C.S., ThL. Mr Williams
1. Taylor,I.
3. Gheury, de Bray.
4. Birge, R.T.
5. Edmonson, S.K.
6. Editor's column 1927. Science.
7. Setterfield, B. 1983. The Velocity of Light & the Age of the
Universe. Australia: CSA Inc. Monograph.
8. Taylor. Ibid.p.435-6
Radioactive decay flaws:The radioactive decay in these substances is a measurable FACT!
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are do ented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as do ented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
(The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods).
Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
Last edited by The Power Hour.; 05-27-2009 at 12:38 PM.
Carbon dating aside there is no evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 2-4k years ago. According to your "couple thousand years ago" theory wouldn't Jesus have mentioned a holy raptor or a serving of Triceratops with sundays wine. Perhaps the greeks might have do ented something...you know how much they loved their historians. 300 would have been a much better movie if a massive T-Rex would have made a guest appearance. Early Egyptian records seem to be void of a few brontosaurus tales.
Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
You're arguing against something with zero supporting evidence outside of carbon dating inaccuracies. So the very thing you find inaccurate is the basis for your argument? Doesn't sound too intelligent.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The flaws of Carbon Dating (Science and Technology)
How do you tell how old a fossil is? Or how long a body is dead? Or the age of the earth? Well, one method is to use carbon dating.
As any good upper secondary physics student should know, carbon dating works using the principle of radioactive decay of carbon-14. Most carbon on earth exist as carbon-12 but a small percentage exists as carbon-14. So even some of the carbon we eat of we breathe is radioactive. Yes, you my friend, are radioactive.
So when the the organism dies, it stops taking in carbon. The carbon-14 slowly decomposes with a predictable rate similar to the graph above. (The y-axis represents radioactivity/mass of carbon-14, while the x-axis represents time.) Hence by finding out the radioactivity of the subject, we can deduce the time of death.
However, there are many flaws to this method. For one, it assumes that the ratio of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant throughout the ages. Well that is not really true. We have to concede that at certain periods in history, the ratio is significantly lower due to the the Industrial Revolution, the comsic flares from the sun,the atomic age and if you believe it, the Genesis flood.
Secondly, it assumes that organismes take up carbon-14 at the constant rate. Some plants do not, and we definitely cannot be sure for fossils.
So do not be so eager to accept whatever your textbook says. In other words, the world could only be a few thousand years old.
The Alternative: better than any newspaper or textbook.
Dr Storm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
