|
Dinosaur paintings - proof man and dinosaur existed together (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I was always wondering, do mermaids have a ? |
This is by far the funniest thing i have ever read on the internet
HAHAAHAHHHAHHAAH
Thanks for the late night laugh Tito |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Flame on! I love it. ;p
:p
|
ooo, can i be first?
| quote: | | Whether you believe that or not is not the point - the point is both sides should be able to be equally studied. |
for equal study time, can we please get more than one source for creationism?
| quote: | | I'm all for creation being taught in school - objectively - but evolution is being taught as the "it can't be wrong" doctrine now. |
| quote: | | Oh yeah, and I believe evolution is religious doctrine as well. Anyone who believes it is taking giant leaps of faith. It's an unprovable (at least right now) theory that shouldn't be taught as fact in school. |
???? okay, maybe i'm not prepared to flame... feelings of pity are streaming from my fingertips.:(
I don't understand how carbon dating is classified as a giant leap of faith. I'll leave this to the next poster (meaning: i'm tired and need to sleep) |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
I believe it has been labeled religious doctrine wrongly.
Now, bear with me for a second before steam starts flying out everyone's ears.
I agree that believing in creation *has* religious backgrounds (obviously) - *however* - this should not keep it from being studied, scientifically, just as evolution is.
I think some of the flood theories and whatnot are very interesting, and much more plausible (in my mind at least) than evolution. Whether you believe that or not is not the point - the point is both sides should be able to be equally studied.
As of now, due to this "ban" -- kids are taught evolution alone. I'm all for creation being taught in school - objectively - but evolution is being taught as the "it can't be wrong" doctrine now.
Oh yeah, and I believe evolution is religious doctrine as well. Anyone who believes it is taking giant leaps of faith. It's an unprovable (at least right now) theory that shouldn't be taught as fact in school. Creation shouldn't be taught as fact either - they need to be taught as 2 theories.
Anyone else agree with me or am I alone?
Flame on! I love it. ;p
:p |
I agree with you to a large extend. When kids in school are taught evolution theory (or any other theory of science) no emphasis is put on the fact that these theories are only that - theories.
Now, I don't believe that genesis is a even somewhat correct description of what happened in the beginning of time, and I would say that it has little merit as a theory for a materialistic age. Therefore, and since schools are supposed to give a secular education rather than a spiritual one, it should not be given as much attention in school as the theory of evolution. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
It's likely, but it probably smells kinda fishy.
(oh Christ, did I just say that?) |
*cues bad joke*
Do you know what goes in and comes out smelling like fish?
A scuba diver. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
ooo, can i be first?
I don't understand how carbon dating is classified as a giant leap of faith. I'll leave this to the next poster (meaning: i'm tired and need to sleep) |
Have you ever carbon dated anything? If you haven't you are taking (on faith) that what other people have done (what you have READ about) is true.
A weakening magnetic field around the earth would cause any carbon dating to be inaccurate. Evolutionists defense for that is that the field isn't weakening, it's fluctuating, and will get stronger sometime in the future. (kind of like a sine wave).
Go carbon date something and learn everything about it. Then you aren't relying on faith. You are relying on hard, imperical evidence (which doesn't exist for either case).
Evolution is a religion, my friend. It requires more blind faith than any "normal" religion. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Have you ever carbon dated anything? If you haven't you are taking (on faith) that what other people have done (what you have READ about) is true.
A weakening magnetic field around the earth would cause any carbon dating to be inaccurate. Evolutionists defense for that is that the field isn't weakening, it's fluctuating, and will get stronger sometime in the future. (kind of like a sine wave).
Go carbon date something and learn everything about it. Then you aren't relying on faith. You are relying on hard, imperical evidence (which doesn't exist for either case).
Evolution is a religion, my friend. It requires more blind faith than any "normal" religion. |
Scientists utilize a variety of methods to calibrate carbon 14 dating such as dendrochronology. However, they typically don't use carbon 14 dating for anything over 50,000 years old.
Additional dating methodologies for fossils include Superposition, Stratigraphy, Radiometric Dating, Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic and Archaeomagnetic Dating, Thermoluminescence (TL, stimulated by heat), Optical stimulated luminescence (OSL, stimulated by visible light), Infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL, stimulated by infrared light),Radioluminescence (RL, stimulated by ionizing radiation), Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Stratigraphic Palynology, Cation Ratio, Flourine Dating, Patination Dating, Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dating, Electron Spin Resonance, Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating, etc. to name a few.
Let's see, supporting the science of creationism we have Genesis, Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy,Joshua,Judges,Ruth, Samuel,Kings,Chronicles,Chronicles,Ezra,Nehemiah,Esther,Job,Psalm,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,Song of Solomon,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Lamentations,Ezekiel,Daniel,Hosea,Joel,Amos,Obadiah,Jonah,Micah,Nahum,Habakk
uk,Zephaniah,,Haggai,Zechariah,Malachi,Matthew,Mark,Luke,John,Acts,Romans,,Corinthians,Galatians,Eph
esians,Philippians,Colossians, Thessalonians,,Timothy,Titus,Philemon,Hebrews,James,,Peter,John,Jude, and Revelation.
Yes clearly religion is less blind. They've got leviticus for christ's sake! Leviticus trumps anything. Opus will agree with me on this one. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Have you ever carbon dated anything? If you haven't you are taking (on faith) that what other people have done (what you have READ about) is true.
A weakening magnetic field around the earth would cause any carbon dating to be inaccurate. Evolutionists defense for that is that the field isn't weakening, it's fluctuating, and will get stronger sometime in the future. (kind of like a sine wave).
Go carbon date something and learn everything about it. Then you aren't relying on faith. You are relying on hard, imperical evidence (which doesn't exist for either case).
Evolution is a religion, my friend. It requires more blind faith than any "normal" religion. |
so fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field cause the half-life of carbon to decrease? amazing. does it also expediate sediment dropping and expediate the formation of rock from said sediment? so i don't live in the oldest mountains in the world (southern appalachians)? i've been living a lie based on faith.
let me guess. the stars in the sky are painted, the sun is 30,000 years old, and mankind is the product of history's largest inbreading experiment.
somehow i feel that my leaps of faith have somehow grown in the past few sentences.
sorry for the sarcasm, now let's look at this objectively...
it seems that if the magnetic field of the planet was increasing, the external gravitational pull on the planet and the carbon in it would increase; making carbon corrode at a faster rate (based on the interchangeability of the influence of gravity by both matter and energy, also a theory). the opposite would be true if the strength of the field were desreasing. Now, based on this (pure speculation, a leap of faith if you will), if the field were fluctuating, there would be no discernable difference in the corrosion level of said carbon molecule.
in layman's terms.. if you were to average 40km/hr in a car, but sometimes travel 20 km/hr and sometimes travel 60 km/hr, you would still average 40 km/hr.
please keep in mind that there is no scientific basis on the preceding rant, i was just basing my arguements on a percieved notion that the influence of fluctuating magnetic fields can change the corrosive speed of carbon.
if you want to play with leaps of faith, perhaps you should make up something on how with the expansion fo the universe lessens the influence of external gravitational forces (ie, gravitational waves), therefore causing chronololical fluctuations to widen. this may cause inacuracies in carbon dating, but you would also have to acknowledge that 30,000 years isn't much time in a universal scale.:thepirate |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Scientists utilize a variety of methods to calibrate carbon 14 dating such as dendrochronology. However, they typically don't use carbon 14 dating for anything over 50,000 years old.
Additional dating methodologies for fossils include Superposition, Stratigraphy, Radiometric Dating, Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic and Archaeomagnetic Dating, Thermoluminescence (TL, stimulated by heat), Optical stimulated luminescence (OSL, stimulated by visible light), Infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL, stimulated by infrared light),Radioluminescence (RL, stimulated by ionizing radiation), Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Stratigraphic Palynology, Cation Ratio, Flourine Dating, Patination Dating, Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dating, Electron Spin Resonance, Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating, etc. to name a few.
Let's see, supporting the science of creationism we have Genesis, Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy,Joshua,Judges,Ruth, Samuel,Kings,Chronicles,Chronicles,Ezra,Nehemiah,Esther,Job,Psalm,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,Song of Solomon,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Lamentations,Ezekiel,Daniel,Hosea,Joel,Amos,Obadiah,Jonah,Micah,Nahum,Habakk
uk,Zephaniah,,Haggai,Zechariah,Malachi,Matthew,Mark,Luke,John,Acts,Romans,,Corinthians,Galatians,Eph
esians,Philippians,Colossians, Thessalonians,,Timothy,Titus,Philemon,Hebrews,James,,Peter,John,Jude, and Revelation.
Yes clearly religion is less blind. They've got leviticus for christ's sake! Leviticus trumps anything. Opus will agree with me on this one. |
i shouldn't have even bothered to post... damn you, Leviticus!!!! |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes clearly religion is less blind. They've got leviticus for christ's sake! Leviticus trumps anything. Opus will agree with me on this one. |
I was just skimming and found this utterly hilarious.
Are you allowed to drink while at work at your new job?
:stongue:
MrS |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
I was just skimming and found this utterly hilarious.
Are you allowed to drink while at work at your new job?
:stongue:
MrS |
No but I drank enough last night to sustain me throughout the day. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
so fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field cause the half-life of carbon to decrease? amazing. does it also expediate sediment dropping and expediate the formation of rock from said sediment? so i don't live in the oldest mountains in the world (southern appalachians)? i've been living a lie based on faith.
let me guess. the stars in the sky are painted, the sun is 30,000 years old, and mankind is the product of history's largest inbreading experiment.
|
First, as occrider aptly pointed out :D - carbon dating isn't used for anything past 50,000 years. For that, they use the geologic table usually.
On another note, I goofed up above - The decreasing magnetic field isn't what I meant, I meant carbon 14 levels not being the same (as pointed out below) - my bad on that - I just woke up. ;)
I hate to plaguerize here, but someone else has said it better than I ever could. Here is everyone you want to know about carbon dating:
Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.
Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
Potassium Argon dating: "Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions and gives wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?"
For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.
Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.
Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999, See: www.icr.org for lots more on dating methods.
In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased. For more information, see video tape #7 of the CSE video series on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, or Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris (all available from CSE).
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.
"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54 |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
First, as occrider aptly pointed out :D - carbon dating isn't used for anything past 50,000 years. For that, they use the geologic table usually.
|
Well no, they don't simply use the geologic table, they use any number of some of the dating methodologies I listed above.
| quote: |
I hate to plaguerize here, but someone else has said it better than I ever could. Here is everyone you want to know about carbon dating:
|
Well I'm sorry to say that the source you're plagarizing from really isn't that good. For example:
| quote: |
The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
|
Scientists DO know how much carbon was present in the atmosphere. As I stated in my last post, they've refined a number of methods to determine the quantity of carbon, one of those being dendrochronology. The data can be derived from fossilized and living trees along with stalagmites:
As for where your source arrived at the conclusion that decay rates cannot be determined I have no idea. Scientists have had over fifty years to measure and re-measure the half-lives for many of the dating techniques. Very precise counting of the decay events or the daughter atoms can be done, so while the number of, say, rhenium-187 atoms decaying in 50 years is a very small fraction of the total, the resulting osmium-187 atoms can be very precisely counted.
The uncertainties on half-lives are all very small. All of the half-lives are known to better than about two percent except for rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%). There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time.
| quote: |
Potassium Argon dating: "Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions and gives wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?"
For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.
Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.
Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999, See: www.icr.org for lots more on dating methods.
|
Yup, it's pretty easy to point out some of the innaccuracies of an old dating methodology used in the 60s in order to discredit all radiometric dating used in the present. The reason for the dating fluctuations is due to a known problem with Potassium-Argon dating. The problem is when gas within bubbles in the rock is from deep underground rather than from the air. This gas can have a higher concentration of argon-40 escaping from the melting of older rocks, a condition called parentless argon-40 because its parent potassium is not in the rock being dated, and is also not from the air. In these slightly unusual cases, the date given by the normal potassium-argon method is too old.
However, as I stated before, scientists have worked around that problem by using argon-argon dating. In the argon-argon method the rock is placed near the center of a nuclear reactor for a period of hours. A nuclear reactor emits a very large number of neutrons, which are capable of changing a small amount of the potassium-39 into argon-39. Argon-39 is not found in nature because it has only a 269-year half-life. (This half-life doesn't affect the argon-argon dating method as long as the measurements are made within about five years of the neutron dose). The rock is then heated in a furnace to release both the argon-40 and the argon-39 (representing the potassium) for analysis. The heating is done at incrementally higher temperatures and at each step the ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 is measured. If the argon-40 is from decay of potassium within the rock, it will come out at the same temperatures as the potassium-derived argon-39 and in a constant proportion.
If you don't like argon-argon dating you can use Rubidium-Strontium dating, if you don't like Rubidium-Strontium dating you can use Samarium-Neodymium dating, or Lutetium-Hafnium dating, or Rhenium-Osmium datign. The point is that scientists use not one but several dating methods to ensure the accuracy of the age of the object.
| quote: |
In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased. For more information, see video tape #7 of the CSE video series on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, or Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris (all available from CSE).
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.
"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54 |
Contamination of the object can lead to false results. Note: the methodology isn't flawed, the OBJECT is flawed. I can go into each example you provide after work if you'd like. For example, "Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637" references an article entitled "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells", M L Keith and G M Anderson, Science, vol 141, pp 634-637 (1963). The article explains why river dwelling snails give bad carbon 14 dates because they get a lot of carbon through old groundwater and humus. Therefore once again the dating methodology is not in error, certain external conditions can skew the results as due to external contamination. The purpose of the article was to identify one factor of external contamination that skews results so scientists can more acccurately date objects by taking that contamination into account. |
|
|
|
|
