A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.

Comments?

Guess not too bad i have to go now.Too bad ppl dont know about this.

[This message has been edited by SAMMY249 (edited 12-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

Comments?

The person who wrote this nonsense has no idea of how Carbon-14 dating works and why it's extremely reliable. I could write pages pointing out the bullshit, but I'm not going to waste my time debunking an article when all you did was copy and paste some creationist nonsense you found on the internet. If you'd like to single out one or two points made that you think are evidence for Carbon-14 being inaccurate, I'd be happy to explain to you why the creationist nonsense you're blindly following is bullshit. I say blindly following, because we've gone through this before and it's evident that you haven't the foggiest idea of how Carbon-14 dating works, yet cling to the idea that the pseudo-scientific, fake diploma having, creationist idiots who write this shit know what they're talking about.

My eyes hurt from reading all the stupid. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

This is how carbon dating really works (http://www.c14dating.com/)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

My eyes hurt from reading all the stupid. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

bo bo bo!

lets say, hypothetically, that sammy did not just post completely innacurate bullshit;

im wondering, how does that make creationism any more plausable at all? even if you assume carbon dating was complete crap, how do you make the gigantic leap to a "magic man in sky made everyone 5000 years ago"? what does one have to do with the other?

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

lets say, hypothetically, that sammy did not just post completely innacurate bullshit;

im wondering, how does that make creationism any more plausable at all? even if you assume carbon dating was complete crap, how do you make the gigantic leap to a "magic man in sky made everyone 5000 years ago"? what does one have to do with the other?

Christians have this crazy idea that if they disprove science, then their religion is automatically correct. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

But then you have other dating methods such as Argon-Argon dating, Argon-Potassium dating, Thermoluminescence dating, Fission track dating... These methods can date back many, many thousands of years further back than radiocarbon dating and do indeed turn up with objects that would seem to have been around before the "creation" of the world. Also, radiocarbon dates can be calibrated to make them much more reliable.

0h n03s!

I used to go to a catholic school. in religion they said that the creationism theory doesnt work. if you add up the bible stories and shit that the world only works out to be around a few thousands years old. they even know. they said take the story with a grain of salt.

quote:Originally posted by El Coolio:

I used to go to a catholic school. in religion they said that the creationism theory doesnt work. if you add up the bible stories and shit that the world only works out to be around a few thousands years old. they even know. they said take the story with a grain of salt.

Yeah, you can believe the earth is old, but still have faith. Or maybe you can't and I just suck at being religious.

Sammy, go back and read the creation story and the flood again. If you can't automatically recognize it as ridiciulous bullshit, then there is absolutely no chance of anybody here changing your mind.

quote:Originally posted by Twiggy:

But then you have other dating methods such as Argon-Argon dating, Argon-Potassium dating, Thermoluminescence dating, Fission track dating... These methods can date back many, many thousands of years further back than radiocarbon dating and do indeed turn up with objects that would seem to have been around before the "creation" of the world. Also, radiocarbon dates can be calibrated to make them much more reliable.

0h n03s!

Exactly, there are about 15 methods of radiometric dating. When used to date a particular thing they have all given similar results. The chances of them all being wrong are ridiculously high.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels.

Comments?

The reason we can be so certain of the original amount of C14 that was present in the organism at the time of death is because of equilibrium. This means that the ratios between the C14 and the C12 at death are constant in ancient specimens.

We also tend to calibrate our results against things that can be dated by other means as well as C14 dating as a safeguard. (There is more than 1 type of radiometric dating. We can also use rock strata and tree rings as well. Often, more than one extra method is used to improve accuracy.)And the wise scientists will always report their margins of uncertainty

As for rising C14/C12 levels - These have been mostly constant throughout our history. There are one or two peaks where levels have been higher, but as I said above, we still like to calibrate our results against something that can be dated by other means as well.

The only major (huge) peak in C14 levels has been around 1945 - 1960, when nuclear bomb testing reached its peak. But why would we bother with dating something via this method if it's only 40-50 years old?

-1 for the Young Earthers (Serves them right too, for never properly researching their arguments)



[This message has been edited by flatplat (edited 12-05-2006).]

These links were working before.



1. Isotopes and earth's age: http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Extension/geotopics/earth_age.html

2. Electronic configuration: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/H/econ.html

3. periodic table of the elements: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/periodic-table/econ.html

4. s, p, d, f of elements: http://www.ktf-split.hr/periodni/en/abc/e-config.html

5. http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa013103b.htm

6. Electronic configuration and Pauli Exclusion Principle: http://learn.chem.vt.edu/tutorials/atomic/electronconfig.html

7. Electronic Configuration and Notation: http://members.aol.com/profchm/enota.html

8. Nuclear shell model: http://www-pat.llnl.gov/Organization/NDivision/ntm/people/navratil_pub.html

9. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html

10. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell2.html

11. http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/06/1.html

12. Nuclear Decay and Radioactive Series http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/7c.html

13. Proton Radioactivity for Laymen (tunneling with picture): http://www-highspin.phys.utk.edu/~bingham/protfig.html



quote:

One of the early successes of quantum mechanics was its explanation of alpha decay. It had been known for some time that alpha decay half-lives depend very sensitively on the decay energy. Doubling the decay energy from 4 to 8 MeV causes the typical half-life to decrease from 1010 years to 10-2 seconds, a change by a factor of 10-19! This extreme energy dependence was finally explained in 1928 by Gamow,and independently by Gurney and Condon, as a Quantum Mechanical phenomenon. The alpha-particle, held inside the nucleus by a potential barrier caused by the positive nuclear charges, cannot escape from it, according to classical physics. However, Quantum Mechanics does allow the alpha-particle to escape by "tunneling" through the barrier, with an energy-dependent half-life consistent with experiment.

(see link #14)

[quote]

14. http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/EARLYNPC.HTML



15. Visual Quantum Mechanics w/ Macromedia Flash (tunneling): http://phys.educ.ksu.edu/vqm/html/qtunneling.html

16. Quantum Tunneling on Newton's Terms, quantum theory vs. classical physics: http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st28

17. Tunneling and probability of particle's location: http://www.comcity.com/distance-time/The%20Speed%20of%20Quantum%20tunneling.html

[quote]

Quantum Tunneling is a bizarre prediction of Quantum Physics, the physics which superceeded the physics of Einstein. Quantum Physics predicts there is a chance that a particle trapped behind a barrier without the energy to overcome the barrier may at times appear on the other side of the barrier without overcoming it or breaking it down.

(see link #18)



18. http://www.altair.org/Qtunnel.htm



19. Tunneling, transistors, alpha rays: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/quantum_tunneling.html

20. The probability of an object tunneling through a barrier as predicted by the Schrodinger equation: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae460.cfm



Penzias and Wilson: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html

http://www.bell-labs.com/project/feature/archives/cosmology/

http://tinyurl.com/yytt6m

Many scientists now use another form of dating which is more accurate than C-14 dating...

either potassium-argon or argon-argon dating.

it's more reliable.

Not that this was a major point in the OP's post or anything, but does anyone else have a beef with the whole "pre-flood vapor canopy" bullshit? If you haven't read this before, become enlightened: http://tinyurl.com/ydsx4a

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



The person who wrote this nonsense has no idea of how Carbon-14 dating works and why it's extremely reliable. I could write pages pointing out the bullshit, but I'm not going to waste my time debunking an article when all you did was copy and paste some creationist nonsense you found on the internet. If you'd like to single out one or two points made that you think are evidence for Carbon-14 being inaccurate, I'd be happy to explain to you why the creationist nonsense you're blindly following is bullshit. I say blindly following, because we've gone through this before and it's evident that you haven't the foggiest idea of how Carbon-14 dating works, yet cling to the idea that the pseudo-scientific, fake diploma having, creationist idiots who write this shit know what they're talking about.

QFT. And, SAMMY, if you knew anything about it better than how to copy and paste it from another website you'd know that it's bullshit.

Even if carbon dating "proves" the time scale of the bible is "wrong" it only proves it's wrong according to "our" scale which isn't even uniform across the world and that has been proving not just inaccurate but more inaccurate than even the Mayan fucking calendar - written by people who ran around in loin cloths shooting poison darts at each other.

So, all this does is prove that we don't use the same time scale as the bible. It doesn't prove it's wrong.

Cheers,

Lost

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 12-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

QFT. And, SAMMY, if you knew anything about it better than how to copy and paste it from another website you'd know that it's bullshit.

Even if carbon dating "proves" the time scale of the bible is "wrong" it only proves it's wrong according to "our" scale which isn't even uniform across the world and that has been proving not just inaccurate but more inaccurate than even the Mayan fucking calendar - written by people who ran around in loin cloths shooting poison darts at each other.

So, all this does is prove that we don't use the same time scale as the bible. It doesn't prove it's wrong.

Cheers,

Lost



According to our scale that isn't uniform?

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you.

A year is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to rotate around the Sun.

Guess what this means! 1 Year (Present Day) = 1 Year (For whoever wrote the bible) = 1 Year (For the Mayans).

Stop trying to hide your religion behind attempted critical thinking it just isn't working for you.

quote:Originally posted by chickenpoop:

Many scientists now use another form of dating which is more accurate than C-14 dating...

either potassium-argon or argon-argon dating.

it's more reliable.

C-14 is the most reliable method of dating 'young' samples, 50,000 years and less.

quote:Originally posted by tricky:

According to our scale that isn't uniform?

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you.

A year is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to rotate around the Sun.

Guess what this means! 1 Year (Present Day) = 1 Year (For whoever wrote the bible) = 1 Year (For the Mayans).

Stop trying to hide your religion behind attempted critical thinking it just isn't working for you.

And how, oh how, are ancient civilizations that existed around the equator, where it's one season all year round, supposed to know when the 4 seasons have lapsed?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

And how, oh how, are ancient civilizations that existed around the equator, where it's one season all year round, supposed to know when the 4 seasons have lapsed?



Not all civilizations had a 4 season calender, I am fairly sure the Egyptians had a 3 seasons.

But seasons do not determine how long a year is. Many Ancient civilizations were able to figure how long a year was by movement was by movement of the sun left to right were it set and rose. Though some very early civilizations had a 360 day calender but others figured out that the year was just a tad beyond 365 days.

quote:Originally posted by tricky:

According to our scale that isn't uniform?

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you.

A year is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to rotate around the Sun.

Guess what this means! 1 Year (Present Day) = 1 Year (For whoever wrote the bible) = 1 Year (For the Mayans).

Stop trying to hide your religion behind attempted critical thinking it just isn't working for you.

You're wrong. The years weren't measured the same way. In fact, to this very day it's an entirely different year in Ysrael and lots of other countries across the world. And it's a clear indication that our calendar is flawed simply because we have the leap year.

Read a book.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

And how, oh how, are ancient civilizations that existed around the equator, where it's one season all year round, supposed to know when the 4 seasons have lapsed?

QTF.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.

Comments?

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/carbon/se_carbon.html



I think that's called plagerism... plus, when you just copy shit off a website I believe the mods are supposed to [/thread].

It would've helped you make less of a fool of yourself anyways.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

You're wrong. The years weren't measured the same way. In fact, to this very day it's an entirely different year in Ysrael and lots of other countries across the world. And it's a clear indication that our calendar is flawed simply because we have the leap year.

You're wrong.

1. Years are measured by the movement of the sunrises and sunsets accross the zodiac, which takes a year to complete a cycle, as the earth makes one revolution around the sun.

2. It doesn't matter where on the planet you are, a year is the same thing.

3. The leap year doesn't make our calendar "flawed". It's just because the time for rotations of earth doesn't divide evenly into the time for a revolution around the sun.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

You're wrong.

1. Years are measured by the movement of the sunrises and sunsets accross the zodiac, which takes a year to complete a cycle, as the earth makes one revolution around the sun.

2. It doesn't matter where on the planet you are, a year is the same thing.

3. The leap year doesn't make our calendar "flawed". It's just because the time for rotations of earth doesn't divide evenly into the time for a revolution around the sun.

Alright; so the Mayans, Egyptians, and some others used the zodiac in their calendar...how are we to conclude that all civilizations even kept time, let alone used the zodiac to measure their year, or anything else?

A more concerning question to me: how are we to know what was considered a year before humanity existed as civilizations, but rather as clans and tribes? Before records were ever kept? Before tools to make sun-dials and the like existed? How do we know these early groups, the first of human kind, used the zodiac?

Oh yeah...we don't.

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

And how, oh how, are ancient civilizations that existed around the equator, where it's one season all year round, supposed to know when the 4 seasons have lapsed?



Not all civilizations had a 4 season calender, I am fairly sure the Egyptians had a 3 seasons.

But seasons do not determine how long a year is. Many Ancient civilizations were able to figure how long a year was by movement was by movement of the sun left to right were it set and rose. Though some very early civilizations had a 360 day calender but others figured out that the year was just a tad beyond 365 days.

todays mordern calaender came from teh vatican. i remember watchin a video on this like 5 years ago. teh vatican set the seasons using their holidays. they also added feb 29th every four years beacuse it didnt work out. but i know that todasy modern day calendar is from christianity

quote:Originally posted by El Coolio:

todays mordern calaender came from teh vatican. i remember watchin a video on this like 5 years ago. teh vatican set the seasons using their holidays. they also added feb 29th every four years beacuse it didnt work out. but i know that todasy modern day calendar is from christianity

They used a 365 day calnder and leap year because the Earth dose infact roatate around the sun about ~365.25 days. And they were not the first to do it eaither.