Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Critic my Theory! - The "Broom" Theory

ZacGraphics
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Have you ever heard the story about the hero dying for the villain?
ZacGraphics
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 3:19:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"I've come up with a theory theory"

I really need to proofread better. Haha.
Have you ever heard the story about the hero dying for the villain?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 3:59:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Why is this not in the science forum?

The broom and the earth are completely disanalogous. Indeed, the way you describe the broom's persistence is part of the reason why we can use carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil.

The amount of C-14 in an organism is constant with the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Some of it does decay, but as you explained, organisms change their composition over time, old stuff comes goes out, new stuff goes in.
If this cycle stops, i.e., the organism dies, no new C-14 can be supplied. That means the so far decayed isotopes stay inside the corpse and further C-14 will decay in the future.

C-14 has a half life of 5570 years. That is, it takes 5570 years for half of some C-14 to decay into N-14 + 1 electron + 1 anti-neutrino.

e^(-k*t)

It really is an easy calculation and by no means controversial.

But my guess would be that you are American, correct?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 4:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 3:59:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Why is this not in the science forum?

The broom and the earth are completely disanalogous. Indeed, the way you describe the broom's persistence is part of the reason why we can use carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil.

The amount of C-14 in an organism is constant with the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Some of it does decay, but as you explained, organisms change their composition over time, old stuff comes goes out, new stuff goes in.
If this cycle stops, i.e., the organism dies, no new C-14 can be supplied. That means the so far decayed isotopes stay inside the corpse and further C-14 will decay in the future.

C-14 has a half life of 5570 years. That is, it takes 5570 years for half of some C-14 to decay into N-14 + 1 electron + 1 anti-neutrino.

e^(-k*t)

It really is an easy calculation and by no means controversial.

But my guess would be that you are American, correct?

Different organisms absorb different amounts of c14. Shell fish when they die have much more c14 than the enviroment and other types of organisms.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 5:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This seems like a fallacy of association. A broom has gets new material and removes old material, making it difficult to determine its age, therefore we cannot know the age of the Earth because it gets new material and discards the old. You haven't shown the Earth is related to a broom in this way.

Furthermore this statement "Scientists have carbon-dated the oldest known material on Earth, and have recorded it to be approximately 4.5 billion years old" is false. Carbon dating only goes back to about 50,000 years.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
ZacGraphics
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 5:14:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thank you all for your insights. This is a failed attempt at something intellectual, as there are far too many errors. I'll try at different ideas, but I doubt they will live up to the standards of yourselves.

Thanks again.
Have you ever heard the story about the hero dying for the villain?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 5:35:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 4:37:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:59:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Why is this not in the science forum?

The broom and the earth are completely disanalogous. Indeed, the way you describe the broom's persistence is part of the reason why we can use carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil.

The amount of C-14 in an organism is constant with the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Some of it does decay, but as you explained, organisms change their composition over time, old stuff comes goes out, new stuff goes in.
If this cycle stops, i.e., the organism dies, no new C-14 can be supplied. That means the so far decayed isotopes stay inside the corpse and further C-14 will decay in the future.

C-14 has a half life of 5570 years. That is, it takes 5570 years for half of some C-14 to decay into N-14 + 1 electron + 1 anti-neutrino.

e^(-k*t)

It really is an easy calculation and by no means controversial.

But my guess would be that you are American, correct?

Different organisms absorb different amounts of c14. Shell fish when they die have much more c14 than the enviroment and other types of organisms.

Absorption of C14 is not coupled to the kind of organism, it is coupled to the environment. Since carbon dating is coupled to the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere and marine life usually does not breath fresh air we can of course not date the age of marine life with the same precision as we can date the age of organisms on land.

C14 dissolves on the water surface and takes quite some time until it reaches deeper levels, where it is of course part of one big solution together with really old C14.
So whatever the C14 levels of shellfish, they match those of their environment.

How could they not, C14 is is created up high in the atmosphere, not deep underwater.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 6:46:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 5:35:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 4:37:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:59:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Why is this not in the science forum?

The broom and the earth are completely disanalogous. Indeed, the way you describe the broom's persistence is part of the reason why we can use carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil.

The amount of C-14 in an organism is constant with the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Some of it does decay, but as you explained, organisms change their composition over time, old stuff comes goes out, new stuff goes in.
If this cycle stops, i.e., the organism dies, no new C-14 can be supplied. That means the so far decayed isotopes stay inside the corpse and further C-14 will decay in the future.

C-14 has a half life of 5570 years. That is, it takes 5570 years for half of some C-14 to decay into N-14 + 1 electron + 1 anti-neutrino.

e^(-k*t)

It really is an easy calculation and by no means controversial.

But my guess would be that you are American, correct?

Different organisms absorb different amounts of c14. Shell fish when they die have much more c14 than the enviroment and other types of organisms.

Absorption of C14 is not coupled to the kind of organism, it is coupled to the environment. Since carbon dating is coupled to the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere and marine life usually does not breath fresh air we can of course not date the age of marine life with the same precision as we can date the age of organisms on land.

C14 dissolves on the water surface and takes quite some time until it reaches deeper levels, where it is of course part of one big solution together with really old C14.
So whatever the C14 levels of shellfish, they match those of their environment.

How could they not, C14 is is created up high in the atmosphere, not deep underwater.

Here is a PDF that goes into more detail on Carbon dating 14. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

3 things have to be known for an accurate dating by this method. 1. Amount of Carbon 14 and by products in sample. 2. Carbon 14 half life. And 3. THE amount of carbon 14 in the organism when it died.

Number 3. is the hard one. As you can see the initial equation you gave is adjusted with Environmental reservoir effects. Which is when the environment has an abundance of carbon 14, such as marine life example. The effect is called the Marine RadioCarbon Reservoir effect. http://www.radiocarbon.com...

But also Isotope Fractionation is adjusted for as well. Which is dependent on organism type. because most organisms absorb carbon 14 through eating and breathing. It shouldn't take a genius to see this could be different for different organisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

In fact the type of diet an organism eats can have an impact on it's carbon 14 dating.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com...

So if my remark was in error, no more than your basic understanding of the principles of radiocarbon dating.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 6:54:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac

The biggest problem with this theory is that no one uses brooms anymore.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 8:32:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 6:46:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 5:35:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 4:37:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:59:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Why is this not in the science forum?

The broom and the earth are completely disanalogous. Indeed, the way you describe the broom's persistence is part of the reason why we can use carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil.

The amount of C-14 in an organism is constant with the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Some of it does decay, but as you explained, organisms change their composition over time, old stuff comes goes out, new stuff goes in.
If this cycle stops, i.e., the organism dies, no new C-14 can be supplied. That means the so far decayed isotopes stay inside the corpse and further C-14 will decay in the future.

C-14 has a half life of 5570 years. That is, it takes 5570 years for half of some C-14 to decay into N-14 + 1 electron + 1 anti-neutrino.

e^(-k*t)

It really is an easy calculation and by no means controversial.

But my guess would be that you are American, correct?

Different organisms absorb different amounts of c14. Shell fish when they die have much more c14 than the enviroment and other types of organisms.

Absorption of C14 is not coupled to the kind of organism, it is coupled to the environment. Since carbon dating is coupled to the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere and marine life usually does not breath fresh air we can of course not date the age of marine life with the same precision as we can date the age of organisms on land.

C14 dissolves on the water surface and takes quite some time until it reaches deeper levels, where it is of course part of one big solution together with really old C14.
So whatever the C14 levels of shellfish, they match those of their environment.

How could they not, C14 is is created up high in the atmosphere, not deep underwater.

Here is a PDF that goes into more detail on Carbon dating 14. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

3 things have to be known for an accurate dating by this method. 1. Amount of Carbon 14 and by products in sample. 2. Carbon 14 half life. And 3. THE amount of carbon 14 in the organism when it died.

Number 3. is the hard one. As you can see the initial equation you gave is adjusted with Environmental reservoir effects. Which is when the environment has an abundance of carbon 14, such as marine life example. The effect is called the Marine RadioCarbon Reservoir effect. http://www.radiocarbon.com...
I noted that in my response.

But also Isotope Fractionation is adjusted for as well. Which is dependent on organism type. because most organisms absorb carbon 14 through eating and breathing. It shouldn't take a genius to see this could be different for different organisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
And indeed it does not take one. Which is why I was able to note this in my last response.

In fact the type of diet an organism eats can have an impact on it's carbon 14 dating.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com...
Yes, what chemical substances an organism takes in is dependent on its environment.
I merely resisted the claim that shellfish have "much more c14 than the enviroment". Which they certainly don't.
I have not said that all organisms contain an equal amount of C14.

So if my remark was in error, no more than your basic understanding of the principles of radiocarbon dating.
Where did I err? You have not said anything contra to my claims.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 1:06:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 8:32:33 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 6:46:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 5:35:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 4:37:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:59:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Why is this not in the science forum?

The broom and the earth are completely disanalogous. Indeed, the way you describe the broom's persistence is part of the reason why we can use carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil.

The amount of C-14 in an organism is constant with the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Some of it does decay, but as you explained, organisms change their composition over time, old stuff comes goes out, new stuff goes in.
If this cycle stops, i.e., the organism dies, no new C-14 can be supplied. That means the so far decayed isotopes stay inside the corpse and further C-14 will decay in the future.

C-14 has a half life of 5570 years. That is, it takes 5570 years for half of some C-14 to decay into N-14 + 1 electron + 1 anti-neutrino.

e^(-k*t)

It really is an easy calculation and by no means controversial.

But my guess would be that you are American, correct?

Different organisms absorb different amounts of c14. Shell fish when they die have much more c14 than the enviroment and other types of organisms.

Absorption of C14 is not coupled to the kind of organism, it is coupled to the environment. Since carbon dating is coupled to the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere and marine life usually does not breath fresh air we can of course not date the age of marine life with the same precision as we can date the age of organisms on land.

C14 dissolves on the water surface and takes quite some time until it reaches deeper levels, where it is of course part of one big solution together with really old C14.
So whatever the C14 levels of shellfish, they match those of their environment.

How could they not, C14 is is created up high in the atmosphere, not deep underwater.

Here is a PDF that goes into more detail on Carbon dating 14. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

3 things have to be known for an accurate dating by this method. 1. Amount of Carbon 14 and by products in sample. 2. Carbon 14 half life. And 3. THE amount of carbon 14 in the organism when it died.

Number 3. is the hard one. As you can see the initial equation you gave is adjusted with Environmental reservoir effects. Which is when the environment has an abundance of carbon 14, such as marine life example. The effect is called the Marine RadioCarbon Reservoir effect. http://www.radiocarbon.com...
I noted that in my response.

But also Isotope Fractionation is adjusted for as well. Which is dependent on organism type. because most organisms absorb carbon 14 through eating and breathing. It shouldn't take a genius to see this could be different for different organisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
And indeed it does not take one. Which is why I was able to note this in my last response.

In fact the type of diet an organism eats can have an impact on it's carbon 14 dating.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com...
Yes, what chemical substances an organism takes in is dependent on its environment.
I merely resisted the claim that shellfish have "much more c14 than the enviroment". Which they certainly don't.
I have not said that all organisms contain an equal amount of C14.

So if my remark was in error, no more than your basic understanding of the principles of radiocarbon dating.
Where did I err? You have not said anything contra to my claims.

I'll be more specific. Shellfish can have more c14 in them than other organisms in the same enviroment.

There us an adjustment depending on the type of organism the sample is. Even an adjustment for if shellfish is the samples primary diet.

So nothing I said was really wrong nor needed any critique from you.

Essentially your critique that c14 is independent if organism type is false.
http://www.c14dating.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 9:53:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 1:06:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 8:32:33 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 6:46:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 5:35:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 4:37:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:59:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/13/2015 3:18:03 PM, ZacGraphics wrote:
Hello DDO! I've been thinking recently about the age of the Earth, carbon dating, etc. And, I've come up with a theory/explanation theory. It probably doesn't qualify as an "official theory", but it's my first shot at one. I figure, if I want to get better, I need to be wrong, and learn from my mistakes.

Go ahead and put in your suggestions. I'd love to hear your input. No trolls or spammers please! Thanks. :)

https://docs.google.com...

~Zac
Why is this not in the science forum?

The broom and the earth are completely disanalogous. Indeed, the way you describe the broom's persistence is part of the reason why we can use carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil.

The amount of C-14 in an organism is constant with the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Some of it does decay, but as you explained, organisms change their composition over time, old stuff comes goes out, new stuff goes in.
If this cycle stops, i.e., the organism dies, no new C-14 can be supplied. That means the so far decayed isotopes stay inside the corpse and further C-14 will decay in the future.

C-14 has a half life of 5570 years. That is, it takes 5570 years for half of some C-14 to decay into N-14 + 1 electron + 1 anti-neutrino.

e^(-k*t)

It really is an easy calculation and by no means controversial.

But my guess would be that you are American, correct?

Different organisms absorb different amounts of c14. Shell fish when they die have much more c14 than the enviroment and other types of organisms.

Absorption of C14 is not coupled to the kind of organism, it is coupled to the environment. Since carbon dating is coupled to the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere and marine life usually does not breath fresh air we can of course not date the age of marine life with the same precision as we can date the age of organisms on land.

C14 dissolves on the water surface and takes quite some time until it reaches deeper levels, where it is of course part of one big solution together with really old C14.
So whatever the C14 levels of shellfish, they match those of their environment.

How could they not, C14 is is created up high in the atmosphere, not deep underwater.

Here is a PDF that goes into more detail on Carbon dating 14. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

3 things have to be known for an accurate dating by this method. 1. Amount of Carbon 14 and by products in sample. 2. Carbon 14 half life. And 3. THE amount of carbon 14 in the organism when it died.

Number 3. is the hard one. As you can see the initial equation you gave is adjusted with Environmental reservoir effects. Which is when the environment has an abundance of carbon 14, such as marine life example. The effect is called the Marine RadioCarbon Reservoir effect. http://www.radiocarbon.com...
I noted that in my response.

But also Isotope Fractionation is adjusted for as well. Which is dependent on organism type. because most organisms absorb carbon 14 through eating and breathing. It shouldn't take a genius to see this could be different for different organisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
And indeed it does not take one. Which is why I was able to note this in my last response.

In fact the type of diet an organism eats can have an impact on it's carbon 14 dating.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com...
Yes, what chemical substances an organism takes in is dependent on its environment.
I merely resisted the claim that shellfish have "much more c14 than the enviroment". Which they certainly don't.
I have not said that all organisms contain an equal amount of C14.

So if my remark was in error, no more than your basic understanding of the principles of radiocarbon dating.
Where did I err? You have not said anything contra to my claims.

I'll be more specific. Shellfish can have more c14 in them than other organisms in the same enviroment.

There us an adjustment depending on the type of organism the sample is. Even an adjustment for if shellfish is the samples primary diet.

So nothing I said was really wrong nor needed any critique from you.

Essentially your critique that c14 is independent if organism type is false.
http://www.c14dating.com...
And more information from a site monitored and contributed to by doctors,scientists, etc.......I'm sure the site name will result in attempts at character assassination, and maybe a few "confirmation bias" claims, but interpretation and the reality of the science isn't debatable simply because someone makes a more involved account of why radioactive isotope or carbon dating is based on assumption, not observation or proven through the scientific method. After all, the idea the earth was billions of years old came before radio isotope dating,

http://creation.com...