Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Radio Carbon Dating is Wrong!

Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:11:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

References
http://www.c14dating.com...
http://personal.psu.edu...
http://radiocarbon.org...
http://i.word.com...
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:03:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the problem with this argument is in your last statement, with the Continuation Half life. This is incorrect, a radioactive piece of material decays in an inverse exponential function. This is because radioactive decay is based on probability of any given atom decaying. So if you have 1000 Carbon-14's, it would take the 5700 years to decay about 500 of them. But at the same time, if you have 500, it will take that 5700 years to decay to 250.

Because its a probability for each individual decaying particle, when you have more of the stuff it decays faster, so that the same half life applies no matter what your start material is. Every 5700 years you have half of what you had 5700 years ago, but the decay rate decreases. So for the 11460 year timeframe you mentioned, rather than depleting all the carbon, you would deplete 75% of it.

What carbon dating does is look at the ratio of Carbon-14 left and the Nitrogen it decays into to figure out approximately how many half-lives have gone by based on the percentage of decay. Mathematically, being a inverse exponent, and only having a limit of 0 but never reaching it, you can carbon date something infinitely far back as long as there is enough Carbon, because it could theoretically take millions of half lives for full decay.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:26:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

Lets back up a second and start with just algebra. Once we get that part correct, you can move forward to trying to formulate an argument.

The first equation you present is:
X/t = X(0.5)

We can divide both sides of that equation by X and you get 1/t = 0.5 or t = 2. So this really isn't an equation but a definition of t = 2. I think you need to re-examine this one...

The second equation you present is:
X/(2t) = 0

If we multiply both sides by 2t we see this is X = 0. Another definition, this time of X. Also note there is no relation between equation 1 and equation 2 because once you reduce those equations neither contain the same variables. You probably should go back to the drawing board on that one also.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 3:40:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Carbon dating is generally accepted to only be useful on organic matter that is less than 50,000 years old. Samples older than this have too little C 14 to be accurately dated.

There are several other radioisotopes that are used for older remains: Uranium lead dating and Potassium Argon are two examples that can be used on objects up to billions of years old. This is more useful for fully mineralised fossils such as stromatolites, which are thought to show microscopic life forms that were on this planet 2 or 3 billion years ago.
Sajoe
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 7:00:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:03:21 AM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
I think the problem with this argument is in your last statement, with the Continuation Half life. This is incorrect, a radioactive piece of material decays in an inverse exponential function. This is because radioactive decay is based on probability of any given atom decaying. So if you have 1000 Carbon-14's, it would take the 5700 years to decay about 500 of them. But at the same time, if you have 500, it will take that 5700 years to decay to 250.

Because its a probability for each individual decaying particle, when you have more of the stuff it decays faster, so that the same half life applies no matter what your start material is. Every 5700 years you have half of what you had 5700 years ago, but the decay rate decreases. So for the 11460 year timeframe you mentioned, rather than depleting all the carbon, you would deplete 75% of it.

What carbon dating does is look at the ratio of Carbon-14 left and the Nitrogen it decays into to figure out approximately how many half-lives have gone by based on the percentage of decay. Mathematically, being a inverse exponent, and only having a limit of 0 but never reaching it, you can carbon date something infinitely far back as long as there is enough Carbon, because it could theoretically take millions of half lives for full decay.

Im sorry if the decay rate is constant then it does not slow down. That contradicts the Laws of Physics for a constant to change.
I am an Old Universe/Earth-New Life
Post Tribulation rapture,
Pre-millennial Evangelical Christian
Morgana42
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 1:30:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:00:30 PM, Sajoe wrote:

Im sorry if the decay rate is constant then it does not slow down. That contradicts the Laws of Physics for a constant to change.

It's not slowing down.

Every time X amount of time goes by one-half of whatever is there breaks down.

This is basic chemistry. Have you never taken a chemistry class? It's also basic algebra. Have you never taken algebra?

To simplify the math for you, say we have a molecule, molecule X, that has a half life of 100 years and at the start there are 100 units of this molecule X.

After 100 years, we now have 50 units of molecule X.

Another 100 years passes and we now have half of the 50 units remaining. So, we now have 25 units. So, after 200 years, it has degraded from the original 100 units to 25 units.

After a 3rd century, we now have half of the 25 units remaining, or 12.5 units. So, after 300 years, of our original 100 units, we have 12.5 units.

Yet another 100 years passes and we now have half of the 12.5 units remaining, or 6.25 units.

This continues on, ad infinitum, each time half of what is left is degraded.

Do you understand how half lives work now?