Problems with Radiometric and Carbon Dating

Not to sound any better than anybody else, but I've been arguing this topic for 15 years in online communities and forums. The following article and the way it attacks carbon dating blows my mind.

Most religious sites will have a paragraph or two about the problems with relying solely on the two dating methods to find the age of, say, ancient fossils.

It's a good read, especially for those who love God and enjoy it when someone smacks he state of science in the face ...

http://www.specialtyinterests.net...

At 5/8/2012 12:31:23 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Not to sound any better than anybody else, but I've been arguing this topic for 15 years in online communities and forums. The following article and the way it attacks carbon dating blows my mind.

Most religious sites will have a paragraph or two about the problems with relying solely on the two dating methods to find the age of, say, ancient fossils.

It's a good read, especially for those who love God and enjoy it when someone smacks he state of science in the face ...

http://www.specialtyinterests.net...

The Fool: I may be a Fool, But you are a Clown.

At 5/8/2012 2:12:18 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:31:23 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Not to sound any better than anybody else, but I've been arguing this topic for 15 years in online communities and forums. The following article and the way it attacks carbon dating blows my mind.

Most religious sites will have a paragraph or two about the problems with relying solely on the two dating methods to find the age of, say, ancient fossils.

It's a good read, especially for those who love God and enjoy it when someone smacks he state of science in the face ...

http://www.specialtyinterests.net...

The Fool: I may be a Fool, But you are a Clown.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I just provided an article to discuss. I'm not saying it is valid. I want people to pick it apart.

The only thing I did was read a good chunk of it and was astounded at the level of detail. I'm not a chemist, and I can't verify the numbers as much as I can stuff in physics, which I do actively study, but it very intriguing and I want someone to refute it or just general insight on it from people who probably know more about this sort thing than I do.

At 5/8/2012 2:16:08 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

At 5/8/2012 2:12:18 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:31:23 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Not to sound any better than anybody else, but I've been arguing this topic for 15 years in online communities and forums. The following article and the way it attacks carbon dating blows my mind.

Most religious sites will have a paragraph or two about the problems with relying solely on the two dating methods to find the age of, say, ancient fossils.

It's a good read, especially for those who love God and enjoy it when someone smacks he state of science in the face ...

http://www.specialtyinterests.net...

The Fool: I may be a Fool, But you are a Clown.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I just provided an article to discuss. I'm not saying it is valid. I want people to pick it apart.

The only thing I did was read a good chunk of it and was astounded at the level of detail. I'm not a chemist, and I can't verify the numbers as much as I can stuff in physics, which I do actively study, but it very intriguing and I want someone to refute it or just general insight on it from people who probably know more about this sort thing than I do.

THe FOol: That the point the answer to what you are saying is so Obvious its not worth being responded too.

THe FOol: That the point the answer to what you are saying is so Obvious its not worth being responded too.

That's your decision. I don't expect you to waste up posting space talking about nothing. To each their own.

At 5/8/2012 12:31:23 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Not to sound any better than anybody else, but I've been arguing this topic for 15 years in online communities and forums. The following article and the way it attacks carbon dating blows my mind.

Most religious sites will have a paragraph or two about the problems with relying solely on the two dating methods to find the age of, say, ancient fossils.

It's a good read, especially for those who love God and enjoy it when someone smacks he state of science in the face ...

http://www.specialtyinterests.net...

I don't even think you're fifteen years old.

At 5/8/2012 7:42:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I couldn't even be bothered finding the resources. 50 interwebz for you. ;)

Lets take a look at the chief source of "problems" pointed out in the article: W.F.Libby, `Radiocarbon Dating', (Chicago, 1952), pp. 4-9.

Notice anything interesting about that source? Maybe the date? 1952. That was 60 years ago. Now I have no idea as to the current state of C14 dating research, but I am absolutely positive a lot of it has been done in the last 60 years and that technology and our understanding have progressed during that time span.

So, when I read a critique of scientific knowledge whose major source is 1952 and who ancillary sources are from the 1960s and 1970s I have to wonder what is the author trying to hide by not mentioning more current research...

At 5/8/2012 7:42:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Lmfaoooooohow anticlimactic for a 15 year search through the pulse of the internet.

At 5/8/2012 9:50:04 AM, Floid wrote:
Lets take a look at the chief source of "problems" pointed out in the article: W.F.Libby, `Radiocarbon Dating', (Chicago, 1952), pp. 4-9.

Notice anything interesting about that source? Maybe the date? 1952. That was 60 years ago. Now I have no idea as to the current state of C14 dating research, but I am absolutely positive a lot of it has been done in the last 60 years and that technology and our understanding have progressed during that time span.

So, when I read a critique of scientific knowledge whose major source is 1952 and who ancillary sources are from the 1960s and 1970s I have to wonder what is the author trying to hide by not mentioning more current research...

Thank you for being the smart enough one to inform me of my error of this particular article, and I apologize for not being thorough and examining the sources. If I'm not mistaken, the positions on this argument have not changed a whole lot. When I read posts and articles about C14 and other such methods, it's the same.

Now, I'm not a big studier of this field. My interest comes from when a read just falls to me. I do enjoy reading all things, even those that are peraps outdated, because it gives a glimpse into the general for-against arguments and why they are the way they are.

The thing that the mindless hecklers of this thread aren't even gettng is that I am a supporter of dating methods. I believe that dating is mostly reliable. But, there are errors, and sometimes the errors, especially for recent human history, are embarrassing to archaeology. I believe in the technology and I think it's amazing that they are so consistent.

But, still, just because the technology is good doesn't mean there are not arguments against using it. Those who think that something is all right and cannot be wrong are waving the dogmatic flag of science once again, and that's not a healthy attitude to have.

I posted this article to see what the reaction would be so I could have something to read about.

I apologize for my piqued intellectual curiosity. I'll go read my science boo--i mean bible now!

Just to be clear:

The first two paragraphs were to the responder of this thread, and the remaining to the hecklers.

The biggest problem is there is a big difference between "are you just bringing things up" or "are you trying to win the argument".

Everytime I hearsomeone arguing for young earth creationism or evolution they are just bringing things up and not trying to win the argument.

So as it pertains to this article in particular:

Radiometric dating is not 100% accurate. Everyone know this. In fact, it may be off by 20-30% or more in many cases. But that is just bringing something up.

The argument attempting to be made is that the Earth is just 6,000 years old and no evidence is presented in support of that claim and the mounds of evidence besides C14 dating that supports the age of the Earth being much older is ignored.

It is easy to just bring things up, it is much harder to make an argument.

At 5/8/2012 11:52:52 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
The thing that the mindless hecklers of this thread aren't even gettng is that I am a supporter of dating methods. I believe that dating is mostly reliable. But, there are errors, and sometimes the errors, especially for recent human history, are embarrassing to archaeology. I believe in the technology and I think it's amazing that they are so consistent.

Well, no, whats embarassing is when creationists apply carbon dating to conditions we know are unreliable, such as Xenoliths or marine shellfish under the carbon reservoire effect, and claim that this somehow proves that Carbon dating is unreliable.

People make mistakes, thats not embarrassing at all, thats human nature. Whats truly embarassing is people who use arguments which have been proven wrong decades ago, and still bring them up as if they were valid.

But, still, just because the technology is good doesn't mean there are not arguments against using it. Those who think that something is all right and cannot be wrong are waving the dogmatic flag of science once again, and that's not a healthy attitude to have.

Who here has ever done that? is there a single person here who has claimed that radiometric dating of any kind can never be misused and misapplied to produce false results?

I posted this article to see what the reaction would be so I could have something to read about.

I apologize for my piqued intellectual curiosity. I'll go read my science boo--i mean bible now!

Thats fine, but the reason why most people here are talking down on you is because the stuff that you brought to us is decades old and has already been addressed countless times. Its the equivalent of bringing up arguments for a flat earth. The arguments that disprove that, are out there, and have been out there for a while now, to the point that there really isnt anything to discuss anymore.

At 5/8/2012 1:03:33 PM, Floid wrote:
The biggest problem is there is a big difference between "are you just bringing things up" or "are you trying to win the argument".

Everytime I hearsomeone arguing for young earth creationism or evolution they are just bringing things up and not trying to win the argument.

So as it pertains to this article in particular:

Radiometric dating is not 100% accurate. Everyone know this. In fact, it may be off by 20-30% or more in many cases. But that is just bringing something up.

The argument attempting to be made is that the Earth is just 6,000 years old and no evidence is presented in support of that claim and the mounds of evidence besides C14 dating that supports the age of the Earth being much older is ignored.

It is easy to just bring things up, it is much harder to make an argument.

Well, as far as arguments, the big problem is that people try to 'win' the argument without considering that all theories might have hints of correctness. It's about sharing information and learning, not about "I'm right I'm right NA NA NA NA NA NA!"

I didn't read that article stating that the Earth was 6000 years old. If I missed that, then I apologize, because that's clearly debunked. But, the article does show that we rely too much on dating to fit the models that sometimes we are just wrong, and that's happened with recent human history before when looking at C14 in caves.

Who here has ever done that? is there a single person here who has claimed that radiometric dating of any kind can never be misused and misapplied to produce false results?

I'm simply referring to people who make blanket statements about rightness or wrongness, being condescending toward the poster of an article even though the basic arguments made within can still be applied to today in terms of dating being inconsistent doesn't prove anything and shows blind loyalty to one process without the ability to explain the problems away.

Thats fine, but the reason why most people here are talking down on you is because the stuff that you brought to us is decades old and has already been addressed countless times. Its the equivalent of bringing up arguments for a flat earth. The arguments that disprove that, are out there, and have been out there for a while now, to the point that there really isnt anything to discuss anymore.

Not when the arguments are still made to this very day.

As I said, it's convenient for hecklers in their failure to refute decades old information to come after me in their own insecurity.

You yourself admit these dating methods can be problematic, so what's the problem? I don't understand what your argument is. I posted an article that showed potential problems with dating methods, and you admit that this article is correct in that accusation.

Radiometric and carbon dating collectively are extremely accurate when used in the right predicament. A lot of YEC'ers will try to marginalize radiometric dating's credibility by carbon dating hard lava and coming up with results from 20,000 years to 20 million years (which is really strange considering carbon-isotope 14 dating is used for thousands of tens of thousands of years old material) and saying that the lava had only been formed mere hours ago. What they fail to see is that the hard lava was previously molten magma that had been turning in the heart of the volcano for quite a long time, and it rapidly turning hard after eruption probably wouldn't change its half-life rate. But alas, the Bible belt will cling to their fallible 'the Earth is only 6,000 years old!' dogma even though 6000 years ago was roughly the time when the Mesopotamians started brewing beer.

Uranium-lead dating, however, is completely another matter which I haven't heard many Creationist try to attack. Might I add, the half-life of uranium-lead is 4.47 billion years.

But alas, the Bible belt will cling to their fallible 'the Earth is only 6,000 years old!'

I agree, but many scientific theories have been disproven too.

I don't think many people who love God have a problem with believing the Earth is older than 6000 years old anymore.

At 5/8/2012 6:19:13 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

But alas, the Bible belt will cling to their fallible 'the Earth is only 6,000 years old!'

I agree, but many scientific theories have been disproven too.

Most debunked scientific theories that I can think of off the top of my head were made by contemporary scientists during Science's early times. The scientific method was really not given much credit so I can't really even be clear if they were even 'scientific theories' at the time to begin with. i.e. Luminiferous Aether, Phlogiston theory, ect ect

I don't think many people who love God have a problem with believing the Earth is older than 6000 years old anymore.

Every Church I've set foot into affirms the '6,000 years old' dogma. Creation-science, Creation museum, they all live by it.

Most debunked scientific theories that I can think of off the top of my head were made by contemporary scientists during Science's early times. The scientific method was really not given much credit so I can't really even be clear if they were even 'scientific theories' at the time to begin with. i.e. Luminiferous Aether, Phlogiston theory, ect ect

Actually, the scientific process was started by Gallileo with his experimentation on the motion of objects.

Of course, there's the experiment of the closed glass case with the dead animal or whatever that supposedly proved that living matter comes from nonliving matter. This was accepted until observations disproved it.

There is Steady State Theory, the theory that the Universe is infinite and constant.

Einstein's Theory of Everything

Life on mars, which was shown through canals supposedly seen on Mars. Observations showed this to be false.

Newton's equations of gravity are incorrect because they don't take shown relativistic effects into account.

Of course, don't read what I have to say, just look it up for yourself and you'll se dozens of failed theories even after the 19th century.

I don't think many people who love God have a problem with believing the Earth is older than 6000 years old anymore.

Every Church I've set foot into affirms the '6,000 years old' dogma. Creation-science, Creation museum, they all live by it.

As someone ho has bloved God for 22 years, I haven't been to many churches who have their exact position that the Earth is 6000 years old. The 6000 year oldtheory is something that isn't even contended with because it is based only on the supposed chronological order of events in the Bible. since Adam lived. Since I know of absolutely no church who takes the Old Testament word-for-word as literal, I haven't even seen an implication of that position.

cbrhawk1, calling you out.
RESOLVED: Dogmatic support of science is superior to dogmatic support of religion.

Dig it?

Radiometric and Carbon dating? Yeah, there are problems there. Their personalities clash, and they're always arguing about who should pay the bill and whose fault it is that they rarely get to see each other anymore. They should break it off, the sooner the better.

At 5/8/2012 9:23:58 PM, tvellalott wrote:
cbrhawk1, calling you out.
RESOLVED: Dogmatic support of science is superior to dogmatic support of religion.

Dig it?

Why debate something that multiple people can share their opinions on?

The one debate I had I started before I looked at the healthy discussion in the forums. If you would like to discuss this, I would be more than happy to answer a thread on this.

You might not have to initiate as, in the religion forum, I am starting a series based on discussing specifics from the one debate I did have.

But, a one-on-one debate can't really provide the same powerful insight as a multi person discussion can.

At 5/9/2012 12:01:57 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

At 5/8/2012 9:23:58 PM, tvellalott wrote:
cbrhawk1, calling you out.
RESOLVED: Dogmatic support of science is superior to dogmatic support of religion.

Dig it?

Why debate something that multiple people can share their opinions on?

The one debate I had I started before I looked at the healthy discussion in the forums. If you would like to discuss this, I would be more than happy to answer a thread on this.

You might not have to initiate as, in the religion forum, I am starting a series based on discussing specifics from the one debate I did have.

But, a one-on-one debate can't really provide the same powerful insight as a multi person discussion can.

Ok, I can understand that.
I'll whip up an argument tonight and see what you make of it.

At 5/8/2012 9:34:31 PM, mongeese wrote:
Radiometric and Carbon dating? Yeah, there are problems there. Their personalities clash, and they're always arguing about who should pay the bill and whose fault it is that they rarely get to see each other anymore. They should break it off, the sooner the better.

Olive Juice <3

At 5/8/2012 5:15:16 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

Who here has ever done that? is there a single person here who has claimed that radiometric dating of any kind can never be misused and misapplied to produce false results?

I'm simply referring to people who make blanket statements about rightness or wrongness, being condescending toward the poster of an article even though the basic arguments made within can still be applied to today in terms of dating being inconsistent doesn't prove anything and shows blind loyalty to one process without the ability to explain the problems away.

Again, who here is making blanket statements? Your second part of the post clearly states that you are addressing the mindless hecklers of this forums. But i have yet to see a single person who supports Evolution that has made a blanket "Radiometric dating is always correct, there are no limits or flaws, it is perfect" argument, ever.

Furthermore, again, the examples you brought, like the one about Mt Saint Helens, does not show that the radiometric dating is inconsistent. Its like using a high school microscope to look at viruses. Of course the results would be innacurate, inconclusive, because you should be using an electron microscope as high school standard microscopes arent nearly as powerful. Does this mean that all microscopes are flawed? Of course not.

We have already explained the so called "Problems" that are being brought. This stuff is decades old.

Thats fine, but the reason why most people here are talking down on you is because the stuff that you brought to us is decades old and has already been addressed countless times. Its the equivalent of bringing up arguments for a flat earth. The arguments that disprove that, are out there, and have been out there for a while now, to the point that there really isnt anything to discuss anymore.

Not when the arguments are still made to this very day.

Youre right. The arguments, like the one you brought to me regarding mt Saint helens, is still being made to this very day.

As I said, it's convenient for hecklers in their failure to refute decades old information to come after me in their own insecurity.

Wait, what? No no, these things have been refuted. The reason why were himming and hawing at you is because this stuff has been refuted decades ago. Its as i said, its embarrasing for people to bring up decades old, dead, and thoroughly refuted arguments from the grave. We are facepalming at your arguments.

You yourself admit these dating methods can be problematic, so what's the problem? I don't understand what your argument is. I posted an article that showed potential problems with dating methods, and you admit that this article is correct in that accusation.

No, i didnt. Here is what i said:

"And no, the dating methods are consistently reliable. Much like clocks are consistently reliable in telling time. Yes, if you misuse a dating method, it becomes unreliable, but the same goes with ANY method of determining ANYTHING."

This isnt a problem with the dating methods. Its a problem with the application.

If i break a clock and say "Hey, look, this clock doesnt tell time accurately, therefore all clocks are unreliable", That isnt a problem with the clocks. Known limitations exist, and these limits arent problems. My car cant fly, it is limited to ground transportation methods, but the fact that these limits exist doesnt mean theres a problem with my car.

Limits are not problems. The only problem is when you try to use things outside of their limitations. If you drive your car off the cliff thinking it will fly, that is a problem. But its not the cars problem, the car is working perfectly, thats yours.

At 5/8/2012 5:05:57 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Well, as far as arguments, the big problem is that people try to 'win' the argument without considering that all theories might have hints of correctness. It's about sharing information and learning, not about "I'm right I'm right NA NA NA NA NA NA!"

But the article doesn't present any theories. It also doesn't present an attempt to provide a scientific analysis for correcting C14 dating. It just brings up a bunch of cases where it says C14 dating was incorrect.

I didn't read that article stating that the Earth was 6000 years old. If I missed that, then I apologize, because that's clearly debunked. But, the article does show that we rely too much on dating to fit the models that sometimes we are just wrong, and that's happened with recent human history before when looking at C14 in caves.

It isn't out right stated and I perhaps incorrectly infered that, but statements such as "On the same grounds, human and dinosaur bones which have retained enough carbon to be tested by this precise method will be shown to be relatively young provided they are done in blind tests" leads me to conclude that YEC is probably the belief held by the author.

At 5/8/2012 12:31:23 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Not to sound any better than anybody else, but I've been arguing this topic for 15 years in online communities and forums. The following article and the way it attacks carbon dating blows my mind.

Most religious sites will have a paragraph or two about the problems with relying solely on the two dating methods to find the age of, say, ancient fossils.

It's a good read, especially for those who love God and enjoy it when someone smacks he state of science in the face ...

http://www.specialtyinterests.net...

There is a genuine problem with dating methods, specially as they are reported in popular media.

I remember, one first of the things we learned in physics. A measurement is useless unless we have some idea of the error involved in the measurement.

Look at it this way, if I report my weight as 100 Kg, with an associated error of 100 Kg, I am speaking the truth! My weight is indeed between 0 and 200Kg. However it is a totally useless observation because of the high error involved.

So when anyone tells us that a fossil is 90 million year old, this is an ambiguous statement. We should know the error involved also. If there is an error of 50 million years in this dating - we aught to know.

I skimmed through the article you posted. It is not asking the correct question. The correct question is not whether dating methods are accurate or not. The correct question is HOW much error they lead to.

There is a genuine problem with dating methods, specially as they are reported in popular media.

I remember, one first of the things we learned in physics. A measurement is useless unless we have some idea of the error involved in the measurement.

Look at it this way, if I report my weight as 100 Kg, with an associated error of 100 Kg, I am speaking the truth! My weight is indeed between 0 and 200Kg. However it is a totally useless observation because of the high error involved.

So when anyone tells us that a fossil is 90 million year old, this is an ambiguous statement. We should know the error involved also. If there is an error of 50 million years in this dating - we aught to know.

I skimmed through the article you posted. It is not asking the correct question. The correct question is not whether dating methods are accurate or not. The correct question is HOW much error they lead to.

If you read just about any reference that discusses a radiometric date the DO give eror ranges.

At 5/10/2012 2:02:31 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:

There is a genuine problem with dating methods, specially as they are reported in popular media.

I remember, one first of the things we learned in physics. A measurement is useless unless we have some idea of the error involved in the measurement.

Look at it this way, if I report my weight as 100 Kg, with an associated error of 100 Kg, I am speaking the truth! My weight is indeed between 0 and 200Kg. However it is a totally useless observation because of the high error involved.

So when anyone tells us that a fossil is 90 million year old, this is an ambiguous statement. We should know the error involved also. If there is an error of 50 million years in this dating - we aught to know.

I skimmed through the article you posted. It is not asking the correct question. The correct question is not whether dating methods are accurate or not. The correct question is HOW much error they lead to.

If you read just about any reference that discusses a radiometric date the DO give eror ranges.

Some do. Many don't.