|
On April 18 2007 19:05 Myxomatosis wrote:
whatever. like you said, there is no point to this. i'm going to go do work. enjoy living in ignorance.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but.. Ignorance in this case is pretty relative.
|
On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote:
[quote]
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not. Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors. it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives. Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course) 6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it. I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.  I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change... Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong. Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life. Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
|
I am still living with my parents (I'm 17) and I can say that whenever I have to do anything Church-related, I do not feel a sense of fulfillment or happiness. I feel like my time is being wasted.
On the other hand, when I do things that I enjoy, it's a very different matter.
|
On April 18 2007 19:11 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:
[quote]
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors. it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives. Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course) 6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it. I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change... Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong. Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life. Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here >< Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating:
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.
This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
A certain flood?
Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic. See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says. You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark. Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Got it, we are done. God magically broke the laws of physics to make it happen. Because he can do that. Therefore you don't need to prove that its possible within the rules of physics. You can ignore the fact that fresh water fish would all die in this salt water ocean, plants wouldn't live. . He then hid all geological evidence. Polar bears are given motorcycles to ride down to the ark. Kangaroos hop across the ocean. And when the rain fell, it didn't disperse its kinetic energy into heat - it was magical rain.
I honestly don't think you realize how many animals exist on the planet, and how much food they would need. How many animals do you think are on the ark? Is seven days long enough to load every animal onto the ark? How long were they are on the ark? How are the animals fed, what is done with the excrement. How are living environments maintained, how are animals exercised? how is heat transfered, how is it lit? After they get off the ark, there is no food available to most of the animals. Honestly, how do the animals come and go from the ark to their places on earth?
If your entire argument boils down to, whatever i can't explain scientifically how it happened, god did a miracle. Why isn't there any evidence, god hid it.
Btw, you didn't happen to go back and reread the bible to understand he did include unclean animals - right?
|
I'm not going to read through this. Im just going to assume this didnt devolve into a holy war.
13 pages doesnt give me much hope...
|
On April 18 2007 19:26 TheOvermind77 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 19:11 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:
[quote]
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up
to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old
the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course) 6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it. I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change... Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong. Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life. Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here >< Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't. I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating: The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud ><
Look I can find useless quotes too. :p
"A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two."
"The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results."
I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com
"A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction."
|
On April 18 2007 19:11 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:
[quote]
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors. it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives. Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course) 6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it. I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change... Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong. Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life. Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here >< Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't.
If there was only one man or one test, or even one type of test, you would have a point.
|
On April 18 2007 19:34 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 19:26 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 19:11 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:
[quote]
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it. I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change... Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong. Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life. Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here >< Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't. I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating: The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud >< Look I can find useless quotes too. :p "A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two." "The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results." I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com "A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction."
There are some definite problems in your facts. They are wrong >< ! It doesn't matter if they take in Carbon that isn't Carbon-14...only carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope, the other ones don't decay and don't matter. Also, once an animal dies, it does not injest any more carbon-14 and therefore lots of this stuff you are saying is wrong.
You do have a good argument that the levels of Carbon-14 might change throughout the aging of the Earth, but the problem with that is that the percentage of the isotopes are based upon abundance in the Earth's crust and other factors (I forget) and are constant. Therefore, an animal 5000 years ago still injested the same amount of C-14 as an animal today because the percentage of C-14 compared to the other Carbon atoms is unchanging. :/
|
On April 18 2007 19:33 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
A certain flood?
Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic. See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says. You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark. Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt. Got it, we are done. God magically broke the laws of physics to make it happen. Because he can do that. Therefore you don't need to prove that its possible within the rules of physics. You can ignore the fact that fresh water fish would all die in this salt water ocean, plants wouldn't live. . He then hid all geological evidence. Polar bears are given motorcycles to ride down to the ark. Kangaroos hop across the ocean. And when the rain fell, it didn't disperse its kinetic energy into heat - it was magical rain. I honestly don't think you realize how many animals exist on the planet, and how much food they would need. How many animals do you think are on the ark? Is seven days long enough to load every animal onto the ark? How long were they are on the ark? How are the animals fed, what is done with the excrement. How are living environments maintained, how are animals exercised? how is heat transfered, how is it lit? After they get off the ark, there is no food available to most of the animals. Honestly, how do the animals come and go from the ark to their places on earth?
Just because you have the capabilities to make a joke out of what I said, doesn't mean that it is a joke. You keep taking it from a standpoint that Noah spontaneously built an Ark and that all the animals spontaneously appeared by the ark. How long does it take to build the Ark again, I forget? I've already answered almost all these questions once, yet you skip over them, and pretend I never asked them. Here I'll separate your questions and AGAIN answer them.
I honestly don't think you realize how many animals exist on the planet, and how much food they would need. How many animals do you think are on the ark?
I believe it was 58,000 animals needed to be on the ark. To have exactly as many species as we have now.
Is seven days long enough to load every animal onto the ark?
Noah had a lot longer than 7 days to build the ark. Even still, yes I believe 7 days is plently. I know of cattle drivers that loaded more than 60,000 cows into freight trains in a matter of a couple of days.
How long were they are on the ark?
Can't you read it yourself? See if you opened to the chapter of the Bible and read what it said, I wouldn't have to explain a thing.
How are the animals fed, what is done with the excrement?
ooo this is a toughy... Let's see, first I'd store food on the Ark (go figure) and then I'd throw the poop overboard. Man you ask tough logical questions....
How are living environments maintained, how are animals exercised? how is heat transfered, how is it lit?
Living environments? How do you know polar bears lived where they live now? Polar bears could have adapted into a cold thriving bear.
Exercised? I honestly don't think exercise is a primary concern when your huddled in a boat, floating on top of the world.
Heat Transfer? Cold is the absence of heat, look it up.
How is it lit? Let's try the sun for starters...
After they get off the ark, there is no food available to most of the animals?
No way... Noah thought ahead and stored food... Man your questions get increasingly difficult. After all the gobs of floating seaweed settled and the water resided, seeds began springing up like normal.
Honestly, how do the animals come and go from the ark to their places on earth?
The Bible says God brings the animals. It is unknown how dispersed the animals are, since God created all the animals close enough for Adam to name them all, I assume they didn't have to go too far.
|
On April 18 2007 02:39 RebelHeart wrote:I receive daily e-mails from Greg Laurie, who is like the modern day Billy Graham, since he visited my hometown (Christchurch NZ) last year. This is one I got in my inbox today, I want to know what people think of it - to what extent is what he says true? + Show Spoiler +"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" - Mark 8:36-37
A while ago, I ran into a guy that I once hung out with in school. I hadn't seen him in 25 years. He called to say that he was coming to hear me speak, so we arranged to meet beforehand.
As we talked, he told me he had been married twice and was presently divorced. Then he said, "I basically drank my marriages away." He went on to explain that he had gotten into that and never stopped. He said it had ruined his life.
I told him, "You know, in the Bible, God says, 'You will seek Me and find Me. . . .' "
"You can quote your book and I will quote mine," he said. "I am in fellowship too. . . . I'm in a 12-step program."
We used to hang out and party together, but he never left that lifestyle. I left it at age 17. As I look at the course his life has taken and the course my life has taken, it is clear who really gave up the most.
There might be times as a Christian when you look at unbelievers and think, I don't know. Maybe they are having the good time and I am not. It might look like they are having fun today, but there is a price for sin. You will reap what you sow.
If you live for Christ, if you determine to do things God's way, you won't regret it. Because you won't find happiness or fulfillment through sex, drugs, or drinking. You won't find it through relationships, success, possessions, or accomplishments. You will find the happiness and fulfillment you are looking for in life through a relationship with Jesus Christ. My opinion is this, while I greatly admire him for all the work he does, I often find his view of comparing Christian lives with non-Christian lives simplistic and not even general, because they do not represent general (as in the "majority of cases" general) facts. I believe you become a Christian because it's the right thing to do, not because it's what's best for yourself personally. I don't intend this to be another existence of God debate - I just want to know what people think of his e-mail - do any non-Christians think it is to some extent true?
if i see that shit in my inbox.. SPAM i will delete it right away!
now to answer your question... NO, there no extent that is true. What if a person never know the story about Jesus? he wont find happiness? What if that guy find happiness through killing, fucking and/or whatsoever? You say you like his stories about comparing Christian an non-Christian lives? WTF.. it so obvious that it's made up.. True or not, christians can still drink and sin all they want and still can't find happiness.
What do you mean by becoming Christian is the right thing to do?
|
On April 18 2007 19:46 TheOvermind77 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 19:34 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 19:26 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 19:11 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change... Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong. Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life. Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here >< Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't. I swear I'm not trying to be mean, but we have instruments that measure the amounts of this stuff EASILY! The accuracy is within 16 years. Here is an article about recent methods for C-14 dating: The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting.This is HIGHLY accurate. We have MACHINES that do the measuring for us. Considering we can measure the speed of light to be EXACTLY 299,792,458 meters per second, I am fully confident that these C-14 dating procedures are accurate. Please trust me, bud >< Look I can find useless quotes too. :p "A related problem is that marine organisms have radiocarbon ages that are not comparable to organisms that live on land. Carbon that has been in the deep ocean for a long time, on the order of thousands of years, sometimes mixes with modern carbon and is taken in by marine animals and plants. Therefore, you get circumstances where radiocarbon dates on modern shellfish indicate they are actually 400 years old! This is because the shellfish have used modern as well as very old carbon, so their radiocarbon age is a mix of the two." "The use of these elements as chemical signatures indicating places of origin is very new. Researchers are still learning about how soil can contaminate bones, altering the original chemical signatures, as well as the amounts of variation in these chemical signatures within and between different environments and regions. Further work still needs to be done to ensure these factors do not affect test results." I personally got a kick out of this one; DiscoveringArchaeology.Com "A final consideration is the conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. These corrections are needed because the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere � the baseline against which radioactive carbon-14 in the sample is measured � is not constant. However, the history of these atmospheric carbon-14 variations can be reconstructed. The result is that the real-time duration of paleontological or cultural processes can be lengthened or shortened depending upon the calendar correction." There are some definite problems in your facts. They are wrong >< ! It doesn't matter if they take in Carbon that isn't Carbon-14...only carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope, the other ones don't decay and don't matter. Also, once an animal dies, it does not injest any more carbon-14 and therefore lots of this stuff you are saying is wrong. You do have a good argument that the levels of Carbon-14 might change throughout the aging of the Earth, but the problem with that is that the percentage of the isotopes are based upon abundance in the Earth's crust and other factors (I forget) and are constant. Therefore, an animal 5000 years ago still injested the same amount of C-14 as an animal today because the percentage of C-14 compared to the other Carbon atoms is unchanging. :/
I wasn't using my quotes for anything, was just pointing out how useless yours was. Though the one from discovery I did like the finish. "Whatever we can't determine exactly we guess. Sometimes we KNOW our dates aren't right, so we change them to better fit time lines."
On April 18 2007 19:35 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 19:11 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 19:06 TheOvermind77 wrote:On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:
[quote]
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up
to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old
the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course) 6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it. I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change... Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong. Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life. Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here >< Okay, I hope 200 qualifies. I accept that carbon's half life is unchanging. However, I don't accept the fact that man is the one measuring the half life of carbon. Man and accuracy don't go to well together, hell I'd go so far to say that I make more than one mistake a day. You have to be able to trust the man measuring to be able to trust the date measured and frankly, I don't. If there was only one man or one test, or even one type of test, you would have a point.
Finally! Someone said it. They have multiple people, do multiple tests, then average all their results to have a scientific conclusion on the date.
I'll throw this one in for measure.
"The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock.
We know when this dome formed. When we date rock of known age we test the claims and we see obvious failures. But, when we date rock of unknown age, we are assured that the results are accurate."
|
If you are going to quote an article, provide a link.
|
On April 18 2007 20:07 Lemonwalrus wrote:
If you are going to quote an article, provide a link.
I know how to quote, but I'm not talking with you, I'm talking with the person that quoted an article earlier without a source. Therefore all my sources will be nameless as well, hell I could have made them up myself and they'd be just as strong.
|
|
|
On April 18 2007 20:29 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 20:07 Lemonwalrus wrote:
If you are going to quote an article, provide a link. I know how to quote, but I'm not talking with you, I'm talking with the person that quoted an article earlier without a source. Therefore all my sources will be nameless as well, hell I could have made them up myself and they'd be just as strong.
The thing is, if this were true, the scientific theory would have to be significantly altered or abandoned. Can you explain why neither has happened?
There will always be ambiguous data, even concerning the most established theories. Every serious scientific analysis will posit a hypothesis for such an ambiguity which can be tested in order to refine the existing theory. It is very easy for individuals to exploit those small ambiguities, out of context, to make the theory seem dogmatic or set in stone - and therefore worthless - when it really is not.
|
On April 18 2007 20:29 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 20:07 Lemonwalrus wrote:
If you are going to quote an article, provide a link. I know how to quote, but I'm not talking with you, I'm talking with the person that quoted an article earlier without a source. Therefore all my sources will be nameless as well, hell I could have made them up myself and they'd be just as strong.
"Annor[BbG] is a liar." - Bible
It's real, I promise.
|
On April 18 2007 20:59 mahnini wrote:
It's real, I promise.
Oh yeah? Where does it say that?
|
On April 18 2007 21:07 XelNaga wrote:Oh yeah? Where does it say that?
In the bible ;rolleyes:
|
wow that annor dude is insane, and so is pretty much all the other christians in here. Talk about living in a kids dream world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
