Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Carbon Dating (Why I think Science Has It Wrong)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
19 replies to this topic

#1
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

I really, really want to date this carbon-based life form, but for whatever reason, she just doesn't have those sorts of feelings for me.

 

Okay, I'm joking. 

 

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed here or not...I'm sure it has, but I was curious about carbon dating methods. 

 

I just read a scientific article (not from a Creationist site) that stated that carbon dating is only accurate for specimens going back a few thousand years.  So why do scientists use it to date fossils? 

 

Kent Hovind in one of his debates stated that they give an approximate date of a specimen by where its located in the rock layers.  But they also date the rock layers by the kinds of fossils in the ground and that's called circular reasoning.  There's absolutely NO WAY the same layers are found exactly the same across the earth.  But if they find T-Rex bones in Layer B in Montana and T-Rex bones in Layer C in Utah, well, they must be the same rock layer, same age, etc. 

 

It's all approximate based upon their bias!  The whole Geological timescale model is bogus and does not exist!  But it's being used in science to date things.  And why is carbon dating used to date objects they suspect are millions of years old when it is not accurate past a few thousand?!?! 

 

They also assume their dating models on how much carbon they *think* was in the air at such-and-such a time.  But they could be very, very wrong!

 

If you look at the Genesis account, there was a layer of water above the earth.  This caused a global warming effect all over the globe.  Mammoths found in Alaska, immediately flash frozen, have been found with flowers and tropical grasses and plants still digesting in their stomachs and in there teeth.  That is why they have found tropical plant fossils in Antarctica.  If there was a layer of water over the earth, it blocked out the sun's harmful rays.  People were living longer.  They were huge (giants in the land in those days).  Everything grew to mammoth proportions.  I've seen fossils of MASSIVE spiders, ants, scorpions, clams (found on the highest of mountains).  Everything grew and didn't stop growing. 

 

And when there's a global warming effect, it changes the amount of carbon in the air.  Plants were growing larger and more abundant, thriving off the extra carbon.  And when the flood hit, it buried all these animals and plants in sediments with much higher carbon levels than scientists suspect.  And when they go to do a carbon test, assuming what the level of carbon was based upon their naturalistic bias and the numbers are all jacked up. 

 

But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.



#2
kwikphilly

kwikphilly

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,076 posts

Blessings Anthony

      I did not read your entire post,I apologize but I have to run & will read it all when I come back....I just wanted to say that the fact that carbon dating is only accurate(to some degree)in dating specimens but a few thousand years old has only recently been proved......at first carbon dating was thought to be the answer to dating fossils millions of years old with great accuracy & all you heard about was the" scientific evidence " proving  that this fossil was 50 million years old & that fossil was 65 million years old.......I was just surprised to read the first couple of sentences you wrote because you don't hear much that it was all in err.................just saying-LOL

                                                                                                                                 With lo0ve,in Christ-Kwik



#3
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,802 posts

C14 dating is only good to just under 60,000 years since they can calculate the rate of half life decay.  

 

You are correct. The problem is with the assumption of an equilbrium between the amount of C14 produced and the amount eliminated.   The problem is that it was discovered long ago that there is no equilibrium, but it was ignored.  It is one reason why C14 data is unreliable.   

 

They are still finding C14 in fossilized plants and animals presumed to be millions of years old meaning that they are less than 60,000 years old.



#4
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

^ exactly! Finding any C14 in any fossilized specimen is just proof that they didn't die out millions of years ago



#5
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

I really, really want to date this carbon-based life form, but for whatever reason, she just doesn't have those sorts of feelings for me.

 

Okay, I'm joking. 

 

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed here or not...I'm sure it has, but I was curious about carbon dating methods. 

 

I just read a scientific article (not from a Creationist site) that stated that carbon dating is only accurate for specimens going back a few thousand years.  So why do scientists use it to date fossils? 

 

Kent Hovind in one of his debates stated that they give an approximate date of a specimen by where its located in the rock layers.  But they also date the rock layers by the kinds of fossils in the ground and that's called circular reasoning.  There's absolutely NO WAY the same layers are found exactly the same across the earth.  But if they find T-Rex bones in Layer B in Montana and T-Rex bones in Layer C in Utah, well, they must be the same rock layer, same age, etc. 

 

It's all approximate based upon their bias!  The whole Geological timescale model is bogus and does not exist!  But it's being used in science to date things.  And why is carbon dating used to date objects they suspect are millions of years old when it is not accurate past a few thousand?!?! 

 

They also assume their dating models on how much carbon they *think* was in the air at such-and-such a time.  But they could be very, very wrong!

 

If you look at the Genesis account, there was a layer of water above the earth.  This caused a global warming effect all over the globe.  Mammoths found in Alaska, immediately flash frozen, have been found with flowers and tropical grasses and plants still digesting in their stomachs and in there teeth.  That is why they have found tropical plant fossils in Antarctica.  If there was a layer of water over the earth, it blocked out the sun's harmful rays.  People were living longer.  They were huge (giants in the land in those days).  Everything grew to mammoth proportions.  I've seen fossils of MASSIVE spiders, ants, scorpions, clams (found on the highest of mountains).  Everything grew and didn't stop growing. 

 

And when there's a global warming effect, it changes the amount of carbon in the air.  Plants were growing larger and more abundant, thriving off the extra carbon.  And when the flood hit, it buried all these animals and plants in sediments with much higher carbon levels than scientists suspect.  And when they go to do a carbon test, assuming what the level of carbon was based upon their naturalistic bias and the numbers are all jacked up. 

 

But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.

I enjoyed your post.  Though we disagree on a few points.

 

I am wary of ever calling upon the sciences to "prove" the Bible.  I hold the two separate; let the sciences tell me stuff about how old the earth is, what cigarettes do to me, what I have to take when I have strep throat, how fast light travels etc. etc.  Let the Bible tell me Who created all of this, Why, What kind of God He is, What went wrong with the World, What He did about it, And what should I do in reaction to that....(I say "let the Bible" merely because, that is in fact WHAT the Bible has done).

 

Should the sciences "prove" (though others have helped me see that this might be impossible; according to them, science can neither prove nor disprove hypothetical ages of the universe) that the earth is young, this will not add an iota of faith to me; should it prove it is very, very old--it will have the same neutral effect.  The age of the earth does nothing to my faith in the inspiration of Scripture: my studies of Scripture have led me to believe Scripture wasn't concerned about that.

 

Having said that, I would still be interested in any scientific research that goes against an Old Earth theory which has NO RELIGIOUS AGENDA.  I am seeking PURE science (by which I merely mean people who don't care whether the literal interpretation of Genesis is or is not right).  Articles or books that never mention Genesis; never mention Christianity or the existence of God.

 

If you have anything meeting that criteria, I would be grateful.

 

clb



#6
bopeep1909

bopeep1909

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,768 posts

Science is science.God is God.Got the picture?



#7
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

Yes, but science is biased, atheistic and purely naturalistic. 

 

If science is set out to discover and analyze, why does God have to be separate from the equation?  Why are people like you trying to separate the Creation from the One who created it?



#8
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Science is science.God is God.Got the picture?


Hmmmmm. I have to be honest here peep, I can't see why they both can't kiss in the middle. I consider God the worlds greatest scientist!

#9
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

I really, really want to date this carbon-based life form, but for whatever reason, she just doesn't have those sorts of feelings for me.
 
Okay, I'm joking. 
 
I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed here or not...I'm sure it has, but I was curious about carbon dating methods. 
 
I just read a scientific article (not from a Creationist site) that stated that carbon dating is only accurate for specimens going back a few thousand years.  So why do scientists use it to date fossils? 
 
Kent Hovind in one of his debates stated that they give an approximate date of a specimen by where its located in the rock layers.  But they also date the rock layers by the kinds of fossils in the ground and that's called circular reasoning.  There's absolutely NO WAY the same layers are found exactly the same across the earth.  But if they find T-Rex bones in Layer B in Montana and T-Rex bones in Layer C in Utah, well, they must be the same rock layer, same age, etc. 
 
It's all approximate based upon their bias!  The whole Geological timescale model is bogus and does not exist!  But it's being used in science to date things.  And why is carbon dating used to date objects they suspect are millions of years old when it is not accurate past a few thousand?!?! 
 
They also assume their dating models on how much carbon they *think* was in the air at such-and-such a time.  But they could be very, very wrong!
 
If you look at the Genesis account, there was a layer of water above the earth.  This caused a global warming effect all over the globe.  Mammoths found in Alaska, immediately flash frozen, have been found with flowers and tropical grasses and plants still digesting in their stomachs and in there teeth.  That is why they have found tropical plant fossils in Antarctica.  If there was a layer of water over the earth, it blocked out the sun's harmful rays.  People were living longer.  They were huge (giants in the land in those days).  Everything grew to mammoth proportions.  I've seen fossils of MASSIVE spiders, ants, scorpions, clams (found on the highest of mountains).  Everything grew and didn't stop growing. 
 
And when there's a global warming effect, it changes the amount of carbon in the air.  Plants were growing larger and more abundant, thriving off the extra carbon.  And when the flood hit, it buried all these animals and plants in sediments with much higher carbon levels than scientists suspect.  And when they go to do a carbon test, assuming what the level of carbon was based upon their naturalistic bias and the numbers are all jacked up. 
 
But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.

I enjoyed your post.  Though we disagree on a few points.
 
I am wary of ever calling upon the sciences to "prove" the Bible.  I hold the two separate; let the sciences tell me stuff about how old the earth is, what cigarettes do to me, what I have to take when I have strep throat, how fast light travels etc. etc.  Let the Bible tell me Who created all of this, Why, What kind of God He is, What went wrong with the World, What He did about it, And what should I do in reaction to that....(I say "let the Bible" merely because, that is in fact WHAT the Bible has done).
 
Should the sciences "prove" (though others have helped me see that this might be impossible; according to them, science can neither prove nor disprove hypothetical ages of the universe) that the earth is young, this will not add an iota of faith to me; should it prove it is very, very old--it will have the same neutral effect.  The age of the earth does nothing to my faith in the inspiration of Scripture: my studies of Scripture have led me to believe Scripture wasn't concerned about that.
 
Having said that, I would still be interested in any scientific research that goes against an Old Earth theory which has NO RELIGIOUS AGENDA.  I am seeking PURE science (by which I merely mean people who don't care whether the literal interpretation of Genesis is or is not right).  Articles or books that never mention Genesis; never mention Christianity or the existence of God.
 
If you have anything meeting that criteria, I would be grateful.
 
clb

Great post amigo. What I like about this post is that sometimes in Christian circles, Christians view every scientist to be God haters and mockers. I think that thought is obviously skewed far right. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who may not be Christian who desperately seek answers to important questions. In fact, I'm sure many seekers have found God in this search.

I too would be interested in reading of studies from "scientists without an agenda" to ponder such results. Like you said, nothing could ever shake my faith in Christ, in who he is, or in what he did for me.

#10
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,723 posts

Yes, but science is biased, atheistic and purely naturalistic. 

 

If science is set out to discover and analyze, why does God have to be separate from the equation?  Why are people like you trying to separate the Creation from the One who created it?

 

 

"Why are people like you trying to separate the Creation from the One who created it?"

 

Not that we can't appreciate the Glory of HIS CREATION but, Because....(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

Even though GOD CREATED "nature" or "EVERYTHING"; by being "Created" it is still the "Creature"

 

Follow?



#11
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,268 posts

I share from this:

http://ncse.com/cej/...arbon-14-dating

 

"

Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years."



#12
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

I share from this:
http://ncse.com/cej/...arbon-14-dating
 
"
Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years."


Alpha,

I've been led to believe c14 dating is not reliable to date anything over 50,000 years old. Do you agree?

If that is true, how do you accurately date fossil bones?

#13
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,268 posts

 

I share from this:
http://ncse.com/cej/...arbon-14-dating
 
"
Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years."


Alpha,

I've been led to believe c14 dating is not reliable to date anything over 50,000 years old. Do you agree?

If that is true, how do you accurately date fossil bones?

 

This is true.

 

You'd have to date other stuff in the same strata that the fossil bone was found using other isotopes with a bigger halflife.



#14
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

If you would like to read the studies of scientists without an agenda, then you must find one not paid by a university, etc, who would drop them like a hot biscuit the moment they mentioned intelligent design.  The moment they do, they immediately lose all credibility and respect in the scientific world.  They would lose their jobs and grants.  I'm telling ya, there is an atheistic bias monopoly on all science.



#15
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

If you would like to read the studies of scientists without an agenda, then you must find one not paid by a university, etc, who would drop them like a hot biscuit the moment they mentioned intelligent design.  The moment they do, they immediately lose all credibility and respect in the scientific world.  They would lose their jobs and grants.  I'm telling ya, there is an atheistic bias monopoly on all science.


That's not good. Sigh!

#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,723 posts

 

I share from this:
http://ncse.com/cej/...arbon-14-dating
 
"
Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years."


Alpha,

I've been led to believe c14 dating is not reliable to date anything over 50,000 years old. Do you agree?

If that is true, how do you accurately date fossil bones?

 

 

 

Spock, we just went over this in the Dino (Soft Tissue) thread.  Here's a refresher:

 

“Geologic stages are recognized, not by their boundaries, but by their content. The rich fossil record remains the main method to distinguish and correlate strata among regions, because the morphology of each taxon is the most unambiguous way to assign a relative age.”
James G. Ogg, Gabi Ogg, and Felix M. Gradstein, The Concise Geologic Time Scale (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 5.

 

They use the fossils to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils, remember.....

 

"Swing your partner round and round.......c'mon, join in....



#17
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,268 posts

Well no, there are other radioactive isotopes used to date rocks. If you can date a bunch of stuff in one strata and get an age estimate, then the assumption is that the fossil is from that time also. It is an assumption but it seems reasonable to me?



#18
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,723 posts

Well no, there are other radioactive isotopes used to date rocks. If you can date a bunch of stuff in one strata and get an age estimate, then the assumption is that the fossil is from that time also. It is an assumption but it seems reasonable to me?

 

 

Well not really....The above quote actually settles it.  Read it slowly.  One of the main reasons for that is the assumptive nature of all Radiometric Dating which we discovered the mysteries of a few weeks back.  And which someone has just recently "dug" back up again....you can reference that  :)



#19
Omegaman

Omegaman

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Chat Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
I get the limitations of the Radio Carbon dating process in both age range, and the objects to which it can be applied. However, I have not looked deeply into other radio dating techniques, and a question comes to mind about that, maybe someone can shed some light on.

I think the most common sorts of fossils, are those of life forms covered in sediments that later become sedimentary rocks. Suppose there is a mudslide, a flood, a sea bottom etc, and some living thing or formerly living thing get trapped in the resulting sediment. If for example, I know a mudslide occurred in 1 million years ago and trapped and preserved a scorpion. If I later discover this scorpion, it is reasonable to assume this scorpian is about 1 million years old.

Suppose that I have no idea when this mudslide occured. Can I use some sort of radio dating to tell me the age of this sediment layer? Seems to me that this sediment, is composed of older material, sand for example, that has existed long before this burial event - perhaps the particles are from different ages, not even the same age as each other. How can we date this material to the date of burial, instead of the age of the burial material?

As far as I know, this is not done with radiometric dating, but instead relies on index fossils. In other words if the layer has a trilobite in it, we assume the layer is from the age of trilobites. Do we have a way to know what age trilobites are, or do we assume from the layer's age from index fossils, and the age of fossils from their layers?

If that is the case, it does seem a bit circular. It has often troubled me the number of 'facts' that are known from unproven assumptions. It is not unique to scientists and or atheists either. Christians do it in their theology, eschatology is a perfect and obvious example.

Anyone understand the dating processes well enough to tell me how they are not assumption based and or circular arguments packaged to sound intellectual?

The climate change debate also seems to be victim to this game of consensus over-powering actual 'facts'. I get weary of all the certainty that seems based on speculation from my perspective, in all of these fields.

Ideas, comments, solutions?

#20
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts

anthonyjmcgirr - But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.

 

This was posted in another thread, and I also had this bookmarked. It has been a number of years but Dr. Wiens was kind enough to have a back and forth by email for a time.

 

http://asa3.org/ASA/...rces/Wiens.html

 

*I should add that there is a question answer section at the bottom which may be helpful.


Edited by Tolken, 24 March 2014 - 02:34 PM.





Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network