[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Suspect who mailed pipe bombs to Trump critics pleads guilty

Mueller submits long-awaited Russia probe report to Justice Department; next move up to AG Barr

The Left sees Christianity as an obstacle to the state ... so anything that represents it in a positive light --- must be destroyed

Many Antichrists; One Beastly System - Message by Dr. Chuck Baldwin on Jan. 13, 2019

Ichiro retires after emotional finale in Tokyo (There *is* Crying in Baseball)

Man arrested for keeping TV sent to him by mistake

It's An Emergency You Dumb Communist Bastards!

Bernie Sanders Calls for New Zealand-Style Gun Ban in U.S.

The manipulation of the American mind: Edward Bernays and the birth of public relations

Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia

On The Anniversary Of The Iraq Invasion, Bush Press Secretary Claims Bush Didn’t Lie

Harvard researchers say certain ADHD medications may increase risk of psychosis

NJ Governor Signs “Rain Tax” Bill; Residents Can Now BE TAXED When It Rains On Their Property

The Zoning Code Banned His Tall Fence, but Not the Naked Mannequin Party Behind It

The Texas State House has passed a bill legalizing lemonade stands run by children

New Zealand Prime Minister announces immediate ban on all assault weapons

Fond Memories of Hitching

Are we a soul, or do we hava a soul?

Can the President Legally Break the Law?

Facebook just suspended Natural News for 7 days for posting this rather ho-hum fluoride infographic

Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Bill

WOW! Just Rewatched Enemy of the State & Guess what I found

The Ex-Model Who Claimed Silvio Berlusconi Hosted Satanic Rituals in His House Died From “Apparent Poisoning”

MLB Going Full-Blown TSA: Teams Prepare To Scan Millions Of Fans’ Faces

Why Does The Mainstream Media Purposely Ignore Mass Killings Of Christians Across The Globe?

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Require Police to Render Emergency Aid After Ohio Police Shoot Military Veteran Multiple Times, Let Him Bleed to Death

Don’t Shoot the Dogs: The Growing Epidemic of Cops Shooting Family Dogs

Ron Paul Support Legalizing Heroin

Reputed Gambino crime boss' suspected killer flashes 'MAGA,' other slogans on hand

lMalia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal

Sen. Warren: ‘I Would Support Removing Confederate’ Statues and Monuments

HOW U.S. MEDIA IS HELPING THE NEW ZEALAND TERRORIST ACHIEVE HIS ULTIMATE GOAL There's a reason the media is selectively choosing which facts to report about this killer's purpose

Is Trump Really About to Attack Venezuela?

The Grim Reaper – Frequently A Personified Insignificant Force

Dick Dale, a Great American Original, RIP

Government to Pizzeria: You Can Paint a Mural, Just Not One That Features Pizza

Donna Bazile Hired as FOX News Contributor

Source Claims Fox News Host Secretly Worked to Get Jeanine Pirro Suspended to Curry Favor With Democrats

AP Pushes New Leftwing Conspiracy Theory: "Puzzling" Number of Activists Connected to Ferguson are Dying (Usually by Suicide or Drug Overdose), And That Suggests They're Being Secretly Murdered by an Unidentified But Obviously White Cabal

Man cleaning garage finds burglar crushed by fallen 900-pound floor safe, cops say

US Supreme Court denies hearing Ron Paul 2012 aides' appeal

'Beto' Was A Member Of A Prominent Hacking Group, a Punk-Rock Band And His Name Was 'Psychedelic Warlord,' Report Says

Conservative? Hardly. New Zealand mass shooter is a far-Left “eco-fascist” who praised communist China

Tucker Carlson and Thoughtcrime

New Zealand: The Most Hysterical Reaction to an Event I’ve Seen Since 9/11

CONGRESSWOMAN ILHAN OMAR: TERRORIST

Trump threatens 'Saturday Night Live' with federal investigation and charges comedy show as an 'an advertisement without consequences' for mocking him

Illegal Alien Who Used Fake Fed Doc to Get License Committed No Crime, Obama Judge Rules

Hillsborough sues to declare Flintstone House a ‘public nuisance’

Six questions muslims often ask about Jesus


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles

Title: A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/radioc ... egion-calibration-inaccuracies
Published: Jun 6, 2018
Author: MIKE MCRAE
Post Date: 2018-06-06 21:41:38 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 5545
Comments: 248

One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.

The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon- 14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history.

By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years.

That may not seem like a huge deal, but in situations where a decade or two of discrepancy counts, radiocarbon dating could be misrepresenting important details.

The science behind the dating method is fairly straightforward: nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere hit with cosmic radiation are converted into a type of carbon with eight neutrons. This carbon – which has an atomic mass of 14 – has a chance of losing that neutron to turn into a garden variety carbon isotope over a predictable amount of time.

By comparing the two categories of carbon in organic remains, archaeologists can judge how recently the organism that left them last absorbed carbon-14 out of its environment.

Over millennia the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere changes, meaning measurements need to be calibrated against a chart that takes the atmospheric concentration into account, such as INTCAL13.

The current version of INTCAL13 is based on historical data from North America and Europe, and has a fairly broad resolution over thousands of years. Levels do happen to spike on a local and seasonal basis with changes in the carbon cycle, but carbon-14 is presumed to diffuse fast enough to ignore these tiny bumps.

At least, that was the assumption until now.

"We know from atmospheric measurements over the last 50 years that radiocarbon levels vary through the year, and we also know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the Northern Hemisphere," says archaeologist Sturt Manning from Cornell University.

"So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating."

The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries.

Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years.

The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov.

Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world.

"Our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region," says Manning.

Collecting additional data from different geographical areas and taking a closer look at historical climate trends could help sharpen calibration techniques, especially in hotly debated regions.

For the time being, archaeologists covering history in the Levant are being advised to take their dates with a pinch of salt.

This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.

www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/23/1719420115

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: redleghunter, jameson, buckeroo (#0)

Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-06   21:43:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)

You still think the earth is 6,000 years old, retardo?

I have proof and fossils from my front yard that prove otherwise. Crustaceans in limestone rock in Kentucky.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2018-06-06   22:08:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)

I take back my retardo comment. No offense.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2018-06-06   22:18:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, jameson, Fred Mertz (#1)

Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.

I worry about you, stone. You have no objective evidence to assert your belief system.

Even all the sequential "begats" in the Tanakh or otherwise called, "the Old Testament" ... as a sequential record of historical fact for the Jewish sheepherders, do not measure an accurate approach for when mankind's conscience awakened at the moment of "the Beginning."

Get a fuckin' life.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-06-06   22:46:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.

I don't know that the Creationists are right, but I do know that the actual underlying pictoglyphic text of Genesis 1 is vastly more complex, and sophisticated, than the simple translations that sit atop it. There is a genius behind that text that is supernatural in its depth.

The text itself, seen as it is, is more than a work of literature. It's a miracle.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-06   23:40:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?

buckeroo  posted on  2018-06-06   23:50:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A K A Stone (#0)

The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries.

Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years.

The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov.

Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world.

Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant. No one ever considered it that accurate to begin with.

Nor do they detail how they think a difference of 19 years would give us more meaningful info about the size and distribution of Solomon's kingdom. Or why that would have a modern geopolitical impact.

Maybe there is something to this academic dispute but the article hasn't fleshed it out for the reader.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   0:26:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: buckeroo (#6)

Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?

There isn't any.

You have to do the work yourself.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   0:27:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A K A Stone (#0)

archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

Very interesting, but some commentators have difficulty in settling the century for biblical events so is this a big deal? The older the date the more likely carbon dating will be wrong. In fact, before testing archaeologists might be asked how old they think an object is, so the date given could be very subjective

paraclete  posted on  2018-06-07   0:52:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

buckeroo: Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?

Vicomte13: There isn't any. You have to do the work yourself.

You are another liar, thief and sneaker of personal tyme as you described; how can I chase down your BULLSHIT without direct support? Go FUCK Yourself.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-06-07   0:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: buckeroo (#10)

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   6:33:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: buckeroo (#10)

You are another liar, thief and sneaker of personal tyme as you described; how can I chase down your BULLSHIT without direct support? Go FUCK Yourself.

Not really, I could direct you to the sources that will teach you the petroglyphs, and sources by which you can learn Hebrew, then you can apply the knowledge and do the work and see it for yourself.

What does not exist is a ready-made, already-done source for this. If it exists, I have never found it.

So if you want to see it, you have to do the work. Obviously given your wildly disproportionate rage at me you're not going to take my own work on the matter.

(I never did anything to you to warrant such a foul-mouthed tirade. YOU'RE the one who comes to this Internet site and wastes his time, I don't drag you here against your will.)

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   7:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Creationists were right all along.

LOL! You should hit the humor ping list for that one.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   8:34:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: buckeroo (#4)

I worry about you, stone. You have no objective evidence to assert your belief system.

That's why they call religions "faiths". Start demanding evidence and they all have to shut their doors and go out of business.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   8:35:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative (#7)

Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant.

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   8:37:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: sneakypete (#14)

That's why they call religions "faiths". Start demanding evidence and they all have to shut their doors and go out of business.

You say that but you cannot back it up.

Lets play and see how dumb you can be at this subject (no you're not dumb at everything you are quite smart in some areas just not here.)

You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution.

You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud. Except that has never been witnessed or duplicated in the lab.

The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind.

That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution.

Ok so idiots believe in evolution.

Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you. You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body.

I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people. Frickin idiot at times.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   8:45:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete (#7)

Extrapolate it out Einstein.

What is the percentage they are off.

If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span.

It is bullshit and only idiots who love their sin believe in the dating methods used.

They have been debunked a hundred times over.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   8:48:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: sneakypete (#15)

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

How old is the planet and how do you know?

Oh you don't know and can't explain shit can you. Out of business.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   8:50:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#17)

What is the percentage they are off.

If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span.

I'm questioning whether 14C dating has ever been reliably considered to be dead-accurate to within 19 years.

Apparently, this is a somewhat complex situation with various timelines constructed for the eras in which particular empires and kingdoms (including Solomon's) were in power and were then succeeded by another empire or kingdom. These become cumalative because of the way they are "stacked". So apparently they've tried to resolve some of the contradictions in the scant historical evidence by filling in the blanks via 14C dating methods. It seems this article is questioning the accuracy of that methodology.

The general accuracy of the dating is not in question, more in how they apply it to questionable timeline scenarios such as the geographical extent of Solomon's kingdom and when certain areas of the periphery of his kingdom came under or passed from his control.

So, if you think this tidbit is some move in science circles to entirely discredit the use of carbon dating, you just haven't read the article properly. In no way is anyone suggesting abandoning carbon dating as worthless. They're merely saying that it isn't accurate enough to try to date things within 19 years of an event in ancient times.

Which is what we've known about the limits and fallibility of carbon dating for the last 50 years.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   9:55:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: sneakypete (#15)

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   9:56:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Tooconservative (#20)

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

The means used rely on radioactive decay, which is a function of "c".

There are two things to note.

First: radioactive decay rates are affected by the strength of solar output. We don't know why, but it has been observed in some experiments.

Second:

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   13:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

Scientific American:

It was not until 1926, when (under the influence of Arthur Holmes, whose name recurs throughout this story) the National Academy of Sciences adopted the radiometric timescale, that we can regard the controversy as finally resolved. Critical to this resolution were improved methods of dating, which incorporated advances in mass spectrometry, sampling and laser heating. The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

That takes us to the end of this series of papers but not to the end of the story. As with so many good scientific puzzles, the question of the age of the earth resolves itself on more rigorous examination into distinct components. Do we mean the age of the solar system, or of the earth as a planet within it, or of the earth-moon system, or the time since formation of the earth’s metallic core, or the time since formation of the earliest solid crust? Such questions remain under active investigation, using as clues variations in isotopic distribution, or anomalies in mineral composition, that tell the story of the formation and decay of long-vanished short-lived isotopes. Isotopic ratios between stable isotopes both on the earth and in meteorites are coming under increasingly close scrutiny, to see what they can tell us about the ultimate sources of the very atoms that make up our planet. We can look forward to new answers—and new questions. That’s how science works.

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   13:46:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#16)

You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution.

No,I don't.

You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud.

Well,smoke and flames come from spontaneous combustion,but water is,AFAIK,the only thing that makes mud explosive.

The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind.

Which is it? Did God create them,or did they do their own recreating?

Do you believe everything you read?

That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution.

Which side of this discussion are you taking?

Ok so idiots believe in evolution.

Some do,and some idiots believe everything their Shaman tells them,even stuff written by unknown authors.

Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Nor does it mean a God exists.

Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you.

Everything alive has a nervous system. Just because I can't explain it to you,or that people who can couldn't explain it to you at a level you can understand,doesn't mean some Holy Ghost living in clouds created it all.

Why don't YOU tell ME who created God,since you know so much about this stuff?

According to your own dogma,nothing just happens by accident,so splain it.

You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body.

No,and I don't hate the Easter Bunny,Santa,or any other mythical personages.

I DO have to admit I have a healthy helping of hatred for the religious charlatans that dedicate their lives to getting wealthy and powerful be fleecing their flocks,though.

I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people.

That sounds more like your beliefs than mine.

Frickin idiot at times.

You said it,not me.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   14:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#18)

How old is the planet and how do you know?

I have no idea.

Nor do I care because it is irrelevant.

It IS older than 2,000 years,though.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   14:45:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Twinkle Twinkle little Star
Wonder just how far you are...

"What is a light year" - for 13.8 billion and final Jeopardy!

VxH  posted on  2018-06-07   14:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

No, it's too SHORT. Carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years.

By that point, the C-14 is all gone. You need more stable, longer-lived radioactive isotopes, Uranium and the like, to measure oceans of time. 50,000 years is a pond.

Dinosaurs are not dated by Carbon 14.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   15:12:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: sneakypete (#24)

I agree it is much older than 2000 years recorded history goes back much further than that. It does matter though because if I'm right that means you're accountable to God. Hope you see the light Pete.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: VxH (#25) (Edited)

Twinkle twinkle the creation was made complete even the trees were already grown. I don't know if they had rings or not though.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:29:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)

Dinosaurs or indirectly dated using carbon 14. Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption it's a circle jerk reasoning

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:31:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Tooconservative (#19)

Google what radiocarbon dated the Lava Rock from the Mount Saint Helens eruption.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:34:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)

So God blew up SN 2213-1745 and SN 1000+0216 as what... some sort of cosmic practical joke?

[12 Billion-Year Old Supernova Discovered by Astronomers]
https://scitechdaily.com/10- billion-year-old-supernova-remnant-discovered-by-astronomers/
 

VxH  posted on  2018-06-07   18:49:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#0) (Edited)

It does not matter very much. The timing of events just after and before, are affected the same way. So it will not change much.

A Pole  posted on  2018-06-07   19:00:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: VxH (#31)

So God blew up SN 2213-1745 and SN 1000+0216 as what... some sort of cosmic practical joke?

He is trying to keep us on our toes. A real test of faith.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   19:26:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Tooconservative (#22)

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   23:26:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: A K A Stone (#29)

Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption

It does make the knowledge less than certain, I agree.

The main problem is that all radioactive dating techniques rely upon an underlying assumption of a relatively uniform state of decay, which is fundamentally driven by "c". If c was faster in the past, the clock is not constant.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   23:29:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   3:08:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Tooconservative (#36)

isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

That use carbon dating to "check their pet theory".

The earth is exactly as old as the Bible says it is.

Add up the begats and you have the age.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-08   6:43:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: VxH (#31)

Your comment has fiction about the age of the earth in it. So it is not worth commenting on.

You can believe God is a liar. I choose to believe the Bible is true.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-08   6:45:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Tooconservative (#36)

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, under presently observed conditions, and there isn't all that much of it to begin with. In living tissue, there is about 1 C-14 atom for every trillion Carbon atoms. One part per trillion, 1 C-14 atom for every 10 to the 12th Carbon atoms. That's a low concentration.

Let's consider a human body. By weight, carbon makes up only 18.5% of the human body. So a 150 pound living man is composed of 27.75 pounds of carbon, 99% of that carbon is C-12, 1% is C-14. So, 2.775 times 10 to the negative 11th power pounds of C-14 atoms are in the living man, which is to say that there are 623,879,200,000,000,000 C-14 atoms in a living 150 pound man. Once he stops breathing and stops eating, there is no more C-14 being added.

The half life is 5730. So, in 5730 years there will be 311,939,600,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left in his remains. Of course, if there are any remains, they will have been diluted by whatever is preserving them.

In 11,460 years there will be 155,969,800,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left

In 17,190 years there will be 77,984,900,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 22,920 years, there will be 38,992,450,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 28,650 years there will be 19,496,225,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 34,380 years there will be 9,748,112,500,000,000 C-14s left.

In 40,110 years there will be 4,874,056,250,000,000 C-14s left.

In 45,840 years there will be 2,437,028,125,000,000 C-14s left.

In 51,610 years there will be 1,218,514,962,500,000 C-14s left.

That isn't much left from the original same, less than two-tenths of one percent.

And of course this assumes that one is carbon dating a whole, intact human corpse, a 150 pound sample. Radiocarbon dating is not done on 150 pound samples. The machines can't hold anything like that. The sample sizes used are 100 GRAM samples - THAT is what fits into the machines.

So, let's take the remains of that 150 pound man and look at the actual sample size we can test. 150 pounds is 67200 grams. We're only going to be able to test .0014880952380952 of that sample.

So, at the 51,610 year point, there are only 1,813,266,313,244 C-14 atoms left in the testable sample. That's small, but detectable.

Go one cycle further, to 57,340 years, and the number of atoms in the total sample drops to the 902,633,156,622 range, which is quite a bit smaller than the US budget in dollars, and at the bare limits of our ability to detect.

Using very long test times and super-sensitive equipment, that have been able to manage to extend Carbon-14 testing to 75,000 years. No farther.

It is not hard to see why. At 63,070 years you've only got 453 billion C-14s left in your whole sample.

At 68,800 years, you're down to 226.6 billion C-14s left.

And at 74,530 years, you're down to 113.3 billion atoms, in a sample size of 5 septillion atoms, which is to say 1 part in 24 trillion. Our technology is not capable of reliably sorting that out.

You can see, then, why C-14 cannot possibly be used to date dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct 65 million years ago.

Let's keep running our math.

At 80,260 years, there are 56.65 billion C-14s left in our sample.

At 85,990 years there are 28.325 billion C-14s left in our sample. We're already well below our threshold of detection, but they are there, at least theoretically. We cannot confirm this by direct observation, but we have to assume it is so.

At 91,720 years where are 14.16 billion atoms left.

At 97,450 years, 7.08 billion.

At 103,180 years, 3.54 billion.

Go back 57,300 more years, to 160,480 years, and you're down to 3.45 MILLION C-14s left. You're trying to find a single marked grain of sand on the California cost.

Go back another 57,300 years, and you have 3376 Carbon 14 atoms left in your sample.

Go back yet another 57,300 years, and there are 4 Carbon 14 atoms left. Four. How far back are we now? 275,080 years.

Go back 5730 more years, and there are 2 C-14 Atoms left. Another 5730 years, and there is 1 left. By 291,570 years back, there are no C-14 atoms left in the sample. Zero. Null.

Long before that point you passed any possibility of detection.

That is why I "keep saying" that radio-carbon dating cannot be used to date the dinosaurs.

There is NO Carbon 15 left from 65 million years ago. None. THEORETICALLY, in the whole world, there are a few atoms of it, maybe. To detect them would be like trying to find a aingle marked grain of sand randomly scattered on one of the world's beaches.

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did. There is a pugnacious attitude around here about many things. Sometimes you have to brute force down to zero to demonstrate the point. I will now reiterate it explicitly:

ASSUMING that rates of radioactive decay are constant, and ASSUMING that the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago, it is categorically impossible to use C-14 to date dinosaur bones. 65 million year old Carbon 14 does not exist. At all. It has all decayed. Only theoretically is there some left. This is not provable, because it is impossible to design a machine that is so sensitive. In any case, Carbon-14 us COMPLETELY useless for dating dinosaurs. There is NO USE WHATSOEVER for C-14. It isn't simply "impracticable", it is impossible, full stop.

At 60 iterations, 343,800 years, the last C-14 atom in that 150 pound man's remains broke down. There is none left.

Coal is said to be ancient vegetation. Assuming that is true, there is a reason it is used as the inert background substrate for C-14 dating. There is no detectable Carbon-14 in it. This is not because our machines are not sensitive enough. It is because all of the C-14 has decayed. That's why it is completely useless for dating dinosaur bones.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so. And also because the resistance here has been a little too fierce given the subject matter.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   11:31:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did.

Nope.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so.

But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   13:28:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 248) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com