Solution to carbon dating debate

[Danarch]

Why can't we find something that's in the bible to carbon date and prove true. Surly there must be something. Anything. And if an event like this would occur, what would be the reaction of creationists? Would they discard evidence to affirm their stance in exchange for not being openly hypocrites? Any thoughts?

 

[Gunfingers]

Dating has been done on the Battle of Jericho putting it at some 1500-1600 years BCE. It took two tries, though, as the early nineties testing was wrong by about 100 years.

 

[te_lanus]

Dating has been done on the Battle of Jericho putting it at some 1500-1600 years BCE. It took two tries, though, as the early nineties testing was wrong by about 100 years.

not.really:

enyon's work was accepted for the remainder of the 20th century, until in 1990 Bryant Wood published a paper in which he challenged her methods and conclusions. The essence of Wood's case was that locally-produced pottery from the site coincided with other local pottery common to around 1400BC, and that carbon-14 testing (a technology not available to Kenyon) of a sample of charcoal from the site indicated a date of 1410 BC. Wood's case against Kenyon's dating caused a stir in archaeological circles, but failed to gain a large following among scholars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#cite_note-0 The argument was further settled and Kenyon's findings confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests using more advanced techniques: these dated the destruction to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%. - wikipedia

 

[Man of Faith]

Carbon dating is probably correct up to a point of about 3,500 to 4,000 years ago. What I understand about the evolutionary position is the assumption is made that the world has been pretty much stable since it came into existence billions of years ago, (uniformatarianism). The creationists position is the world came into existence about 6,000 years ago and about 4,000 years ago there was a world wide flood that affected the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the pre-flood forests could have diluted the buildup of carbon. (catastrophism) We don't know what the carbon was like right after the beginning of the world.

Below is a picture that helps explain the controversy. The red line is the assumption by evolutionists and the blue line is the assumption by creationists.

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

 

[Nepenthe]

Why can't we find something that's in the bible to carbon date and prove true. Surly there must be something. Anything. And if an event like this would occur, what would be the reaction of creationists? Would they discard evidence to affirm their stance in exchange for not being openly hypocrites? Any thoughts?

Creationists reject the very premise of radiometric dating so I don't think confirming Biblical dates with archaeological artifacts would matter much either way- they'll embrace those dates which conform to their assumptions and reject those that don't and ignore any scientific methods of dating.

Carbon 14 tests have been well established as accurate since Libby tested 3rd Dynasty Egyptian acacia wood and the dates matched with well preserved historical records. AMS dating further confirmed the accuracy, as did comparing the results to dendrochronlogical data, ESR to date teeth, AAR for bones, uranium-thorium dating, thermoluminesence to test potsherds, and obsidian hydration (my fave ). The abundance of evidence to support the validity and usefulness of radiomentric dating is well established, so I'm dubious that any creationists would be swayed.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The creationists position is the world came into existence about 6,000 years ago and about 4,000 years ago there was a world wide flood that affected the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the pre-flood forests could have diluted the buildup of carbon. (catastrophism) We don't know what the carbon was like right after the beginning of the world.

what is your explanation of dinosaurs?

lies planted by satan to fool science?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

If you have any evidence for a world wide flood at any time present it.

And reciting your favorite myth is not evidence of anything but that you believe it.

 

[MSizer]

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

That statement, from 1977 has been long discredited by the fact that every form of dating would have to have been skewed by the same ratio simultaneously. Isn't it ironic that creationists fight agains "scientists" tooth and nail until we get to odd one who is mistaken, in which case he becomes the most highly quoted scientist in the creation circle? Even long after the claim has been exposed as false (which the creationists don't bother to mention).

 

[Kerr]

Carbon dating is probably correct up to a point of about 3,500 to 4,000 years ago. What I understand about the evolutionary position is the assumption is made that the world has been pretty much stable since it came into existence billions of years ago, (uniformatarianism). The creationists position is the world came into existence about 6,000 years ago and about 4,000 years ago there was a world wide flood that affected the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the pre-flood forests could have diluted the buildup of carbon. (catastrophism) We don't know what the carbon was like right after the beginning of the world.

Below is a picture that helps explain the controversy. The red line is the assumption by evolutionists and the blue line is the assumption by creationists.

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

Which is where I ask for proof that a world wide flood occured.

 

[Nepenthe]

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

I can't see your chart from work as images are blocked, but the Stansfield quote mining is yet another example of a standard creationist lie, distortion or just plain ignorance.

"The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to
geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation
supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution. The
flaws in radiometric dating methods are considered by creationists to
be sufficient justification for denying their use as evidence against
the young earth theory." from The Science of Evolution, pg 84.​

Stansfield was not a creationist and didn't deny radiometric dating methods; in the mined quote he's specifically discussing the problems with uranium to lead decay dating for testing samples that are billions of years old. On top of that, creationists use a quote that is 35 years old. Dating techniques have made some advances in accuracy over the last 3.5 decades.

 

[Man of Faith]

what is your explanation of dinosaurs?

lies planted by satan to fool science?

This post is about carbon dating, however we have dinosaur DNA which is evidence that they are younger than originally thought.

 

[MSizer]

I can't see your chart from work as images are blocked, but the Stansfield quote mining is yet another example of a standard creationist lie, distortion or just plain ignorance.

"The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to
geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation
supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution. The
flaws in radiometric dating methods are considered by creationists to
be sufficient justification for denying their use as evidence against​

the young earth theory." from The Science of Evolution, pg 84

​

.​

Stansfield was not a creationist and didn't deny radiometric dating methods; in the mined quote he's specifically discussing the problems with uranium to lead decay dating for testing samples that are billions of years old. On top of that, creationists use a quote that is 35 years old. Dating techniques have made some advances in accuracy over the last 3.5 decades.

But Nepenthe, if this is true, then we'd have to consider the highly improbable phenomenon of intentional deceit by the creationists. I mean com on, are you prepared to state that those who try to force the creation story upon innocent impressionable children have a history of resorting to premeditated dissemination of misinformation? Surely that couldn't be so, could it? How could good god fearing people like that possibly be responsible for such long term unethical behaviour? Nepenthe, give your head a shake and consider the implications of what you're saying here.

​

 

[Man of Faith]

If you have any evidence for a world wide flood at any time present it.

And reciting your favorite myth is not evidence of anything but that you believe it.

This post is about radiometric dating, however ask and it shall be given. That is Biblical. The geological record is consistent with a world wide flood by the massive fossil graveyards, huge sedimentary deposits, vast coal and oil fields and chalk deposits.

 

[Man of Faith]

That statement, from 1977 has been long discredited by the fact that every form of dating would have to have been skewed by the same ratio simultaneously. Isn't it ironic that creationists fight agains "scientists" tooth and nail until we get to odd one who is mistaken, in which case he becomes the most highly quoted scientist in the creation circle? Even long after the claim has been exposed as false (which the creationists don't bother to mention).

We can't help it when a scientist slips up and admits a truth.

 

[Man of Faith]

Which is where I ask for proof that a world wide flood occured.

Give me proof the Big Bang occured.

 

[Tiapan]

Carbon dating is probably correct up to a point of about 3,500 to 4,000 years ago. What I understand about the evolutionary position is the assumption is made that the world has been pretty much stable since it came into existence billions of years ago, (uniformatarianism). The creationists position is the world came into existence about 6,000 years ago and about 4,000 years ago there was a world wide flood that affected the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the pre-flood forests could have diluted the buildup of carbon. (catastrophism) We don't know what the carbon was like right after the beginning of the world.

Below is a picture that helps explain the controversy. The red line is the assumption by evolutionists and the blue line is the assumption by creationists.

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

thank you for bringing this up.

It is wrong

It is not a matter of whether there was more or less carbon, the point is the ratio of C12/ 13 /14 population which changes extremely predictably over time and no GOD has juristiction over physics. end of story.
Physics is the Law that God MUST operate with in to be actually real.


Cheers

 

[Man of Faith]

I can't see your chart from work as images are blocked, but the Stansfield quote mining is yet another example of a standard creationist lie, distortion or just plain ignorance.

"The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to
geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation
supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution. The
flaws in radiometric dating methods are considered by creationists to
be sufficient justification for denying their use as evidence against​

the young earth theory." from The Science of Evolution, pg 84

.

Stansfield was not a creationist and didn't deny radiometric dating methods; in the mined quote he's specifically discussing the problems with uranium to lead decay dating for testing samples that are billions of years old. On top of that, creationists use a quote that is 35 years old. Dating techniques have made some advances in accuracy over the last 3.5 decades.​

My position is there is nothing wrong with quote mining as long as you don't distort or change what the person was trying to convey.
​

 

[Kerr]

Give me proof the Big Bang occured.

Answer the question.

 

[Nepenthe]

This post is about carbon dating, however we have dinosaur DNA which shows them to be younger than originally thought.

Oh wow... please provide a non-creationist link to said "dinosaur DNA which shows them to be younger than originally thought."

That'd be really nifty if you did.

 

[Man of Faith]

thank you for bringing this up.

It is wrong

It is not a matter of whether there was more or less carbon, the point is the ratio of C12/ 13 /14 population which changes extremely predictably over time and no GOD hasS juristicion over physics. end of story.

Cheers

More or less carbon will affect the ratio.