Carbon 14

Discussion in 'Faith and Religion' started by OldDude49, May 22, 2017.

  1. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    an opinion piece on that method of measuring...

    "The Carbon 14 dating method measures the amount of the radioactive Carbon 14 isotope in organic material and, by comparing it with modern levels of Carbon 14, produces an age based on the radioactive decay of Carbon 14. This dating method is assumed to be good for 40,000 years, and produces very old dates for archaeological sites. However, it also produces dates which clash with historical dates derived both from Biblical information and other historical and archaeological sources.

    Inaccurate Carbon 14 dating arises because Carbon 14 levels vary with Earth's temperature, being high in warm periods and low in cold periods. As a result, the current levels of Carbon 14 are much higher than past levels of Carbon 14, and this produces a much earlier date measurement than the actual date. Based on more accurate data about past Carbon 14 levels, one scientist documented 15,000 findings and found that none were over 7,000 years old, and that many were about 4,500 years old, the date of the worldwide catastrophe we call Noah's Flood. Thus, for example, an American Indian artifact claimed to be over 11,000 years old may really be only 3,000 years old.

    Now archaeologists are joining in the criticism of the Carbon 14 dating system. At a recent meeting, a noted archaeologist observed that "In some circles it has been a crime to cast doubt on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating." Nevertheless, this scientist showed conclusively that radiocarbon levels fluctuate from season to season and vary with location, providing erroneous age readings. When added to historical fluctuations in Carbon 14 levels, the whole Carbon 14 dating method becomes very suspect."

    Call to Prayer: Breaking Satan's Stronghold in Archaeology
    Legion489 and UncleMorgan like this.
  2. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I like peeling bananas and (occasionally) people.

    I love it.

    Almost everything we think we know about history, almost everything we are certain is absolute fact, is pure bunk.

    Most people think the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg. Nope. Never happened. And that was, historically speaking, just yesterday.

    History is written by liars, and the truth is adjusted to suit the needs of those in power. And that includes the fat cats in academia.
    Sgt Nambu likes this.
  3. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Sadly that also applies to 'some' fat cat theistic evangelists and apologists....:(
    UncleMorgan likes this.
  4. oil pan 4

    oil pan 4 Monkey+++

    The problem with history is its automatically assumed everything will always fit nicely into what ever block its supposed to.
    These assumptions and bias are very bad for the scientific method. It causes history changing discoveries to be ignored or be forced into their period correct block of time.
    UncleMorgan likes this.
  5. AxesAreBetter

    AxesAreBetter Monkey+++

    How did the Titanic go down??
    UncleMorgan likes this.
  6. Meat

    Meat Monkey+++

    Wait. I'm confused. Folks actually believe the earth's age is accurately represented in the Bible? Tell me nah. [afro]
    chelloveck and UncleMorgan like this.
  7. oil pan 4

    oil pan 4 Monkey+++

    Hopefully only your hard core bible thumpers.
    UncleMorgan likes this.
  8. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I like peeling bananas and (occasionally) people.

    She didn't.

    JP Morgan was facing the collapse of the White Star Line because the Titanic's sister ship Olympic had been so badly damaged by a collision with the HMS Hawke that it could never pass sea trials after repair.

    Loss of the Olympic without the compensation of insurance would have ruined him.

    So he hatched a plan to commit an insurance fraud. He switched the ship's identities, and sent the Olympic out as the Titanic for a carefully planned "accident" that would fix all his financial problems right up.

    He had a rescue ship standing by because he didn't intend for anyone to die--he just wanted the fake Titanic to sink on cue.

    Unfortunately, the rendezvous for rescue didn't happen because the rescue ship was in the wrong position and couldn't see the "Titanic's" distress rockets.

    So 1500 people died, JP Morgan got away with it, and the Titanic finished out a distinguished career as the Olympic, and was eventually scrapped out when she became obsolete.

    It's a long and fascinating story. But don't take my word for it. Google it.

    The day will come when the name Olympic is found beneath the hastily riveted stern plates still on the wreck of the Titanic...

    Oh, wait. That's already happened...

    Conspiracy Theory Thursday — It Wasn't The Titanic That Sunk
    Last edited: May 23, 2017
    Legion489 likes this.
  9. Legion489

    Legion489 Rev. 2:19 Banned

    There are many famous cases were living trees, clams, etc., were carbon dated and found to be many 10s of thousands of years old. Same with all the "missing links" and other fossils. One "human tooth" that "proved" that there was a missing link, was actually a pig tooth.

    That isn't the only story of the Titanic either, look at who (or more accurately "what") the Captain was, who got on and off the Titanic to give the orders, well the list goes on and on, but to exposed the truth is to be attacked by fools.
  10. arleigh

    arleigh Goophy monkey

    Recent finds in the US have uncovered dinosaur prints with human foot prints in side them And also proven that just because things are found at certain levels down to prove any thing .
    Animals died spread all over the planet and died at different time and from different causes. The old "because i said so", doesn't fly any more, and false claims of time reference, because of depth found, are highly questionable .
    People that were so desperate to hold onto evolution and resist God have actually destroyed relevant fossils, to preserve their theory rather to admit they were wrong.
  11. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    A thing I find interesting about such is... the proof of the actual age has been shown to be... suspect...

    and the activities of some within said communities has been shown to be... suspect...

    too many SEEM to be trying really hard to make the evidence fit the... the current... doctrine...

    for me... I reserve judgment... the jury is still out... the evidence is still not fully examined...

    not sayin it is... not sayin it's not...

    sayin mankind has this tendency to try their damndist to MAKE things be what they THINK they SHOULD be...

    and ignore, or even scream down, ridicule and marginalize... most any important evidence to the contrary...

    of what they WANT to believe... and want others to believe...
  12. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus


    In the opening post, an article authored by Ron Allen was quoted, calling into question the usefulness of C14 dating as a useful means of dating archaeological sites. Although the referenced article is relatively brief, unfortunately unpacking, and discussing the claims embedded in the article, has required a somewhat longer responses than I would have preferred to have written. The advantage that the Gish Galloper (Ron Allen) has over his respondents, in that reading the respondent's reply is like to test the reader's boredom threshold, and the reader is likely to just zone out to the reply. I hope that you will persevere in favour of science instead of pious fibs.

    Before starting...please take a few minutes to learn about Carbon 14 and C14 radiometric testing.

    I have quoted OldDude49's OP in full, numerically referencing each of the discussion points, and then replying to each discussion point after the full OP quotation.

    1. Not quite right. As I understand it...Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope which decays at a predictable rate, with 50% of the original amount of Carbon 14 isotope decaying, while 100% of the stable Carbon 12 in the sample remains unchanged. The 'half life' of Carbon 14 being about 5,700 years (give or take a margin of statistical error).

    2. Partly right. A sample examined by using scientific radiometric testing protocols will usually arrive at an approximate age of the artefact tested, with a predicted upper and lower chronological range for the reading; together with the Degree of Confidence What is Degree of Confidence (DoC) | IGI Global quantum for that sampling. Would a sample of the One true cross that Christ was alleged to have been crucified, give a precise year date by Carbon 14 testing....well, would give an approximate chronological range, with a degree of confidence (DoC) expressed as a percentile.

    3. The expression "assumed to be good", is a good example of using loaded language to cast doubt upon Carbon 14 as a reliable form of testing for chronology, even before offering any evidence that carbon 14 dating may actually be 'unreliable'. Scientists acknowledge that Carbon 14 radiometric testing has upper and lower limits of usefulness for testing purposes, with the caveat that statistical 'degree of confidence levels' become lower as the extremes of those limits are approached.Radiocarbon Dating: A Closer Look At Its Main Flaws
    Refinements in technology may perhaps push those limits further out somewhat, with increases in DoC; However, there are alternative testing methods which can be used where Carbon 14 testing is not appropriate. The opinion piece fails to acknowledge that fact.

    4. This seems to indicate that the Ron Allen doesn't seem to actually know much about radiometric testing, nor archaeological / paleontological research methodology. But that's ok....he's relying on the uncritical acceptance of others, not to notice that. All that radiometric testing does is to predict the age of a given artefact. The chronology of the site at which the artefact is found is established by inference from all of the evidence that can be gleaned from the site by archaeologists / palaeontologists, of which Carbon 14 testing is just one of many evidential contributors.

    5. It's a pity that the Ron Allen didn't provide examples, together with appropriate citations, to support what is otherwise merely a bald assertion...but, perhaps, a bald assertion that may not be easily fact checked (and refuted) suits his purposes much better. (again, relying on the credulity and/or laziness of the uncritical to just accept the claim at face value).

    6. Is this an argument for the existence of global warming??? What scientists have established, is that atmospheric Carbon 14 has increased since the middle of the 19th century; and latterly in the mid 20th century due to atmospheric nuclear testing, increasing ionising radiation in the atmosphere. These affects are compensated for by the process of 'calibration'.
    Calibration of radiocarbon dates - Wikipedia

    7. Again, this is a known, and acknowledged phenomenon, though the use by the Ron Allen, of the modifier "much", is misleading. Radio 'Carbon Age' and 'Calendar Age' are the two axes on a radio carbon dating calibration curve graph that illustrates this difference. Calibration is used as a standard technique to arrive at a 'calendar age' from the 'carbon age' of the artefact being tested.

    8. Who is this scientist, and where is the citation to his scientific paper in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal.? Referring to some anonymous dude, doesn't imbue me with confidence that this person actually exists, let alone is any kind of authority on the subject.

    9. How was the figure of about 4,500 years ago (2,500BCE?) arrived at (in the linked article), for the date of the "world wide catastrophe" some refer to as the Biblical Noahide Flood? It is an odd date, given that the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Minoan, Mayan and Chinese civilisations were alive and thriving at that approximate time that this date for the Noahide global flood is attributed. What evidence (Apart from the Biblical Genesis account) do we have that such a world wide flood happened at all, as described in the Noahide narrative? What is the more likely...that the Noahide account reflects ancient myth and legend, or that such an actual historical event indeed did happen? The burden of proof is on the Biblical literalists / inerrantists, to substantiate the truth claim that the Genesis account was an actual historical event. Merely casting doubt on carbon 14 radiometric dating does not support the Genesis truth claim as a substantiated fact.

    10. Another truth claim, scarce on details. For instance, how does Ron Allen calculate the differential, or was the differential of 7,000 years just plucked out at random, ex culo? Is Ron Allen making a pious falsehood? Does Ron Allen have an actual example from real life that he can cite?...if so, why doesn't he reveal it, rather than just offering a hypothetical example? Surely a real world example drawn from reputable scientific research would make his case stronger?

    11. Who are these archaeologists? Where are their critical peer reviewed academic papers published? They would make fascinating reading, and would be worth fact checking....but, conveniently, these anonymous worthies are difficult to check without further details.

    12. At which meeting? Who claimed that it was a crime to cast doubt on the accuracy of Carbon 14 dating?(I mean to say, if the dude was such a "noted archaeologist", why isn't Ron Allen falling over himself to name drop the guy?) Who has been persecuted for criticising C14 accuracy? Where are the 'dead bodies' of C14 accuracy critics? ...Another ex culo claim?

    13. Where is the citation for this anonymous ' scientist's ' claim? The article gives the impression that these would be bold claims to have been made by the referenced anonymous scientist, suggesting some controversy, but the scientific literature quite clearly recognises the limitations of C14 as a chronological dating tool. The anonymous scientist's dramatic revelation, arguably, is little more than a religious 'straw man' dressed in a lab coat. The scientific literature also recognises the refinements since the 1940's in technology and investigative methodology which have enabled scientists and archaeologists to make more accurate, and reliable predictions than might have been the case in the earlier days of Carbon 14 radiometric dating research.

    14. The the nub of the to encourage the reader to reject C14 dating as a reputable chronological investigative least to the extent of preserving New Earth (NE) Creationist chronology as a satisfactory method of explaining events described in the Christian Biblical Testaments. To achieve this objective, the author is quite prepared to discard science on the altar of religious dogma...perhaps hoping that scientific illiteracy, and indolence might discourage believers from doubting some of their religious beliefs, and encouraging believers to discount science as a method of discovering reality. The article is not written for a sceptical audience, but for a credulous audience reliant on unquestioning faith.

    My recommendation is to do your own research, and dig deeper into the actual science of radiometric chronology...
    than to feast upon the red herrings, straw men, and other fallacious distractions Ron Allen has put forward for your delectation.

    Further references relating to C14 radiometric dating:
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
    Dunerunner and AxesAreBetter like this.
  13. oil pan 4

    oil pan 4 Monkey+++

    The samples could always be contaminated too. Which would make them appear younger.
  14. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Samples contaminated in situ, or in the lab could alter results, which is why protocols are put in place to minimise the impact on samples which are, or could possibly become contaminated.

    Pretreatment and Contamination
    Carbon 14: Contamination
    The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls II: Empirical Methods to Remove Castor Oil and Suggestions for Redating | Rasmussen | Radiocarbon
    Is it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 is found in materials dated to millions of years old?
    Improved radiocarbon dating for contaminated archaeological bone collagen, silk, wool and hair samples via cross-flow nanofiltrated amino acids. - PubMed - NCBI

    I think the argument from New Earth Creationists would be that contaminated samples would tend to make the samples appear older than they may actually be, because Carbon 14 had been added to the sample that hadn't been a part of the original sample formation. The thing is, C14 radiometric dating, isn't the only arrow in the radiometric dating quiver....there are other radioactive isotopes that are not affected by atmospheric pollution, or increased rates of ionisation due to atmospheric nuclear testing.

    Radioactive dating - Australian Museum
    Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  15. arleigh

    arleigh Goophy monkey

    Do you agree that the earth has been hit by significant astroids ? hence the dinosaur die off .
    I put to you that the earth spun 10 times faster, before the cosmic strike than it does today.
    It accounts for a great many things.
    The contrast of the 2 speeds would be devastating and so it was .
    If you took a clock like the old ones, that ran off of AC 60 cycle, and say took it to mexico which runs on 50 cycle AC power what would happen. now take it a step further and attempt to run the clock on 12 cycle AC . trying to estimate the correct age of the clock would be impossible, not knowing when or how much change had occurred..
    I believe that the changed exposure level to the sun has made it more challanging to estimate earth's age .
    Fact- earth quake and tsunami in Indonesia several years ago, effected the earths rotation , so did the event in Fukushima 10 years later.
    Fractional, never the less there are real changes as a result.
  16. Meat

    Meat Monkey+++

    The Shroud is Jesus no matter what the tests say. :cool:
    chelloveck likes this.
  17. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Methinks you're doing a little mischievous trolling ;) Even the Catholic Church has an enigmatic attitude as to whether or not the Shroud is genuine or a pious fraud...of the neither confirm nor deny kind...I think they aren't much concerned either way, if it leads believers to their particular flavour of Jesus belief.

    Pope Francis and the Shroud of Turin
    The Holy Shroud (of Turin) - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online
  18. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    I think that you were referring to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii aka 'Nebraska Man'. . It should be noted that although the tooth, discovered in 1922 had inspired the noted palaeontologist, Dr Henry Fairfield Osborne et al, to put forward the hypothesis that the tooth belonged to a hominid species, further investigation in 1925 demonstrated that it belonged in fact belonged to an Prosthennops serus. an ancient form of peccary. By 1927 the identification of the tooth as belonging to a hominid was formally retracted in Dec 1927 via a scholarly article published in the scholarly journal 'Science'. HESPEROPITHECUS APPARENTLY NOT AN APE NOR A MAN | Science

    The hypothesis that the tooth belonged to a hominid never gained any significant scientific support around the time of its investigation by Osborne, but did, generate many decades later, confected controversy whipped up by creationist apologists.

    (emphasis by chello)

    A further interesting discussion around the 'Nebraska man' discovery can be explored at The Role of "Nebraska Man" in the Creation-Evolution Debate | NCSE

    Unlike the 'Piltdown Man', the 'Nebraska Man' was a miss-identification, rather than a deliberate hoax; other scientists falsified Osborne's 'hominid' hypothesis, the artefact was correctly identified, and the discipline of palaeontology moved on. Unlike un-falsifiable theological truth claims, which are never repealed, but kept on the books, so to speak, in all their un-redacted glory.
    Meat likes this.
  19. Legion489

    Legion489 Rev. 2:19 Banned

    I would be more impressed it they checked the tooth BEFORE claiming it was human instead of after.

    Well speaking of still being on the books, go look at most any of the college biology text books and they still have the set of drawings with the human fetus looking like a fish with gills, etc., which was proven false and discredited, what, 50 years ago?

    How about raccoons not have salutatory glands? Put forth about 1900 to explain why they "wash" their food, it wasn't until a couple years back someone wondered about it and checked. Sure enough raccoons can work up a spit if they want to. Maybe not the froth some here are able to come up with of course, but able to none the less.
  20. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    The actual point here is... science can and often has been WRONG!

    and some of those wrong things have been MAJOR!

    just how long have we known about radiation?

    not long in the scheme of things... what... about 2 or 300 years?

    yet science says it knows all about it?

    says it does this or does that because they kept an eye on it for all those years...

    just because it has done something during the time it was observed means what? It has always been so?

    has to be cause someone told you it was so? Ya right...

    or is it more that some think science knows all about it... as well as other things...?

    eggs are bad for you... no wait... ooops... salt is bad for you... no wait... ooppssss

    I have this to say to the folks that WORSHIP at the alter of science... BULL!

    science is a METHOD of looking at things and those doing the looking are human and prone to error!

    thus we have a claim that this thing or that thing is yadda yadda yadda... then sometimes years later we have... OOOPSSSS!

    everything is the opposite or nearly so... of what we used to believe... so... BULL!
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary