Slashdot Mirror

Except that nothing makes sense in biology except in light of evolution. Therefore all biologists are evolutionists. They're probably also all cell theoryists, germ theoryists, gravitationalists, atomists, plate techtonicists....and I note that your stance on radiocarbon dating is both a) wrong and b) an unsupported assertion. Why don't you read up on it before disparaging something that you are ignorant of?

You may be a troll, but this has been interesting. I learned a few things about C14 dating that I can use the next time I run into a young-Earthers in real life. For example, carbon dating is only effective to about 60,000 years at best, so anyone who talks about carbon dating and dinosaurs in the same context can automatically be dismissed as an idiot. I'm interested to know where you actually think the theory of carbon dating breaks down. I bet you can't do any better than demanding a very specific test be performed, and then claiming the whole theory is invalid if it hasn't or can't be cited. I challenge you to learn how C14 dating is believed to work, and tell me where you think the theory is wrong. I doubt you have the slightest idea; you just repeat nonsense you heard at Bible Study or on talk radio.

And since we're on the Internet, I think it's rather ludicrous to talk about betting money to settle a scientific dispute. (It would be ludicrous in any context, actually.) But it makes you feel any better, I wager ten zillion dollars that I'm right!

Here are some interesting links that tell more about how carbon dating works. The link you posted is just creationist talk and not even the best of its kind. You need to know more about the intrinsics of the method before you can judge the scientific merit.

science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

www.c14dating.com/int.html

Is there room to do science without having any theory of the earth's (and universe's) origin?

Umm nope, any science done in ignorance (intentional or otherwise) or conditions preceding any experiments is bad science to say the least.

As to the age of lake, this is basically a very well educated guess, by taking core samples of the ice above and determining rate of ice growth or shrinkage and comparing against data from the same period, a guess can be made. If you want to check out info on carbon dating go here or for ice core dating try here.

It wouldn't be carbon dating. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years, so after ~6000 years, it's got about 1/1000th of what was originally there (which is rather low to begin with). After that, I'm guessing that there's just too little to get reliable statistics from (perhaps noise from other decay sequences??).
Besides the problem of the (relatively) short half-life of Carbon14, the fossilization process leaches most of the carbon out of the body anyways-- so there is (almost) no carbon to date. Even if it didn't 1/2^(77million/5700) => 1/(2e4066). In other words, if you started with a chunk of carbon14 the size of Jupiter, you'd be lucky to find 2 atoms of carbon14 after 60million years of radioactive decay)

There's a nice intro to carbon dating at howstuffworks.com, with even more data at c14dating.com. They mention that you can use carbon-14 style radioisotape dating with isotopes that have a longer halflife than carbon 14. These are the methods are what are used to date older rocks.

The reason why carbon 14 isn't useful for recent items is the nuclear age. In the early years of the nuclear age, the US and later 'nuclear club' members did atmospheric nuke tests that completely messed up (read: randomized) the isotope ratios for everything that's died since the late '40s. Cherbonyl didn't help much, either. Anything earlier than that (and recent enough that there's a statistically valid percentage of C14 left in the body) is a good candidate for Carbon dating.

Prior to nuclear fallout, the primary source of Carbon14 was atmospheric Nitrogen being bombarded by cosmic rays.

However, it should be noted that time and again Carbon Dating has been proven wildely innacurate for recent dates (of which 6000 is). I certainly think that a salt water environment could effect these small time frame innacuracies.

PK
Where are we going.... and why are we in this handbasket?