Slashdot Mirror
Questioning C-14 Dating
Malicose writes: "According to this article on PhysicsWeb, the reliability of carbon dating could be (even more) questionable (than previously thought). The reported study, which revolves around 11,000 to 45,000 year-old Bahaman stalagmites, could impact 'estimates of how quickly the Earth can re-absorb the excess carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels.' Tests on these calcium carbonate samples revealed carbon-14 levels double their modern level during that time and extends the records of atmospheric C-14 levels some 30,000 years. Project leader and physicist Warren Beck of the University of Arizona believes 'we should take this as a warning that climate change may affect the carbon cycle in previously unexpected way.'"
In short, dating methods are nowhere near as questionable as you think. See "The Age of the Earth: How do we know it?", "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale", "Isochron Dating Methods", "Dating with Icecores" and so on.
Is it just me, or did they tack on a vague unexplained wanring about "climate change" just to get government grant money? The rest of the article describes an unexplained jump in C-14 levels (whether the level of all carbon or the ratio of C-14 rose is not stated explicitly) between 10k and 45k years ago, along with the implications for radiological dating. But nowhere is it described what, if anything, this tells us about the climate at that time (hint: it was DAMN cold) or what affect climate has on C-14 levels. One possible explanation could be that the oceans absorbed less carbon in total because they were much colder than today. But that would not really explain why C-12 would have been absorbed preferentially, or why there was an excess of C-14 to begin with. While there might be a lot of interesting things to consider about this mystery, the vague warning about "climate change" is junk science at its worst. The basic translation of the article is: "There was a lot of C-14 around a long time ago and we don't know why. Stop driving your car." When are scientists going to start doing science again?
Just like there's absolutely no way that light can travel through a vacuum or that planets besides the six known ones exist or that the galaxy Earth is part of is not the only one? Scientific "facts" are subject to change; the larger the scope of the "fact," the larger and more frequent changes will be. Basing a statement of absolute fact such as yours on a large number of current assumptions is foolish. While it appears that the lower bounds on Earth's age can be safely fixed above 450M years using several apparently reliable methods, the upper bound is much more difficult.
the universe isn't even nearly that old!
The age of the universe has not even been estimated with any accuracy. Current estimates range from 7-9B years to double that, and goings-on near to the time when the universe came into existence (by whatever method) are almost completely unknown; many apparently viable hypotheses exist but none explains fully the observations we make today. The only statement which can be made reliably is that the universe is not less old than Earth, although it's even conceivable that this statement is false as well depending on your definition of Universe.
Realy? I have never been there so I wouldn't know. Those yanks
who yack on the media seam prety polerised on this topic.
Yeah. still debateble as to what came from what. Serch Napster
for "The monkey speaks his mind".
Realy? I always thoght it was found in the 1870s.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Just ask Jack Chick, everyone knows the world is only 6000 years old so any carbon dating that says it's older is obviously wrong.
--
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
Ah, yes, it all becomes clear now. At least four orders of magnitude in error is ``100% reliable''.
So... I've got a real nice bridge here, hardly used, previous owner (a little old lady) only ever drove over it on Sundays(*); it's got a good, steady revenue stream from the tollgates; no liability for suicides; magnificent outlook; as pictured on millions of postcards; easy terms available. Interested?
No wonder this coward is anonymous!
(*) on her way to the races
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
A Kuhnian scientific revolution this was not; ethical conclusions and implications were the main issue, not the breakdown of prior paradigms.
For that matter, Kuhn would probably be a good read for you - if you think science actually accepts the best theory to fit the facts in all but the most extraordinary situations, you could use a good shot of historic realism :-)
What we must be wary of is the assumption that scientific and objective truth are the same thing, that is, the assumption that scientific truth is exhaustive of objective truth; I always find it curious that there are "scientists" who pride themselves on making "as few assumptions as possible", and yet they base the entirety of their knowledge system upon this rather glaring leap of faith.
Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with this assumption - it's a paradigm, and it produces a moderately coherent body of knowledge. But make no mistake, it is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable assumption.
This is the isotope carbon-14, not a 14 carbon hydrocarbon. Nice try.
I am always offended to see sensationalist
headlines which take a science article
(which in this case is merely a refinement
of our knowledge about C-14 dating) and use
it as an excuse to act like the basis of
modern science is crumbling.
With science and rationalism under attack by
the powers of darkness in this country you
needs demonstrate better judgement! Too many
ignorant people use the lay press in their
campaign to keep the masses blind about
science, the scientific process, and attack
with non sequiters, misinformation and special
pleadings the real and firm bases for our
understanding of physics, geology and biology.
This article does NOT undermine the C-14 dating
process. A more apt title would have been
"Scientists refine accuracy of C-14 dating"
which is what they have in fact done.
"Religion encourage blind faith, which is lulls the mind and stops the critical thinking process."
As a Christian, I take exception to this idea. We have such short memories.
We must have forgotten that many major breakthroughs in science were discovered by Christians.
Think of Galileo, Pascal, Kepler, and many many more who used scientific principles and thought to bring glory to the God they worship.
Science has as its basis the concept of reasonable thought - an ordered universe. This is entirely consistent with a Christian worldview.
BTW - If we're here as a result of random processes, how can you say that your thoughts are ordered?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
"Natural selection is not random"
Umm. Did I assert that it is? The subject reads "Creationists" not "people opposing natural selection." I don't dismiss natural selection. It's an observable, repeatable process. Macro-evolution, on the other hand.....
"How do you know?"
For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him might have eternal life.
John 3:16
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:6,7,8
He does love you. He has your number, and His messengers. Consider this a ringing telephone, an email hitting your inbox, or a doorbell resounding.
I'm not God, just one of His millions of messengers - people following the commandment to go throough all of the world proclaiming Him. Slashdot just happens to be on my "delivery route."
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
From the FAQ
"""
There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993). Their abstract concludes with:
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for at least a decade longer than that), the "moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:
"""
--
Poliglut
Mmmm. I wonder what would happen if you submitted a paper on, say, genetics, to a scientific journal, and in it cited another paper several centuries old in order to make a controversial point. I fear the new must supercede the old in science.
> "Prejudices based on current scientific theory act as a "knowledge filter," giving us a picture of prehistory that is largely incorrect."
What peer review actually does is endow science with a sort of 'inertia' that keeps it from turning aside at every claim every loonie makes. Sure, that raises the bar and makes people who discover something truly new have to work a bit harder to get their claims accepted, but the benefits of the system outweigh the disadvantages by many orders of magnitude.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892132949
From one of the reviews posted on that page:This is nice, too:And Flynn is a prominent paleontologist? Archaeologist? Anthropologist? No, sociologist.
Also revealing:> If you want to learn more about cristianity: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862044724
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Modern genetics
Modern genetics supports evolution.
> lack of fossil evidence supporting evolution
There is an amazing amount of fossil evidence for evolution.
> cosmology
Irrelevant to the verity of evolution, unless you want to make ludicrous claims about the age of the universe.
> statistical look into the chance of life forming from a Big Bang
The big bang part is also irrelevant cosmology, and you didn't even bother to give us some made-up statistics, let alone some valid ones.
> etc, etc, etc.
The word "etc" does not bear much weight in science. You either have the evidence or you don't.
You don't.
If that your single most airtight disproof of evolution, evolution can coast now.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Yes, as always, the things scientists are so definately sure about (and use to prove other theories) turn out to be wrong. Just wait till we find out that man lived before and during dinosaurs, and that the most renound prehistoric fossils and cave paintings are just a few hundred years old.
Sounds typical indeed. Perhaps you were not aware that:
a) it is extremely rare that scientists, other than mathematicians, ever "prove" anything, or claim to do so, and
b) science is self-correcting by nature.
ps - A google on "scientific method" turns up 147,000 hits. Maybe you'll find one or two of them useful.
Feeding the Slashdot trolls since 1999 (or thereabouts).
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> It's worth noting that intuition tells us that the sun goes around the Earth.
Of course our intuition tells us that. Did you expect it to lead us astray or something?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you think that C-14 has anything to do with evolutionist or creationist theories, your private school isn't nearly as good as you think it was. Evolution deals on far larger time scales than C-14 can reach, usually using isotopes of minerals, such as uranium, potassium, etc.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
You're both kind of missing the point (but don't feel bad, religions long claimed knowledge of first origins (some still do) and one branch of science - Cosmology - puzzles over the mystery of creation with the jury still out (and likely to remain so forever) so questions remain.
A good view doesn't pit science and religion against each other - it's not an either/or issue (Kansas Board of Education notwithstanding). Look, science is a _method_ not a set of beliefs. Religion is a socio-political construct - and I don't care _which_ religion one might choose, they're all the same in this very fundamental way. BTW - the separation of Church and State is a Very Good Thing in the US.
Religion is all about telling the mass population what to believe along the way to influencing how they _behave_. Everyone has to believe _something_, even if it's that they don't know what they believe (but that's a precarious state, not at all recommended for folks who get up and go to work every day, care for their families, etc.). But religion is mostly ethics in drag - fairie tales with moral points, plus some do's and don'ts (the 10 Commandments in Christianity, other rules in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.). Some of the rules are practical (not eating pork avoids trichinosis), pragmatic (not seducing one's neighbor's wife promotes civil peace, not to mention personal longevity), or simply self-reinforcing ("Thou shalt have no other God before me, sayeth the Lord." - well of course, what else would you expect the priests to say?). But mostly, religion is about ethics - how to act: care for your parents, love your spouse, raise the kids, help neighbors, deal fairly in business - all the stuff that _should_ be automatic for any rational person but that people somehow need reminding about.
Religion is also a social mileau in communities - hitch-hike into Salt Lake City and go to a Mormon church, let them know that you need work, you'll find a job - do the same without going to church, you'll be on welfare before you find a job at McDonalds. One might surmise that similar conditions govern life in Tel Aviv and Tehran (except those countries don't have US model immigration and unemployment safety-nets, so one might actually starve there first, unless luckily deported). But the point is religion is a venue for positive social interaction. Go to any place in the Third World without money or highly marketable skills (drug-dealing, gun-running, pimping), and avoid the local churches, and you'll soon wish you'd robbed a bank in the US and gone to a nice clean, warm, and dry prison instead.
Enough said - I've likely offended some Mormans, Israilies, Iranians, and perhaps others, all in one post - so I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Uh, er...
/can't/ use the isochron method to date once living material, which is what C14 is good for.
They weren't dating organic stuff directly (which is what you want to do with C14-dating, since it's produced continuously in the atmosphere (more or less constitutively, but that's what's being drawn into question here)) but had found some stalagtites thought to've formed during a certain period (through use of other means than C14-dating, presumably) that had more C14 than is expected to be found in mineral.
What they are claiming is some climatic event may have caused a bumper crop of organic slough, or something like that.
They weren't dating the stalagtites by C14, strictly speaking.
And you
So one wonders what you are talking about.
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
False dichotomy.
You assume that either your God or no god exists. Personally, I believe in ZZQRE, a God who hates all evangelicals and consigns them to listen to Amy Grant music for all eternity while showering scientists and others who used their ZZQRE-given minds with wonders.
Evidence for ZZQRE? About the same as for the Christian God.
Sure, I'm being satiric, but there are plenty of other belief systems out there besides yours.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Other than as a curiosity specific to the dating or organic matter and archaelogical finds, this is irrelevant. Serious dating is performed with the Isochron method.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
You could always go read some of their literature for yourself and find out that they're not lunatics, they just have different points of reference. Ooops, that would require an open mind.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The level of entropy in scientific study is something that a lot of people seem unaware of these days.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
They don't post as AC's :-)
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
> expecting everyone to double check every piece of information themselves is not what you should expect.
If a person reads the bible, and believe it, they should apply the principles contained within, e.g. "prove all things" (Thes 5:21) comes to mind.
> The Bible should have been written better.
I agree. It was written by men, and contains mistakes.
> Now why don't you go and put more effort in that?
I'm not qualified to.
> Read the Bible, it says so right there.
*sigh*
I'm tired of people that can't even be bothered to *read* the orginal Hebrew and double check the translation. Gen 1:2 uses the Hebrew word "hayah" which means "became". It is used in over 600 places in the Old Covenant.
Next time, use proper exegisis instead of taking the words at literal value.
Good explaination of the hebrew words:
http://members.nbci.com/doulos/howold_earth.html
Gap Theory:
http://pages.prodigy.net/oweber/gapq.htm
Post #37 is an anti-creationist post that isn't even a reply? Talk about some high level CSICOP paranoia.
So, if you have a very big eruption, say a magnitude 7, roughly every 10 000 years from a certain volcano, if you find ten ash layers from eruptions of that size it is not very unreasonable to think that the oldest one is ~1 million years old.
Oops, that should be ~100 000 years of course.
/Dervak
Ok Creationists, you can all sit down right now. This is not the proof that C-14 is wrong. The Earth is not 6000 years old. This is just a minor bug modifying the upper half of the C-14 dating scale somewhat.
If by any chance you listen to logical arguments there are lots of very good reasons why the Earth must be a lot older than old Bishop Usher thought. Even if you dismiss all radiometric dating as somehow unreliable - not only C-14 but Potassium-Argon and the others too - there are still other methods by which we can see that the Earth must be vastly much more old than the Bible says.
For instance, sedimentation takes time.
One example is clay layers in the deep ocean basins. Tiny clay grains that have come from rivers slowly settle in the still waters of the ocean basins. The beds generally grow less than 0.1 mm in thickness per year, and the clay beds may be many kilometers thick - this gives an age of many tens to perhaps more than a hundred million years.
Now, many creationists will say that most of that clay was deposited much faster during the supposed Flood. But that won't work - you see, clay will not sediment at all if it isn't very calm and it always does it very slowly. Also, the thickness of the beds increase linearly away from the mid-ocean spreading ridges, in perfect agreement with the slow (1-10 cm/year) seafloor spreading. The same principle of slow sedimentation also applies to large river deltas, which may be many km thick too.
Erosion and weathering also takes time.
A typical valley glacier erodes its bed and sides with roughly 1 mm/year, and the U-valleys can be many km deep. Rivers slowly eat their way down into the rock - how long does it take to wear a mountain range down? How long does it take for chemical weathering to slowly eat its way down to hundreds of m of depth in the very bedrock?
Volcanoes ash layers are another way of dating. The exact date you get from other methods, like historical accounts, C-14, ice cores etc. - but relative dating is very easy, which ash layer is above the other? There is an approximate power-law for volcanic eruptions; the larger the longer the interval between. So, if you have a very big eruption, say a magnitude 7, roughly every 10 000 years from a certain volcano, if you find ten ash layers from eruptions of that size it is not very unreasonable to think that the oldest one is ~1 million years old.
Now, of course eruptions can come closer in time to each other, the period isn't totally fixed, but if, say, two eruptions were close to each other in time you can tell, because then there will be no fully developed earth horizon on the lower layer. It takes thousands of years for chemical weathering, leaching and nutrient uptake by plants to form a mature earth horizon.
All these maethods say is that the Earth must be at least a few hundred million years old, probably older. To get the 4.8 billion years number you will have to use radiometric dating, but there is something else supporting that too.
Theoretical models of the evolution of stars say that the sun is roughly 5 billion years old, and is is reasonable to assume that the Earth formed roughly the same time.
So, in the end the 4.8 billion year value seems quite certain. It is possible future research will find out that it really is 4.7 or 4.9, but the overall picture is clear, no matter what creationist Bible-thumpers say.
/Dervak
I often question why I date carbons. Especially C-14. I mean, if she were ever to miss 10 molecules, I'd be in a terrible mess, trying to explain why my date just blew half the diner up.
Ahh, the pains of dating compounds...
-Aaron
The article talks about the very old dates being affected (like 50,000 yo) No scientist aware of the limitations of the method would quote dates older than 30k yo without further verification. Typically these are backed up by further methods such as thermo-luminesence, and stratification.
Ah. The old mis-represent the data trick. Hawaiian lava dated as ancient is pure urban legend by the creationists, snails (all aquatic animals actually) don't get the carbon in their bodies directly from the atmosphere (and so can't be carbon dated), and as for trees, I'll need details before we can debunk you on them (I'm reasonably confident since you have already had two strikes, you will round it out with a third).
The article states that the issue is that C-14 levels were higher than expected for various ranges of dates. This implies that if you were to carbon date things from those date ranges, they would appear younger (have more C-14 than expected) than their true age. And it scarcely casts doubt on C-14 dating. What it actually does is calibrate it better by telling you its range of validity.
That's why I'm always rather leary of basing any of the evolutionists or creationists theories on just how old something is based on the C-14 method. Chalk this 'news-worthy' item up to a poor American educational system, because it's not news to me.
Now we'll never know how old Strom Thurmond really is...