Slashdot Mirror
Research Finds Carbon Dating Flawed
eldavojohn writes "New research funded by the National Science Foundation at the University of Miami is showing that carbon dating (the 13C/12C ratio used to infer age) in the ocean can only be trusted up to 150 million years ago. From the primary researcher, 'This study is a major step in terms of rethinking how geologists interpret variations in the 13C/12C ratio throughout Earth's history. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods? As a consequence of our findings, changes in 13C/12C records need to be reevaluated, conclusions regarding changes in the reservoirs of carbon will have to be reassessed, and some of the widely-held ideas regarding the elevation of CO2 during specific periods of the Earth's geological history will have to be adjusted.' While this research doesn't necessarily throw carbon dating out the window, it should cause people to rethink so many theories about early life that revolved around ages of sediment in the oceans."
Is frustrating, oh no its only accurate for 150million years. JUST WAIT for the ID people to jump all over this and start with the whole dinosaurs didnt exist, invisible man made everything 5000years ago. *sighs* these people live in my neighborhood and are going to harass me with their ignorance again.
Anyone who uses any form of radiometric dating knows that there are limits to the accuracy. The fact that a new limit was discovered doesn't make the technique "flawed", though I will grant that it may call for re-evaluation of some results. Anyone who thinks that the fact that these limits exist is news, though, is terribly misguided.
The same ones that say "God put the fossils on Earth to test your faith" ?
Why are there so many people in this thread worried about what other people are going to think about this? So many reactions were so similar it seems to be a Pavlovian response.
It is really sad that people who consider themselves to be smarter than others would immediately resort to the grade-school tactic of making fun of others because they are different than you in an attempt to make yourself feel accepted by the group.
I must be new here.
P.S. I'm no creationist or ID advocate.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
The article at least seemed to have a fairly good grasp of the subject. I guess they may have overstated the implications a bit to make the article seem less boring.
Although, no one even seems to read far enough into the article to come away with that naive misunderstanding. Instead people seem to think this related to carbon-14 dating and going into off-topic discussions about creationism when the off-topic discussion for this article should in-fact be global warming.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Don't let science or facts stand in the way of business.
Unfortunately this serves as "science" for the unwashed masses where public opinion and being fashionable count more than the quest for "truth".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I find it much more insightful "who" is feeling threatened than anything else. I'll refrain from naming the parties but a moment's inspection will clear that up.
Easy answer: extremists on all sides of the debate. The rest of us are more willing to expand what we know....
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
No, actually you find that everywhere. It's a common internet past time.
Ever been to digg? reddit? gamefaqs? sa? Anywhere?
I agree. Long ago I noticed that journalists are often spectacularly wrong about stuff I happen to know a lot about.
How can I trust them to be right about things I don't know much about?
They are still human.
Newton believed in alchemical transmutation.
Boyle wrote a paper claiming to have generated heat using gold and a special form of mercury.
Scientists get it wrong all the time. The process of science helps us get a better understanding than we had with time and effort, it doesn't make scientists perfect.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
That's for Carbon 14 dating. 14C has a half-life of 5,730 years, so after 80,000 years, it's essentially all gone.
This article isn't about dating at all, in that sense. Carbon 13 and Carbon 12 are stable. But plants preferentially incorporate Carbon 12, unless they're growing so fast that they take whatever carbon they get.
So when you see more 13C in some sediment you know that plants are growing faster. When you date the sediment (using other techniques, like uranium dating or argon/argon dating) you know a little bit about the plants growing at the time, and the atmosphere they were growing in.
The title of the Slashdot article is extremely misleading. The article it links to is rather clearer.
I've read at least four posts that "ID supporters are going to go crazy about this". And I've read zero posts from ID supporters going crazy. The fact is that ID could mean anything from you believe in Vishnu to you believe in the Intergalactic space council that seeds terraformed planets and has planted here, long ago, alien DNA by visiting spacecraft now trapped in a small storage locker somewhere in the Alpha Centauri system. ID is SO vague it can't possibly be argued against, or taught outside of saying "Someone or something may have made all this".
It's sort of like saying my Science is better than your imaginary friend. If some lunatic fringe of the radical evangelical right wing Christians want to disbelieve obvious science fact does not mean that everyone who believes in ID is so naive. Even Christians believe in science, and a lot of them believe that god made physics! But it's not something you can, or should argue about, you end up looking like a bigger fool than the guy who believes in a geocentric universe or some such nonsense.
You shouldn't pigeonhole anyone who believes in something you can't possibly prove or disprove as someone who is inherently stupid and who rejects science. There are far too many scientists who believe in ID for that argument to be valid.
Your explanation for why the old testament laws are so jacked up is not very convincing. It sounds an awful lot like a rationalization. Why exactly are some parts of the bible meant to be interpreted more literally and some parts meant only to be interpreted as posing a "sharp contrast"? Can you give a reason that is more convincing than the obvious explanation that Christians simply spin the bible however best fits their preconceived notions of what it should say?
I have nothing against Christians or their beliefs, except when those impinge upon my personal freedom not to be a part of Christianity. Unfortunately, religions have a way of trying to force themselves upon everyone else even when they claim that they are benign, and the modern political climate of the USA is downright frightening in how strongly it is influenced by religion.
I always find it really ridiculous when Christians try to invoke logic in any form when discussing their belief system. The arguments are so poor and contrived, that it's really hard to even try to argue anything about religion with a Christian (or any religion, for that matter), because the fundamental basis for logical argument isn't anywhere to be found. Simply put - if you have a religion that you insist has any objective truth to it that can be logically argued, then you are already so far beyond understanding the basic concepts of rational logic that you shouldn't even try. Just say, "I don't have to justify my religious beliefs with logical arguments, they simply are true without any rational explanation needed." I can respect that approach much more than an approach that attempts to dress up exceedingly faulty and ridiculous logic as a justification for religion.
All that being said, the "bible is repulsive" YouTube video that the O.P. gushed over was really poorly done. Anyone can find countless examples of indefensible ridiculousness in the bible, all you have to do is open the book up, it's all plainly self-evident. So finding a bunch of passages that show that the bible is complete bunk, and totally at odds with modern Christian theology, is about the most simple exercise one could engage in. Presenting this like it's some kind of major insight is intellectually disingenuous. And doing it in such a repetitive and annoying fashion, results in a video that isn't worth anyone's time.
Exactly.
I watched a BBC program about global warming last week, where the well meaning and apparently ill-qualified scientist presenting made several glaring scientific errors. The most laughable was when he described the Keeling curve. All very interesting, up until he summed up the segment by saying that now that Keeling had taken measurements of the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere over a long period, we now had irrefutable proof that humans caused global warming.
Absolute bollocks. All Keeling had done was show that CO2 over time had increased in the atmosphere. The cause of that increase had not been established, so using a set of measurements to attribute a cause is unforgivable.
It makes me sick.
Of course the rest of the program was spent building on that fallacious argument to prove the agenda. How is the general public supposed to understand science when even the most vocal proponents twist the evidence to fit their opinion ? Note that I am not siding with AGW or the sceptics here, I am just pointing out the misinformation and bad scientific methods used to illustrate the issues to the public.
Thanks for the information, it is interesting. However, I don't really appreciate the ad hominems. If you tone the attacks down in the future, you will save yourself from having an otherwise informative post leaving a sour tasts in readers mouths.
Is it your contention that they only measure CO2 levels at that one location, and that all Climate Change work is based on measurements from that one location? If so, then you are mentally ill. Such a belief can't be based on stupidity; you would have to be too stupid to read or write (or breathe). Please seek professional help.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
The OP is hilarious. It has _Nothing_ to do with the PNAS article http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/03/0802841105). In fact the PNAS article is only useful or interesting to a handful of people who model the global carbon cycle over the history of the earth, most of whom are members of the NAS.
Half the blame lies with the ScienceDaily piece that misconstrued the PNAS article, possible for the purpose of a titillating headline.
Coincidentally, I used to work in the lab of the sponsoring editor of the PNAS article. Hi John.
Verbum caro factum est
>You wouldn't understand it now, but the old testament laws are meant to be a sharp contrast to new testament grace.
Seems to me that the man is very selective in the old testament laws he chooses to want enforced.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Ok, let's see.
God is consistent. Except he isn't.
He's loving, unless he wants to kill you for whatever minor crime.
He holds you personally accountable for your sins, unless he wants to eliminate your race.
You can talk with him, unless he's not in the mood.
He can heal you, unless you've been amputated. He never heals an amputee, or any kind of serious scar.
He worries about a bunch of guys building a tower to the heavens so much that he creates all the races of mankind, but when we build a spaceship and actually GET to the heavens, nothing much happens.
It's no wonder that Christians fail basic tests of logic...
The truth is that if you canonize a work and believe it to be true, you should canonize your work and believe it to be true. The bible is truly a repulsive, insane, conflicted, and uncivilized work. People who worry about a few swear words or the latest movie should actually pay attention to 'the good book' that they pay homage to every Sunday. In fact, God's behavior in the bible I would expect from a 3 year old child with power. Yuck.
And my mark certainly wasn't praying, unless by "prayer" you mean words generally written as "fsck" or "f--k" in order to avoid bad word filters.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.