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."
I've heard that way too many times. You are defending an immortal creator, correct? If you have faith, then your immortal creator did create the fossils to test your faith. Read your damn bible.
Actually, the people who are critical of being lead like sheep into believing current estimates on the age of the earth (whether intelligent design proponents or simply intelligent critical thinkers) have been citing flaws in carbon dating for years.
There are many other interesting situations in which carbon dating may be giving us false data upon which we build other theories. Presently there are too many circular arguments in so-called scientific theories on the age of the earth which cannot be independently or repeatably tested for me to throw any weight behind the random numbers I saw in my text books.
Note, when I read your response, it struck me as being ideological rather than intelligent -- much like those who don't want science taught because they're afraid of it, you don't want to be confronted with others' beliefs.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Ironically the so-called science proponents have used equally dubious tactics. Claiming that the word "theory" degrades evolution's status for example or that teaching religious beliefs alongside science would somehow destroy our poor children's brains.
I believe in math being taught in schools but the fiasco that was the 'new math' makes you wonder if we shouldn't be a little more critical of how everything is taught in schools.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
..."Theories" are built upon "Facts".....
"Theories" are built upon somebody's INTERPRETATION of "Facts".
There, fixed that for you.
All facts are interpreted according to a certain worldview where basic underlying assumptions are made. An assumption is a fancy word for belief or believe. One of the most common recurring phrases in written evolution literature is: "It is believed that... Check it out some time. Just pick some random articles on any evolutionary paper more than three or four typewritten pages long. Now put an underline in red every time the word believed or assumed or a similar construction goes up.
The theory of evolution assumes that presently observed processes can be extrapolated over immense time periods. In nature, linear relationships are the exception rather than the rule. Over the extremely short time span we have observed a given process, we may not have noticed its nonlinearity. The segment of the curve we have access to is just way too short. Therefore many scientists assume it is not a curve, but a straight line that can be extended back as far as they like.
For example, the process of radioactivity is used to date living and non living objects. Carbon dating is only one of these dating methods based on radioactivity. Science has known about radioactivity for only about 100 years. Over that short time span we observed radioactive decays to be occurring at a quite regular, apparently highly predictable rate. We assume (believe) therefore that this is a linear process, even over immense amounts of time, millions and even billions of years. This assumption of linearity underlies all models of radioactive dating. Even an incredibly small nonlinearity in the rate of the ticking of this atomic clock, would make all dates and numbers obtained totally wrong.
Scientists assume that the basic "constants" of atomic behavior cannot and have never changed. This may be a reasonable assumption, but is an assumption nevertheless.
Another assumption that is made, in some of these measurements, is the amount of radioactive material that was in the sample when the clock started ticking.
Radioactive dating is not the only branch of science that assumes constancy over a long time. Scientists observe geological processes such as erosion, mountain building, continental drift etc. occurring at what appears as rather constant rates. There is plenty of evidence, that the earth has had a rather violent geological past. In spite of such evidence, evolution believing geologists build models based on today's observed rates of change and expect these to produce reliable results reaching back millions or billions of years.
All theory is gray
Let's say for the sake of argument that some advanced alien space travelling race created life on earth and guided its advancement over time through genetic engineering.
There's no reason in principle why this fact, if it was a fact, could not be subjected to scientific investigation.
If we substitute divine being for alien being, nothing changes in principle.
Whether you think actual real life creationists have any scientific credibility is one thing. But to a-priori claim that creationism can't be science, is itself unscientific.
A cursory look at the wikipedia entry on Carbon dating clearly indicates that the method is accurate to mere 30-60k years back from present time.
No one in their own mind would even try to use Carbon dating for 150M years; for dating such large intervals scientists use isotopes with considerably longer half-life.
The article is pure drivel.
I am personally not sure what to believe but I suspect that you believe in a big bang and a theory of evolution? Yeah... Just look at those two things for a moment. Come back when you're done, maybe you can be a cynic like me when you grow up.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."