Sorry for the slow reply, now that school has started up again I've been very busy, but I will try to keep posting, for now.
No, they're not just guesses. If they were, you'd have a point, but the amount of C14 is measured from samples of known age. Counting down ice cores and tree rings allows scientists to create a catalog of what the atmosphere's C14 levels looked like over the years. You say they're just guesses, but in reality, quite a lot of work goes into standardizing the data. As I said before, though, there are other methods that are even better because they are able to self-check for problems like the ones you describe.
Sure, scientists can look at what historically has been, but remember, an ape, a tree, and ice absorb C14 from the air. Each specimen will breath in a different amount of air giving a different original amount of C-14 So, even though hours of research have gone into it, they truly are little more than just assumptions. If you'd like some evidence to back this up, here it is: "Radio-carbon dating is a method of obtaining age estimates on organic materials. The word "estimates" is used because there is a significant amount of uncertainty in these measurements.......The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is "well behaved."" Here's the Source
I've said this before in these discussions and I'll probably say it again but, please show your work. Don't take it personally, but the assertion you just made is far too handwavy to be taken at face value, and as far as I know, quantum mechanics gives us no theoretical reason for this to be true in the temperature regimes you're talking about. As far as I can recall (and I don't have copy of Dalrymple with me, so please forgive me from working from memory), changes of over 1000 degrees C don't seem to alter C14's decay constant. I seriously doubt that a few degrees C are going to do it under normal Earth conditions. If you have some numbers to show, I'd be interested.
I'm sorry for the confusion here, what I meant by decay was non-radioactive decay. "In early September, British researchers reported that warmer temperatures were causing the soil to heat up and dramatically increasing rates of decay. The temperate forests and fields of the United Kingdom are becoming, in essence, semitropical." Here's the Source
I was simply trying to point out that the earth is constantly changing and we can not just assume that processes are always occurring at the same rates. And since science is based on observation (look at the scientific method), observation is necessary to prove something. In this case, since the half-life of C-14 has been CALCULATED to be AROUND 5700 years, we can't actually observe the full length decay and thereby can't prove that it doesn't fluctuate over time.
It should be noted that ad hominem isn't Latin for, "That was a mean thing to say!" I suggest that if you'd prefer that your physics be taken seriously, start doing some calculations and stop inventing physical laws that don't exist. I was already a bit grouchy when you responded to me, and you did so by essentially calling thousands of scientists incompetent, stupid, or frauds. You can't seriously think that the objections that you're bringing up have gone unnoticed by the scientific community until now, can you? Obviously not, so they must either be too thick headed or incompetent to understand them, or the entire community of atomic physicists is involved in a conspiracy to defraud us. I'll leave it to you to decide which one you were suggesting.
Actually, for those latin scholars out there, Ad Hominem literally means "To the Man" it is when an argument is focused on a person rather than their argument and it's considered a logical fallacy. Radiometric
That's nice; however, it has nothing to do with this debate. Just becuase some Christians support this dating technology does not mean it is pefectly accurate. I'm here not to support a religion but to simply present the opposite side of an argument.
Well thats just not true. Evidently you're not aware that cells subdivide.
I don't think you understand how cells divide. A cell will split in half producing another cell through either mitoisis or meiosis. Cell division only occurs from a pre-exisitng living cell.
1. The amount of carbon-14 (or whatever element used) in the atmosphere has always been the same
That's just not true. The amount of C14 is not assumed to be constant. The values are calibrated using a variety of sources (trees, corals, ice cores, etc.). It should be noted that these generally agree with one another, which would definitely be a surprise if there was something deeply wrong with the system.
Key term here "calibrate," in other words, we can make a guesstimate at the amount of C-14 there was. If you remember, C-14 is often inhaled by organisms and there would be drastically different figures for each specimen depending upon a myriad of environmental factors. Simply put, they are all just guesses.
2. The rate of decay has always been the same
Ahh the special pleading and crackpot physics of creationists. We've seen evidence of the constancy of decay supernovae, and if decay rates were not constant, it would have very interesting (and completely unobserved) consequences for quantum mechanics. If something we observe (something that's consistent with all of physics and chemistry, not to mention historical observations) upsets creationists, they'll quickly whip out some new laws of physics and ignore the consequences.
Well, let's use some pretty common knowledge here... Global Warming is occuring. Everyone can agree to that. So, what are the changes we are seeeing in our environment? As we increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby increase the heat, guess what? The rates of decay increase dramatically! We can valid this through observations.
BTW, I'm having fun debating with you on this subject, so if we could please refrain from Ad Hominem attacks, I think we could both have a more enjoyable time.:)
I don't see why young earth creationists have so much trouble with C14 dating given that it's not really used to support any of the evidence that devastates their positions. Far more interesting are things like isochron dating.
It's funny you mention isochron dating, becuase isochron dating and radiometric carbon dating rely on the exact same assumptions. Just look at my arguments above and you can apply them perfectly to ischronic dating as well.
It's also not nice to base facts of science off of only speculations. You can only speculate that
1. The amount of carbon-14 (or whatever element used) in the atmosphere has always been the same
2. The rate of decay has always been the same
In the past sience has always been based off of observations. Let's keep it that way and keep specluations and guesses (with no observable evidence) out of science.
What's really quite odd though is that even thought evolution is so widely accepted, the cell prinicple is still viewed as a scientific law (which I believe it is) and no one is trying to disprove it.
For all those non-sience majors, the cell principle simply states that:
1. The cell is the fundamental unit of life
2. All living organisms are made up of cells
3. All cells come from pre-exisitng cells
According to the cell principle, evolution is scientifcally and biologically impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're not just guesses. If they were, you'd have a point, but the amount of C14 is measured from samples of known age. Counting down ice cores and tree rings allows scientists to create a catalog of what the atmosphere's C14 levels looked like over the years. You say they're just guesses, but in reality, quite a lot of work goes into standardizing the data. As I said before, though, there are other methods that are even better because they are able to self-check for problems like the ones you describe.
Sure, scientists can look at what historically has been, but remember, an ape, a tree, and ice absorb C14 from the air. Each specimen will breath in a different amount of air giving a different original amount of C-14 So, even though hours of research have gone into it, they truly are little more than just assumptions. If you'd like some evidence to back this up, here it is: "Radio-carbon dating is a method of obtaining age estimates on organic materials. The word "estimates" is used because there is a significant amount of uncertainty in these measurements.......The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is "well behaved."" Here's the Source
I've said this before in these discussions and I'll probably say it again but, please show your work. Don't take it personally, but the assertion you just made is far too handwavy to be taken at face value, and as far as I know, quantum mechanics gives us no theoretical reason for this to be true in the temperature regimes you're talking about. As far as I can recall (and I don't have copy of Dalrymple with me, so please forgive me from working from memory), changes of over 1000 degrees C don't seem to alter C14's decay constant. I seriously doubt that a few degrees C are going to do it under normal Earth conditions. If you have some numbers to show, I'd be interested.
I'm sorry for the confusion here, what I meant by decay was non-radioactive decay. "In early September, British researchers reported that warmer temperatures were causing the soil to heat up and dramatically increasing rates of decay. The temperate forests and fields of the United Kingdom are becoming, in essence, semitropical." Here's the Source I was simply trying to point out that the earth is constantly changing and we can not just assume that processes are always occurring at the same rates. And since science is based on observation (look at the scientific method), observation is necessary to prove something. In this case, since the half-life of C-14 has been CALCULATED to be AROUND 5700 years, we can't actually observe the full length decay and thereby can't prove that it doesn't fluctuate over time.
It should be noted that ad hominem isn't Latin for, "That was a mean thing to say!" I suggest that if you'd prefer that your physics be taken seriously, start doing some calculations and stop inventing physical laws that don't exist. I was already a bit grouchy when you responded to me, and you did so by essentially calling thousands of scientists incompetent, stupid, or frauds. You can't seriously think that the objections that you're bringing up have gone unnoticed by the scientific community until now, can you? Obviously not, so they must either be too thick headed or incompetent to understand them, or the entire community of atomic physicists is involved in a conspiracy to defraud us. I'll leave it to you to decide which one you were suggesting.
Actually, for those latin scholars out there, Ad Hominem literally means "To the Man" it is when an argument is focused on a person rather than their argument and it's considered a logical fallacy. Radiometric
That's nice; however, it has nothing to do with this debate. Just becuase some Christians support this dating technology does not mean it is pefectly accurate. I'm here not to support a religion but to simply present the opposite side of an argument.
I don't think you understand how cells divide. A cell will split in half producing another cell through either mitoisis or meiosis. Cell division only occurs from a pre-exisitng living cell.
That's just not true. The amount of C14 is not assumed to be constant. The values are calibrated using a variety of sources (trees, corals, ice cores, etc.). It should be noted that these generally agree with one another, which would definitely be a surprise if there was something deeply wrong with the system.
Key term here "calibrate," in other words, we can make a guesstimate at the amount of C-14 there was. If you remember, C-14 is often inhaled by organisms and there would be drastically different figures for each specimen depending upon a myriad of environmental factors. Simply put, they are all just guesses.
2. The rate of decay has always been the same
Ahh the special pleading and crackpot physics of creationists. We've seen evidence of the constancy of decay supernovae, and if decay rates were not constant, it would have very interesting (and completely unobserved) consequences for quantum mechanics. If something we observe (something that's consistent with all of physics and chemistry, not to mention historical observations) upsets creationists, they'll quickly whip out some new laws of physics and ignore the consequences.
Well, let's use some pretty common knowledge here... Global Warming is occuring. Everyone can agree to that. So, what are the changes we are seeeing in our environment? As we increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby increase the heat, guess what? The rates of decay increase dramatically! We can valid this through observations.
BTW, I'm having fun debating with you on this subject, so if we could please refrain from Ad Hominem attacks, I think we could both have a more enjoyable time. :)
I don't see why young earth creationists have so much trouble with C14 dating given that it's not really used to support any of the evidence that devastates their positions. Far more interesting are things like isochron dating.
It's funny you mention isochron dating, becuase isochron dating and radiometric carbon dating rely on the exact same assumptions. Just look at my arguments above and you can apply them perfectly to ischronic dating as well.
You can only speculate that
1. The amount of carbon-14 (or whatever element used) in the atmosphere has always been the same
2. The rate of decay has always been the same
In the past sience has always been based off of observations. Let's keep it that way and keep specluations and guesses (with no observable evidence) out of science.
For all those non-sience majors, the cell principle simply states that:
1. The cell is the fundamental unit of life
2. All living organisms are made up of cells
3. All cells come from pre-exisitng cells
According to the cell principle, evolution is scientifcally and biologically impossible.