Age of the earth?

I will be happy to discuss each and every one of them.  Please understand that I am answering numerous threads and posters.  I would hate to post a reply prematurely without ensuring the accuracy of said post.  I am but only one man!  I hope you understand my predicament.   

Yes I understand. Future suggestion: Don't write a post where you list six different arguments that are likely to be controversial if you don't have free time to actually deal with all the possible issues.

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:25:16 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 06:18:10 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:15:40 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on July 14, 2011, 06:07:20 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 04:30:42 PM

The earth is a little over 6000 years old.  It is certainly not billions of years old because:
4.  Niagra Falls' erosion rate (approx 6ft per year) shows an age of less than 8,400 years. Ok, so what you're telling us is that Niagra Falls is only 8,400 years old. Good to know. Doesn't prove anything.
5.  The Sahara desert is expanding.  It is the largest desert in the world, and its only 4000 years old.  There would be larger deserts if the world were older than 6000 years old. The Earth goes through cycles and climates change. I don't see how you could even think this was a proof.
6.  The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) That is the oldest living tree. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3545540/Worlds-oldest-living-animal-discovered-after-he-is-pictured-in-1900-photograph.html That is the oldest living animal. Do you have a point?

I only went after the ones I could do off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a good explanation for the other three.

Yes, thank you.  With regards to the tree, it fits within my creation view perfectly.  Coincides with the flood of Noah as well.

I think we can all agree that you have religious views which you are defending.  Everyone is free to believe what they want.

Please dont mislead other people into thinking that you are following any type of science though.  You have predetermined conclusions that you seek supporting data for.  You discount any data that doesnt fit.

Is science not observable?  Does it not follow the scientific method?  I propose a hypothesis that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that approximately 4,500 years ago there was a flood as recorded in historical documentation.  Fact presented by Silly Rob:  The oldest living tree matches up with my hypothesis.  Fact:  The largest desert in the world matches my hypothesis.  Fact:  The oldest living coral reef supports my hypothesis.  Who's discounting??  Not I sir, but rather you!   

No mention of the other theories that you dismiss. 

Lets follow a line of thought, how do you know how old the coral reef is?

Also, I cant believe you threw me such a softball as mentioning half lives of isotopes.

Do we even need to discuss carbon dating?  skeletal evidence?  dinosaurs?

I have done a lot of survey work in the oil and gas industry.  There are massive reserves whose locations are easily predicted by the location of an ancient sea formed by the rocky mountains rising.  We find fossil evidence of sea life in these deposits regularily

OK.  See it's posts like this that consume my time in answering each and every point.  You bring up an interesting topic, that is carbon dating.  This method of dating has been proven over and over again to be so inaccurate that I can't understand the inclusion of it as any relevance.  Are you aware of the many proofs of its inaccuracy?  I will not assume that you are familiar with the term "half-life" because I don't want to make an ass out of U and me:  Radiation from the sun goes into the atmosphere.  The energy from this converts roughly 21lbs of nitrogen into carbon-14.  This slowly decays back into stable nitrogen.  Half of the carbon-14 molecules will decay in approx 5732 years = "Half Life."  It will go from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8...  After 5 half-lives the difference is basically immeasurable.  This is why it can only be good for objects about 40 thousand years old.  I could go on about this fact, however it does nothing for those in your position to say the earth is older than 40 thousand years old.  Because the RE position is that the earth is billion of years old, I would suggest not using it for your basis of argument.       

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 06:51:56 PM

I will be happy to discuss each and every one of them.  Please understand that I am answering numerous threads and posters.  I would hate to post a reply prematurely without ensuring the accuracy of said post.  I am but only one man!  I hope you understand my predicament.   

Yes I understand. Future suggestion: Don't write a post where you list six different arguments that are likely to be controversial if you don't have free time to actually deal with all the possible issues.

I will take this into consideration for sure.  Working on each one.  Thank you for your patience. 

No matter what you babble, it prooves that the earth is more than 6000 years old

You claim to use science, why do you not believe in gravity?  name a single test that has disproven its existence

Also, I will explain carbon dating to you.  The reason that it is accurate for measuring up to around 62,000 years old, is because after that too much decay has occured. 

The usefulness of the test is only good to 62,000 years, as opposed to the test "proving" that the earth is less than 62000 years old.

Also, it is kind of petty to imply that an engineering professional does not understand junior high school science

This is why it can only be good for objects about 40 thousand years old.  I could go on about this fact, however it does nothing for those in your position to say the earth is older than 40 thousand years old.  Because the RE position is that the earth is billion of years old, I would suggest not using it for your basis of argument.     

He doesn't need to use carbon dating to get the full age of the Earth. The fact that we can date objects well above 6000 years is what is relevant here. Incidentally, modern carbon dating can measure things much older than 40,000 years. 60,000 years is around the upper estimate. But since that's much older than 6000 years, the difference is academic.

No matter what you babble, it prooves that the earth is more than 6000 years old

You claim to use science, why do you not believe in gravity?  name a single test that has disproven its existence

Also, I will explain carbon dating to you.  The reason that it is accurate for measuring up to around 62,000 years old, is because after that too much decay has occured. 

The usefulness of the test is only good to 62,000 years, as opposed to the test "proving" that the earth is less than 62000 years old.

Thank you Mr. Surveyor for trying to re-describe what I just took time to describe for you.  Let me further explain the inaccuracy of such use:
Because sunlight causes the formation of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and radioactive decay takes it out, there will inevitably be a point where the formation rate and decay rate equalize (Point of equilibrium).  Because this point has not been reached, this indicates that animals living in the past had less carbon-14 in them than those of today.  This proves the earth is not older than 30,000 years old, which again does nothing for the RE position that states it is billion of years old.  In short, carbon dating rests on the assumption that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant.  This is not the case especially when the point of equilibrium has not been met.  I would again suggest you think twice before using it as a basis for argument.  Now, if you might allow me to answer your friend regarding his inaccurate statement regarding the moon.         

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 07:14:04 PM

No matter what you babble, it prooves that the earth is more than 6000 years old

You claim to use science, why do you not believe in gravity?  name a single test that has disproven its existence

Also, I will explain carbon dating to you.  The reason that it is accurate for measuring up to around 62,000 years old, is because after that too much decay has occured. 

The usefulness of the test is only good to 62,000 years, as opposed to the test "proving" that the earth is less than 62000 years old.

Thank you Mr. Surveyor for trying to re-describe what I just took time to describe for you.  Let me further explain the inaccuracy of such use:
Because sunlight causes the formation of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and radioactive decay takes it out, there will inevitably be a point where the formation rate and decay rate equalize (Point of equilibrium).  Because this point has not been reached, this indicates that animals living in the past had less carbon-14 in them than those of today.  This proves the earth is not older than 30,000 years old, which again does nothing for the RE position that states it is billion of years old.  In short, carbon dating rests on the assumption that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant.  This is not the case especially when the point of equilibrium has not been met.  I would again suggest you think twice before using it as a basis for argument.  Now, if you might allow me to answer your friend regarding his inaccurate statement regarding the moon.         

As I have stated before, it is necessary for people who are defending religious beliefs to use the term "proove" as often as possible, as opposed to a scientiest who uses terms like "suggest"

So when we drill 4km down, and carbon date materials, can you explain what influence the atmosphere has on this?

Also, I guaranty there is no published research confirming the information you just rattled off.

As I have stated before, it is necessary for people who are defending religious beliefs to use the term "proove" as often as possible, as opposed to a scientiest who uses terms like "suggest"

So when we drill 4km down, and carbon date materials, can you explain what influence the atmosphere has on this?

Also, I guaranty there is no published research confirming the information you just rattled off.

Uh, why would drill down 4 km to do that? This confuses me. Carbon dating works generally on organic stuff that was living, generally much closer to the surface than 4 km. Trying to use C-14 dating on things which weren't alive is going to be tough. Fossils are very rarely found more than 400 meters down.

I was commenting on the fossils that are found while drilling for oil in alberta.  4km down is the ancient seabed where the reserves are located, and there are minute fossils that survive extraction.  I was not referring to drilling as being necessary, just as something I have personally observed.  Archaelogists usually have a free reign on petroleum sites, its good for PR

Also, you can replace 4km with any value that will satisfy chuck that it isnt fairy dust or anything that is corrupting the sample

I was commenting on the fossils that are found while drilling for oil in alberta.  4km down is the ancient seabed where the reserves are located, and there are minute fossils that survive extraction.  I was not referring to drilling as being necessary, just as something I have personally observed.  Archaelogists usually have a free reign on petroleum sites, its good for PR

Ah, that makes sense. I presume you mean paleontologists rather than archaeologists but that makes sense. I didn't realize there was that much you could get out of that sort of thing.

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

This again does nothing for the RE position that the earth is billions of years old, but rather proves otherwise.

I understand you probably thought you would come to this FE forum and find a bunch of pushovers but I am hardly one.  Carbon-Dating is so outdated, it would have a radiometric dating of:  "Outdated"!   

 

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 
*snip*

So as soon as I saw this my immediate thought was "reservoir effect", and a bit of Googling, it turns out that this applies to all but one of your examples. They are  common creationist examples where they don't seem to have recognized the reservoir effect. So this is actually pretty cool: The reservoir effect was a phenomenon first predicted by scientists in the 1960s trying to get a better understanding of what the exact bounds were on C-14 dating, the point was made that if one had living things that primarily get their carbon from sources that were old (in the sense of being generally cut off from atmospheric carbon input) then one would get as the C-14 age an age of about when the carbon source got cut off (roughly). So then they went and tried to find such things, and exactly that happened. Not only is this not a problem for carbon dating, this is an example of it working as predicted.

Now we get to the mammoth case. This one looks like something else is going on, because reservoirs generally occur for stuff that is in the sea in certain restricted environments.  This has been discussed before according to Talk Origins , and they claim that the mammoths in question are actually different mammoths. Now, I don't have their sources to look this up and verify it, but I'm pretty sure that you don't have the fairly obscure 1975 source you cite (incidentally, I don't know what you do for a living, but in academia it is generally very frowned upon to cite sources that you haven't actually looked up yourself. It is an easy way for errors and confusion to creep in. To use an analogy, this is sort of like reading a Bible translation that went from Hebrew to English to Navajo rather than directly. Things will just get worse with each translation. Please don't do this.

Now, your last claim, regarding dinosaurs, in this case, you are citing again an old source (that I have to wonder if you've read) that is itself a tertiary source. But the answer to what is going on here is pretty obvious if one just looks at the year 1972- carbon dating was much less accurate before we had modern mass spectroscopy techniques. If one tries to c-14 date something that is too old, one ends up with a reported age near the edge of your accuracy. If the book in question is from 1972, then the dating in question was likely from the 1960s where 30,000 years would be pushing the edge of the best technology at the time.

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

This again does nothing for the RE position that the earth is billions of years old, but rather proves otherwise.

I understand you probably thought you would come to this FE forum and find a bunch of pushovers but I am hardly one.  Carbon-Dating is so outdated, it would have a radiometric dating of:  "Outdated"!   

 

You are the second person who has implied what I thought I would find.  You are not even close.

In fact, use a bit of logic.  A website of people who believe in something that is completely proven to be false, over 100 years ago.

Pushover?  No

Fact avoiding zealot?   Yes

Partial awareness and vague understanding of science?  yes

Spouting half truths as proofs?  yes

aribitrarily dismissing theories that do not match your conclusions?  yes


I take it from the previous post that I used the wrong term?  Mass Spectroscopy is what they do to date stuff?

Either way, it is just a single minor point that I brought up, which has been glommed onto

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:01:17 PM

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

This again does nothing for the RE position that the earth is billions of years old, but rather proves otherwise.

I understand you probably thought you would come to this FE forum and find a bunch of pushovers but I am hardly one.  Carbon-Dating is so outdated, it would have a radiometric dating of:  "Outdated"!   

 

You are the second person who has implied what I thought I would find.  You are not even close.

In fact, use a bit of logic.  A website of people who believe in something that is completely proven to be false, over 100 years ago.

Pushover?  No

Fact avoiding zealot?   Yes

Partial awareness and vague understanding of science?  yes

Spouting half truths as proofs?  yes

aribitrarily dismissing theories that do not match your conclusions?  yes


I take it from the previous post that I used the wrong term?  Mass Spectroscopy is what they do to date stuff?

Either way, it is just a single minor point that I brought up, which has been glommed onto

I've given specific reference sir to specific issues with carbon dating.  I've explained it scientifically just in case you didn't know, which you've hinted that you did know.  I was not trying to demean you, but just wanted to be sure.  Once you hinted that you were aware of the carbon-dating process I included references to sources that show faults with it completely and entirely.  These can not be discounted.  If you concede on the issue, I will gladly move on.  Are we in agreement that carbon dating does not prove either your position or mine, and that it does more to prove my position than yours?   

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

(1) Carbon dating isn't used for living animals. That's like trying to hammer a nail in with a q-tip. When it doesn't work, you claim "q-tips don't work!"
(2) Again, living animals don't mean anything.
(3) Of course carbon dating would be inaccurate at the extreme ends of its range
(4) I checked the source and it did not say that as far as I could see.
(5) Please find a free copy of the source so I can check it, or reproduce it here. I would like the credentials of the author or any of his sources, as well. Also, carbon dating is inaccurate for very old stuff, too. You would use a different radioactive material.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 08:23:01 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:01:17 PM

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

This again does nothing for the RE position that the earth is billions of years old, but rather proves otherwise.

I understand you probably thought you would come to this FE forum and find a bunch of pushovers but I am hardly one.  Carbon-Dating is so outdated, it would have a radiometric dating of:  "Outdated"!   

 

You are the second person who has implied what I thought I would find.  You are not even close.

In fact, use a bit of logic.  A website of people who believe in something that is completely proven to be false, over 100 years ago.

Pushover?  No

Fact avoiding zealot?   Yes

Partial awareness and vague understanding of science?  yes

Spouting half truths as proofs?  yes

aribitrarily dismissing theories that do not match your conclusions?  yes


I take it from the previous post that I used the wrong term?  Mass Spectroscopy is what they do to date stuff?

Either way, it is just a single minor point that I brought up, which has been glommed onto

I've given specific reference sir to specific issues with carbon dating.  I've explained it scientifically just in case you didn't know, which you've hinted that you did know.  I was not trying to demean you, but just wanted to be sure.  Once you hinted that you were aware of the carbon-dating process I included references to sources that show faults with it completely and entirely.  These can not be discounted.  If you concede on the issue, I will gladly move on.  Are we in agreement that carbon dating does not prove either your position or mine, and that it does more to prove my position than yours?   

I hold to my position that carbon dating proves the world is more than 6000 years old...   Now if you were implying the world was 50,000 years old or another age, I would concede that this particular taste fails to disprove that.

Failing to disprove something does not confirm it

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:01:17 PM

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

(1) Carbon dating isn't used for living animals. That's like trying to hammer a nail in with a q-tip. When it doesn't work, you claim "q-tips don't work!"
(2) Again, living animals don't mean anything.
(3) Of course carbon dating would be inaccurate at the extreme ends of its range
(4) I checked the source and it did not say that as far as I could see.
(5) Please find a free copy of the source so I can check it, or reproduce it here. I would like the credentials of the author or any of his sources, as well.

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 14, 2011, 08:35:56 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:01:17 PM

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

(1) Carbon dating isn't used for living animals. That's like trying to hammer a nail in with a q-tip. When it doesn't work, you claim "q-tips don't work!"
(2) Again, living animals don't mean anything.
(3) Of course carbon dating would be inaccurate at the extreme ends of its range
(4) I checked the source and it did not say that as far as I could see.
(5) Please find a free copy of the source so I can check it, or reproduce it here. I would like the credentials of the author or any of his sources, as well.

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

He was actually explaining to you that the facts as stated in the referenced material were not material to this discussion.  Carbon dating of living animals is not relevant.  There is a difference between something being in a work of fiction, and published peer reviewed scientific articles

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 14, 2011, 08:35:56 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:01:17 PM

OK.  Carbon Dating is obviously on the agenda. 

(1)  Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pg's.634-637)  oops!
(2)  Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984. pg's. 58-61) oops!
(3) A seal just killed was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct 1971. Pg. 211) oops!
(4) Part of a Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part of the same mammoth at 44,000 years (Troy L. Pewe, "Quaternary Strigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska," Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975; Pg 30) oops!
(5)  Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.  (Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, Pg. 280) oops!

(1) Carbon dating isn't used for living animals. That's like trying to hammer a nail in with a q-tip. When it doesn't work, you claim "q-tips don't work!"
(2) Again, living animals don't mean anything.
(3) Of course carbon dating would be inaccurate at the extreme ends of its range
(4) I checked the source and it did not say that as far as I could see.
(5) Please find a free copy of the source so I can check it, or reproduce it here. I would like the credentials of the author or any of his sources, as well.

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

For 1, 2, 3, you didn't need to provide sources. For number 4, I have the source RIGHT HERE. On that page, it says TABLE 4. I don't see how that proves your point.

Carbon dating isn't used for living animals. That's like trying to hammer a nail in with a q-tip. When it doesn't work, you claim "q-tips don't work!"

Careful, there's really something non-trivial going on with this one. (See my comment above about the reservoir issue). One does generally expect that if one does C-14 sampling from something which was just living one should get an age close to 0. In fact, for the vast majority of samples one will get that.

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

Source references which you yourself have not read is very frowned upon for reasons I already explained. That's particularly the case when the sources are obscure (like your last two). You simply cannot cite a claim to a source you've never read and then expect the burden to be on everyone else to track it down. I mean, you can do that, but don't expect anyone to listen to you. (To put it another way, if someone else did that to you, would you look up the sources that were 40 years old and probably pretty hard to find? No. So why do you expect other people to do it?)

Quote from: Harutsedo on July 14, 2011, 08:35:56 PM

Carbon dating isn't used for living animals. That's like trying to hammer a nail in with a q-tip. When it doesn't work, you claim "q-tips don't work!"

Careful, there's really something non-trivial going on with this one. (See my comment above about the reservoir issue). One does generally expect that if one does C-14 sampling from something which was just living one should get an age close to 0. In fact, for the vast majority of samples one will get that.

Thanks.

Hey chuck, how do you explain the Grand Canyon? That shows millions of years of erosion.

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:40:57 PM

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

Source references which you yourself have not read is very frowned upon for reasons I already explained. That's particularly the case when the sources are obscure (like your last two). You simply cannot cite a claim to a source you've never read and then expect the burden to be on everyone else to track it down. I mean, you can do that, but don't expect anyone to listen to you. (To put it another way, if someone else did that to you, would you look up the sources that were 40 years old and probably pretty hard to find? No. So why do you expect other people to do it?)

Just because sources are not in "the trend" doesn't discount them.  Let's agree on this, so I can move onto other rebuttals.  Carbon-14 dating can not go beyond (overly exaggerated) 60,000 years old.  Let's put this one to bed!  I will always say carbon-14 dating proves the earth is not billions of years old, and RE'rs will always say it proves the earth is not 6,000 years old.  Potato - Po-tot-o!  Agreed?

Quote from: JoshuaZ on July 14, 2011, 08:51:33 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:40:57 PM

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

Source references which you yourself have not read is very frowned upon for reasons I already explained. That's particularly the case when the sources are obscure (like your last two). You simply cannot cite a claim to a source you've never read and then expect the burden to be on everyone else to track it down. I mean, you can do that, but don't expect anyone to listen to you. (To put it another way, if someone else did that to you, would you look up the sources that were 40 years old and probably pretty hard to find? No. So why do you expect other people to do it?)

Just because sources are not in "the trend" doesn't discount them.  Let's agree on this, so I can move onto other rebuttals.  Carbon-14 dating can not go beyond (overly exaggerated) 60,000 years old.  Let's put this one to bed!  I will always say carbon-14 dating proves the earth is not billions of years old, and RE'rs will always say it proves the earth is not 6,000 years old.  Potato - Po-tot-o!  Agreed?

It's not that your sources are outdated, they don't even apply! Four them didn't need sources, and the other one was wrong.
And C14 dating doesn't prove the Earth is not billions of years of old. We KNOW the range of it. It doesn't include billions of years, so it can't prove that. It's not a "Potato - Po-tot-o" thing. But you're right. This argument is pointless.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on July 14, 2011, 08:51:33 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:40:57 PM

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

Source references which you yourself have not read is very frowned upon for reasons I already explained. That's particularly the case when the sources are obscure (like your last two). You simply cannot cite a claim to a source you've never read and then expect the burden to be on everyone else to track it down. I mean, you can do that, but don't expect anyone to listen to you. (To put it another way, if someone else did that to you, would you look up the sources that were 40 years old and probably pretty hard to find? No. So why do you expect other people to do it?)

Just because sources are not in "the trend" doesn't discount them.  Let's agree on this, so I can move onto other rebuttals.  Carbon-14 dating can not go beyond (overly exaggerated) 60,000 years old.  Let's put this one to bed!  I will always say carbon-14 dating proves the earth is not billions of years old, and RE'rs will always say it proves the earth is not 6,000 years old.  Potato - Po-tot-o!  Agreed?

I will translate what you just said to science:

There is a theory that C-14 must reach an equilibrium.  This theory has no available research, is not published or verified.  It helps support my religious beliefs so I am going to refer to it as confirmed.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on July 14, 2011, 08:51:33 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:40:57 PM

Ha!  I've included direct references to each source.  You are either ignorant, or willingly ignorant of the direct references.  This especially applies to case (4)!  I implore all objective viewers to verify said source and validate.  Truth stands regardless of what you imply.   

Source references which you yourself have not read is very frowned upon for reasons I already explained. That's particularly the case when the sources are obscure (like your last two). You simply cannot cite a claim to a source you've never read and then expect the burden to be on everyone else to track it down. I mean, you can do that, but don't expect anyone to listen to you. (To put it another way, if someone else did that to you, would you look up the sources that were 40 years old and probably pretty hard to find? No. So why do you expect other people to do it?)

Just because sources are not in "the trend" doesn't discount them.  Let's agree on this, so I can move onto other rebuttals.  Carbon-14 dating can not go beyond (overly exaggerated) 60,000 years old.  Let's put this one to bed!  I will always say carbon-14 dating proves the earth is not billions of years old, and RE'rs will always say it proves the earth is not 6,000 years old.  Potato - Po-tot-o!  Agreed?

Please reread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about sources being in "the trend" (incidentally putting things in quotation marks when no one has said that is also something to be avoided.) You are completely missing the point: you cannot cite sources you haven't read and expect anyone to take you seriously!

Now, moving on to your last comment, you are now claiming that C-14 evidence shows that the Earth is young? I don't even... where are you even getting that. Moreover, this is not at all helpful. You are simply projecting your own stubbornness onto everyone else. No we aren't going to simply disagree on some sort of pseudo-ideological or religious ground. There's real evidence out there, and one can look at it and examine it. If you've decided that no matter what that evidence shows you won't change your mind, that's your problem, and a statement about your personal cognitive processes, not a statement about my cognition, or the cognition of anyone else in in this forum, and it certainly isn't a statement that says anything about the actual age of the Earth, which at the end of the day is a question whose answer is completely independent of what you or I think.

In fact, people have changed their minds about this sort of thing before. In 1800 many respected scientists (then called natural philosophers) believed in a young Earth. By 1840 almost no one did. Why? They changed their position because of the evidence. So, yes, people can change their minds based on evidence whether or not you can.

I will translate what you just said to science:

There is a theory that C-14 must reach an equilibrium.  This theory has no available research, is not published or verified.  It helps support my religious beliefs so I am going to refer to it as confirmed.

Not quite.  It is not disputed that there is more carbon-14 in the atmosphere today than there was 40 years ago.  Do you dispute sunlight being the cause of carbon-14?  My signature and avatar slogan state my religious belief.  Your constant reference to it is either fear or a desperate tactic to discount the science that I have given.  In the latter case, this is simply ad hominem.  Likewise for JoshuaZ's last comment as well.   

  In the latter case, this is simply ad hominem.  Likewise for JoshuaZ's last comment as well.   

Reread my comment please. You said:

I will always say carbon-14 dating proves the earth is not billions of years old, and RE'rs will always say it proves the earth is not 6,000 years old.  Potato - Po-tot-o!  Agreed?

.

My response was to your claim that neither you nor anyone else will change their position no matter what. Please reread my comment in the context of what you said.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 09:05:04 PM

I will translate what you just said to science:

There is a theory that C-14 must reach an equilibrium.  This theory has no available research, is not published or verified.  It helps support my religious beliefs so I am going to refer to it as confirmed.

Not quite.  It is not disputed that there is more carbon-14 in the atmosphere today than there was 40 years ago.  Do you dispute sunlight being the cause of carbon-14?  My signature and avatar slogan state my religious belief.  Your constant reference to it is either fear or a desperate tactic to discount the science that I have given.  In the latter case, this is simply ad hominem.  Likewise for JoshuaZ's last comment as well.   

My dispute (must I rewrite what i just posted) is with your claim that this information has any bearing on carbon dating, and that it takes a certain amount of time to reach an equilibrium, and that interpretting the presence or lack of this equilibrium has any scientific meaning.

As to your religion, as I have stated many times, religious faith is the opposite of scientific reason. 


(Also, NASA pays me by the response, not by the post.  I have coupons for 200 free buckets from KFC already!)