@BeatMe My question wasn't regarding the dating method at all. I was merely curious about the amount of c14 in the atmosphere and if it was climbing still
@BeatMe you said that you had information regarding to leaching of c14 in specimens. could you post your findings on my q over at physics?
@BeatMe I'd actually like to hear your logic here. Do you say that a global flood actually would have ruined carbon dating? Assuming a global flood, of course.
well, I didn't make any assumptions, but you made the assumption of a flood, you made the assumption, that somehow the earth is only 30k years old and you will do more assumptions, just because it is written in a book
and dancek, no I don't say that a global flood would ruin anything
I don't know wheres that "leaching" is coming from
@BeatMe certain objects with known dates have been shown to give inaccurate dates due to leaching of the c14. These inaccuracies have been caused because the items were stored in water.
@BeatMe you are assuming that the c14 levels are constant. your data is not 100% conclusive of the levels, but I'll give it to you. You have to assume that you know the exact rate of decay and that its an unchangable constant, you don't know that, you're data is not 100% conclusive. but I'll give it to you.
@BeatMe You have to assume that the specimens have never encountered any contamination, you have no way of knowing that and when you start to say that your specimens are millions of years old, well in that millions of years there's a pretty good chance it got contaminated.
@BeatMe Let's play WHAT IF. If the world is less than 10k years. then the c14 levels are still climbing. when you're talking about such a small percentage of c14 that you're testing for, then the smallest changes will show hundreds of thousands of years difference. right now carbondating always gives a "give or take 100k years"
@BeatMe please wait, im not done
@BeatMe so if the earth is less then 10k years, then it would make sense that earlier species already have less c14 then we do. thus the dates would show much older because c14 is still accumiliting. That's one WHAT IF.
@BeatMe another what if, is the flood. if the flood occured, which there is evidence to show that something catastrphic happened here, then that would have leached the c14 from your fossils and they would show much older then they already are
@CiscoIPPhone yes there are other studies, I'm not familiar with dendrochronology, but I do know that other tests, such as potassium argon is suceptable to leaching as well
even at 50k years, which I'll give you, then that is not precise enough to determine if the world is 10k years or less
@BeatMe yes they have shown those levels are dropping like crazy. which means that during the 1950s there was a significant jump do to nuclear testing
@BeatMe going down means that something contaminated your c14 again. now you have another problem that you have no way of accounting for.
@BeatMe in all. I can see how carbon dating is effective for determining the levels of c14 within an object. however to the equation to calculate age is very flawed because of the assumptions that HAVE to be made.
@JonathonByrd I subscribe to young-earth, but someone whose opinions I hold in the highest regard has made arguments for the gap theory (though I don't think he knew it had a name).
Why don't young earth creationists just say god created the universe 10k years ago, but made it look old - he planted fossils, set up the light to arrive at the earth from distant galaxies etc it seems that would mean there was less conflict with science
@CiscoIPPhone Because then the question is "why the heck would he do that?" What is the purpose.
For instance, I believe that the universe looks old. I could assume that God created the universe 10k years ago to look old, but I struggle to find a purpose in that.
@waxeagle I don't believe that we have accumulated enough data to make accurate predictions about the past. We've only had the technology, at best, for 100 years. In the scope of a billion, we just don't have enough data. the assumptions are ridiculous
the tests resulted in a range of years in the ballpark of 4,4 to 4,7 B years
several, independent tests
and you still claim, that these tests are all wrong, leaching did wash out almost every uranium atoms of these different meteroids and we are 4.4B years off?
@Sven If these tests measure something specific to return a single variable, that could very well be completely accurate. However, you still make assumptions on the other key variables within your equations.
rate of decay and contaminents
not to forget starting levels
dont tell me that you have observed these over a billion years and know that you're 100%
I don't need to fit things into genesis, I don't look at the world and then look at genesis. For me I look at genesis, consider it a valid theory and then look for evidence to back my theory.
I personally have found plenty of evidence and still consider my theory to be very valid.
you have a theory, evolution, and you are making assumptions in order to find evidence for that theory.
"I don't need to fit things into genesis, I don't look at the world and then look at genesis. For me I look at genesis, consider it a valid theory and then look for evidence to back my theory." this is exactly what is wrong
you have no evidence and still you consider it true
@JonathonByrd Off of multiple observations. Scientists were quite cautious when it came to the age of the earth, exactly because most of them took the Bible into consideration. However there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is very very old (and the Universe is much older). The thing is with this is that there are many completely different observations, made through different means (and sciences!) and they all fit together like a puzzle.
I was given a precise theory I put each element of that theory to the test.
I look over my shoulder at you guys with your theory and see that you are making assumptions in order to validate the evidence for your theory. I'm skeptical of that.
I assume that there was a flood. I find evidence for that. I also find that if there was a flood it would have a severe impact on your assumptions.
you deny a flood, even given the evidence and refuse to look at the flood evidence.
instead you assume even more in order to corroborate with your existing assumptions. I'm skeptical of that.
who is "you"? I do not assume there was no flood. I look at the evidence. Bring me evidence of the flood and I'll know there was a flood. It's not an assumption.
leaching is a chemical process. different isotopes of the same element have the same chemical properties. leaching does not affect the distribution of the different isotopes
I've been doing some reading about radiometric dating and I've come across an interesting find. If anybody has any additional information on this, that would be great.
First my question:
In regards to Carbon-14, is leaching of radiometric material a concern and does/will it have an effect on the...
Carbon dating cannot be used to date anything inorganic really... and to test the age of the Earth we test mineral deposits or asteroids...
Also, let's assume that the Earth is young. Why would we see planetary accretion disks in distant stars? Why would planet easily form in other solar systems, in the same time ranges as our dating, but not this one?
Why would we measure the age of the universe to be quite correct given the composition of the solar system (as you should know, this is a second generation system, and this is why we have heavy elements)
Why would we have extensive evidence of evolution which is completely unrelated to dating, which also points to the same timings as independently verified through dating?
I'm not going to enter into an argument with you about that. it doesn't matter how specific that I get or don't get, you will find something to moan about. Here's the reality. You're making assumptions and basing a lot of your "facts" off of assumptions.
My schooling does not equate to my IQ.
If you're going to try and win this argument by telling me that it's all over my head, then it's well over your head.
I never said anything about your IQ. Your schooling though does equate to your ability to discuss rationally about a subject, and the amount of explanation that must be offered.
Allow me to explain then. You start off with some hypothesis of how something works. You then try to refute that hypotheisis. If successful, you come up with some new explanation that supports the existing evidence and then try to refute that. After a while, when nobody has been able to refute it, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
So while we can never be 100% sure of how stars form, our current theory has so far been able to explain all the phenomena we are able to observe.
If you think the theory is wrong, try to come up with some evidence for that.
@jon is not convinced by those facts. However as I was pointing out, the fact that lead us to date the earth to 4.5 b.y. are many more than the ones pointed out by him.
Sure, people are always right unless they are wrong.
But even if the dating was wrong... it would not be enough
@Sklivvz you're right. I'm just saying evidence in my theory is causing evidence in your theory. but we're looking at it through two different points of view
@Sklivvz and this is how it works. I suggest an observation and you roll your eyes because you HAVE TO reject it in order to validate your evidence
@Sklivvz That has been proven through a loss of dna information.
@Sklivvz that's devolving, not evolving
@Sklivvz I agree that some change within a species has occured. I willnt dispute that
but change from species to species has not been proven, unless you want to show evidence of the opposite in order to prove your position. Which is what is done in the evolutionary theory, all day... every day...
There is an enormous amount of evidence, none of which contradicts evolution. If you understood my explanation of the scientific method above, you should understand that it's your job to find contradicting evidence.
@JonathonByrd I think that's your misunderstanding. It's impossible to experimentally prove something. It is, however, easy to disprove something. That's why the scientific method works that way.
@Sklivvz I am a programmer. I know software and information far better then you could imagine. I understand the complexities that you're faced with in the DNA. I know that just the appearances of something mean nothing about its DNA
I'm sure you can define 'information' in such a way that it isn't, but that wouldn't take away from the fact that whatever is being mutated can demonstrate new traits
@MichaelMyers: If you start out with random genes and calculate their entropy, you will find that they contain no information. If you then run them through a genetic algorithm and measure the entropy after a few thousand iterations you will see a clear reduction of entropy (i.e. increase in information).
@Sklivvz I have a question. How does a genetic algorithm with a predetermined (even if not fully defined) target outcome relate to evolution of species in a meaningful way?
@Sklivvz so your saying with an undetermined outcome there are more opportunities to succeed? I guess the question is what is success? viability? improvement of life span etc?
Yes, but also sometimes the proportion of genes within a species change. E.g. Due to varying conditions, tall individuals are favourably selected. Therefore in time you will have a higher percentage of tall individuals, this will make it more likely that high specimens reproduce, and thus more likely that the offspring have a large set of "tall" genes, making them even taller
In other words, mutations are only one way through which we evolve.
@Sklivvz are there ongoing experiments to try to observe speciation? I know Darwin observed adaptation and Its pretty obvious, but is anyone trying to directly observe speciation?
@waxeagle I think the problem is that it generally takes many generations to speciate and it's not easy to test if one species can reproduce with another (apart from the obvious checks like number of chromosomes and relative size of the organisms). I'm not an expert though...
@waxeagle: Short version: Horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosomes (64 and 62). This does not cause a problem when their reproductive cells combine, as you just get half from each and end up with 63. It does cause a problem in the mule's production of reproductive cells, as the process requires an even number of chromosomes.
The Bengal is a relatively new hybrid breed of cat, formed by the cross of a domestic feline and an Asian Leopard Cat ("ALC").
Bengal cats have "wild-looking" markings, such as large spots, rosettes, and a light/white belly, and a body structure reminiscent of the Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis). The Bengal cat has a desirable "wild" appearance with a gentle domestic cat temperament, provided it is separated by at least three generations from the original crossing between a domestic feline and an ALC.
The name Bengal cat was derived from the taxonomic name of th...
@BeatMe I'm really not sure, I think he is just opinionated. My experience is that a lot of Christians have been indoctrinated in the same way they accuse athiests/non-believers of being indoctrinated.