Hi there!
Firstly I want to say, when making a comment, please, try to avoid using this website for me to go and read and answer: www.talkorigins.org. In one debate, I was referenced to this website no less than 5 times, I am getting sick of it, I explain everything, but they just keep throwing it again. From now on, if someone references to talkorigins, I am going to reference to talkorigins rival, www.trueorigins.org They are having war with each other so feel free to go there if you have any questions that you find on talk origins. The one comment was 29+ evidences for macro-evolution. Go here for that answer.
Well, its been a while since I published my first blog entry about carbon dating. I am very happy, I don't get any "proof" for millions of years old that includes carbon dating.
Actually the millions of years doesn't even fit, thanks to the 50 000 years limit, and all the ticks, so anything older than 50 000 years won't even give a single tick, so I don't know where they get that information from.
Anyway, now I'm not getting blasted with carbon dating, now I'm getting blasted with uranium lead dating! Well there are more than 20 dating methods so I suspects I am going to get blasted with allot of them, helium dating, lead 210 dating, racemization dating, astronomical dating, paleomagnetic dating I'm sure I'm going to get tackled with all of them, so I better get ready for it.
Uranium lead dating is pretty interesting, unlike carbon dating uranium lead dating has 2 separate decay chains. The one has a half life of 4,47 billion years and the other a half life of 704 billion years. I'm not going into any detail with all this like I did with carbon dating, it has the basics of carbon dating so I'm sure you will be able to follow if you read the carbon dating article. If you want more information on it get a book on it.
First there are a few things that every radiodating method assumes.
#1. Each system has to be a closed system or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space. So immediately that tells you radiodating methods are not very accurate.
#2. Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must
originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.
But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of
radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. People can guess, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do! Not that long ago they dated dinosaur bones, the results gave them a few thousand years. (Which is what I believed from the start) what did they do? Throw out the dinosaur bones and conclude dinosaur bones are to old to be carbon dated. No, its not to old to be carbon dated, your dating method is faulty and you can't accept the truth. And its been known that the radiodating methods date things back to much. It would be interesting to hear scientists defend themselves on why they throw out some things. Because currently it works like this:
If the age sample is known, radiometric dating does not work, if the age sample is unknown, it is assumed that radiometric dating works. And you call that science? I would seriously find new dating methods to support your theory.
#3. The decay rate must always have been constant. These rates can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. The biggest mistake with the radiometric dating is the assumption that the decay rate has always been the same. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space, if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation, if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral, if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it. John Joly, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!
#4. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals. We know that the oxygen long ago was different than it is today, evolutionists and creationists both agree with this. Most evolutionists say: "Everything seems to have been bigger in the Jurassic age." Most creationists say: "Everything seems to have been bigger before the flood." The only explanation for everything being bigger would be if there was more oxygen and if the oxygen was under more pressure than it is today. Thats the only way that I know of that something can grow as big like a dinosaur. From my point of view, the bible says there was a firmament above the earth. So it is suggested that before the flood there was a water or ice layer above the earth, this is physically possible, and should that be true then the oxygen would be put under more pressure etc. I would like an evolutionists point of view on why everything grew larger in the Jurassic age.
Problems like that just come up and up, all that with just the types of radiometric dating methods. So with all my other radiometric dating posts, I am going to reference to this page. As this is the same for all radiometric dating methods. Now back to uranium lead dating. I have already discussed a few problems with it above. Now uranium lead, specific problems.
#1. Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product. When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is “daughter-product lead”.
#2. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.
#3. There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years.Its like I said previously, if the age sample is known, it does not work, but if the age sample is unknown, it is assumed to work. Get a serious problem here.
#4. Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay!
#5. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials. “Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?”Glen R. Morton. It is a well-known fact, by nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings, yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.
In some of my previous debates I have started showing things from evolution that contradicts itself. Not just its dating methods, the theory itself. I don't know whats happening, but some how those contradictions just never seem to come up. There is a contradiction on how the stars formed, there is a contradiction in your dating methods, there is a contradiction with regards to matter and anti-matter.
Well, thats all for this article, thanks for reading!
-Martin
Showing posts with label Dating methods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dating methods. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Carbon Dating, Part 2!
Hello! Its been a few hours since I wrote the Carbon Dating, Part 1! And that explained why carbon dating does not work. This entry are some examples when carbon dating has failed. The information is gathered from various people and websites.
First, any live animal or any plant is supposed to be dated to 0. As you will see in a moment, it doesn't.
Someone once said: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in as a footnote. And if its completely 'out of date', we drop it."
Someone else said that the accepted dates are selected dates.
In 1949, a mammoth was carbon dated. The mammoths lower leg dated back to 15 380 years, the skin and the flesh however, dated back to 21 300 years.
In 1963, a live mollusk dated shells were dated back to 2300 years old.
In 1971, a freshly killed seal was dated back to 1300 years ago.
In 1975, a mammoth was carbon dated, one part dated back to 29 500 years ago and the other part 44 000 years ago.
In 1975, a frozen baby mammoth was carbon dated, one part dated back to 40 000 years and another part 26 000.
In 1984, shells from a living snail was dated back to 27 000 years ago.
In 1992, 2 mammoths, found next to each other, were dated with the ages of 22 850 and 16 150.
20 year old hard lave was dated back to thousand of years (I cannot remember the precise date).
A pig skull that died in 1470, was dated back to 1,2 million years.
The list goes on and on and on. It is not logical to believe that carbon dating works. It never has worked, nothing that was ever carbon dated was every proved. So they might date something to 1,2 million years ago, but they don't know for sure so they accept that date. So they have no second opinion. So with all of this I believe that carbon dating does not work and it also does not prove that the earth is millions of years old.
Feel free to leave comments, email me with questions, suggestions for a next topic etc.
-Martin
First, any live animal or any plant is supposed to be dated to 0. As you will see in a moment, it doesn't.
Someone once said: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in as a footnote. And if its completely 'out of date', we drop it."
Someone else said that the accepted dates are selected dates.
In 1949, a mammoth was carbon dated. The mammoths lower leg dated back to 15 380 years, the skin and the flesh however, dated back to 21 300 years.
In 1963, a live mollusk dated shells were dated back to 2300 years old.
In 1971, a freshly killed seal was dated back to 1300 years ago.
In 1975, a mammoth was carbon dated, one part dated back to 29 500 years ago and the other part 44 000 years ago.
In 1975, a frozen baby mammoth was carbon dated, one part dated back to 40 000 years and another part 26 000.
In 1984, shells from a living snail was dated back to 27 000 years ago.
In 1992, 2 mammoths, found next to each other, were dated with the ages of 22 850 and 16 150.
20 year old hard lave was dated back to thousand of years (I cannot remember the precise date).
A pig skull that died in 1470, was dated back to 1,2 million years.
The list goes on and on and on. It is not logical to believe that carbon dating works. It never has worked, nothing that was ever carbon dated was every proved. So they might date something to 1,2 million years ago, but they don't know for sure so they accept that date. So they have no second opinion. So with all of this I believe that carbon dating does not work and it also does not prove that the earth is millions of years old.
Feel free to leave comments, email me with questions, suggestions for a next topic etc.
-Martin
Carbon dating, Part 1!
Hello, I'm back!
I am here to make my first "official" post. The one 30 minutes ago doesn't count as it contained next to nothing information! Please note, when working with figures I try to round them, its just easier to read.
Well, if you read my previous post you would know that here I am going to talk about why carbon dating does not work. I will explain step by step. Here goes.
Allot of people would say carbon dating proves that the earth is millions of years old. They dated the fossils! Firstly I want to say that is not true. They determine what the age of the fossils are based on their position in the Geologic column, which doesn't exist anywhere, but in text books. (Later I might write about this.) They get a fossil in a layer and say, this is in this layer so it must be approximately this old. That is number one, not scientific proof, its a guess. And number two, stupid. As we will see when I am discussing the Geologic column.
Before I can explain why carbon dating doesn't work, everyone needs to know the science about it. I will summarize it here, it beats reading wikipedia! Even if you know how carbon dating works, read this, you might learn something new.
Firstly, you have to know, the earth's atmosphere is about 160 KM thick (about 100 miles)
The air is mostly nitrogen. About 78% A little bit of oxygen, about 21%, a little less than 1% argon and about 0.038% carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is what plants use. If you would increase the amount of carbon dioxide, the plants would grow faster. There is an incredibly small amount of radioactive carbon 14. Now how is that possible? Well, the radiotion from the sun collides against the atmosphere and this produces radioactive carbon 14 (I will now refer to radioactive carbon 14 as C14), this then combines this the oxygen and creates carbon dioxide (I will now refer to carbon dioxide as CO2). So C14 is very very rare and it does not stay stable. It is always breaking apart. After it breaks apart it turns back into nitrogen. It disappears with the gas and then disappears with the air.
So C14 is being produced by the atmosphere by the sun and about half of it breaks down about every 5500 years. So in theory C14 will never be 0, it will be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc.
Plants always breath in C14, during photosynthesis (A part of the CO2 is C14). Animals eat plants, and it is then part of their body. So continuously we are absorbing C14. We eat plants or eat animals that have eaten plants. Now, if we die, we are obviously not going to absorb any more C14.
Now here comes the big problem. Assumption, they are assuming something is true, but have no actual proof for it.
They assume, the amount of C14 found in the air is the same amount that are found in the animals. For example, the atmosphere has about 0.038% C14. It is assumed that all of us have the same. I don't know about anyone who has ever been tested for C14. It might be true, I don't know, but it is an assumption, that is where all the dangers come from.
When a plant or animal dies, the C14 begins to decay. And NOT being added again, unlike when the animals are alive. So carbon dating is basically measuring the amount of C14 in an object with the amount of carbon in the athmosphere. If the object has only half the amount in the athmosphere, they would assume its been dead for 1 half life. If it only has 1/4 as much its been dead for 2 half lifes. 2 times 5500. It continues like that. So they are comparing the amount in the object with the amount in the atmosphere. That is how carbon dating works. Lets look at a practical example.
I tell you fill a barrel full of water. And I make holes in the barrel. While you throw water in it will start to flow out. So its getting more and less at the same time. At some point you are going to reach the stage called the equilibrium. In other words, you will never fill the barrel past that point. Unless you increase the input or decrease the output.
So the atmosphere is constantly taking in C14 from the sun, and its constantly losing it. Now the question is, how long would it take the atmosphere to reach the equilibrium stage? After some test and stuff a while ago, they claimed it would take about 30 000 years. The whole problem is, we have not reached equilibrium yet. There is more C14 now than there was 50 years ago. Scientists say C14 is forming 29% faster than it decays. So, with some logic, it means the earth is less than 30 000 years old. And this is what (most) creationists have been saying all these years.
Lets look at another example.
If you walk into a room and you see a candle burning and I ask a very simple question, how long has the candle been burning? You would say you don't know, you just got here. I would say, ok, lets do some science, lets prove it by using tests. So the both of us are now working as a team to figure out how long has the candle been burning.
We decide we start by measuring its height. Lets say its about 18 CM tall (about 7 inches). So now, when was it lit? We don't know, we don't have enough information. So, lets measure how fast it burns. Lets say after careful measure we find out it burns 2.5 CM a hour (about 1 inch). Now when was it lit? You can't tell me unless you make an assumption!
#1. How tall was it?
#2. Has it always burnt at the same rate?
Doesn't matter what you choose it can't be proven.
So if you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is that it died. The amount of C14 can be measured very precisely and a rate of decay can be determined. Now when did it live? No one has any idea, unless assumptions are made (the candle story above). To work out how old it was you would have to know how many C14 was in it when it was alive and if the earth atmosphere has reached equilibrium. Which it hasn't.
Now the bible says there was a water/ice canopy above the earth's atmosphere (a topic for another day). Now that canopy would keep out quite a bit of C14. So if you find an animal that died in the time of the big flood (when the canopy was also destroyed). So when carbon dating an animal that died in the flood, they would assume that when this animal lived the atmosphere was the same as it is today, which it wasn't according to the bible.
So thats why I believe carbon dating doesn't work. I wrote this entry very very fast so it might contain errors, please email me about those errors at mrtnstolk@gmail.com or pm me. Or even email me if you have any questions. I would be happy to answer them.
Feel free to leave your comments, but I ask everyone to try and be polite.
Thank you for reading this entry.
-Martin
I am here to make my first "official" post. The one 30 minutes ago doesn't count as it contained next to nothing information! Please note, when working with figures I try to round them, its just easier to read.
Well, if you read my previous post you would know that here I am going to talk about why carbon dating does not work. I will explain step by step. Here goes.
Allot of people would say carbon dating proves that the earth is millions of years old. They dated the fossils! Firstly I want to say that is not true. They determine what the age of the fossils are based on their position in the Geologic column, which doesn't exist anywhere, but in text books. (Later I might write about this.) They get a fossil in a layer and say, this is in this layer so it must be approximately this old. That is number one, not scientific proof, its a guess. And number two, stupid. As we will see when I am discussing the Geologic column.
Before I can explain why carbon dating doesn't work, everyone needs to know the science about it. I will summarize it here, it beats reading wikipedia! Even if you know how carbon dating works, read this, you might learn something new.
Firstly, you have to know, the earth's atmosphere is about 160 KM thick (about 100 miles)
The air is mostly nitrogen. About 78% A little bit of oxygen, about 21%, a little less than 1% argon and about 0.038% carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is what plants use. If you would increase the amount of carbon dioxide, the plants would grow faster. There is an incredibly small amount of radioactive carbon 14. Now how is that possible? Well, the radiotion from the sun collides against the atmosphere and this produces radioactive carbon 14 (I will now refer to radioactive carbon 14 as C14), this then combines this the oxygen and creates carbon dioxide (I will now refer to carbon dioxide as CO2). So C14 is very very rare and it does not stay stable. It is always breaking apart. After it breaks apart it turns back into nitrogen. It disappears with the gas and then disappears with the air.
So C14 is being produced by the atmosphere by the sun and about half of it breaks down about every 5500 years. So in theory C14 will never be 0, it will be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc.
Plants always breath in C14, during photosynthesis (A part of the CO2 is C14). Animals eat plants, and it is then part of their body. So continuously we are absorbing C14. We eat plants or eat animals that have eaten plants. Now, if we die, we are obviously not going to absorb any more C14.
Now here comes the big problem. Assumption, they are assuming something is true, but have no actual proof for it.
They assume, the amount of C14 found in the air is the same amount that are found in the animals. For example, the atmosphere has about 0.038% C14. It is assumed that all of us have the same. I don't know about anyone who has ever been tested for C14. It might be true, I don't know, but it is an assumption, that is where all the dangers come from.
When a plant or animal dies, the C14 begins to decay. And NOT being added again, unlike when the animals are alive. So carbon dating is basically measuring the amount of C14 in an object with the amount of carbon in the athmosphere. If the object has only half the amount in the athmosphere, they would assume its been dead for 1 half life. If it only has 1/4 as much its been dead for 2 half lifes. 2 times 5500. It continues like that. So they are comparing the amount in the object with the amount in the atmosphere. That is how carbon dating works. Lets look at a practical example.
I tell you fill a barrel full of water. And I make holes in the barrel. While you throw water in it will start to flow out. So its getting more and less at the same time. At some point you are going to reach the stage called the equilibrium. In other words, you will never fill the barrel past that point. Unless you increase the input or decrease the output.
So the atmosphere is constantly taking in C14 from the sun, and its constantly losing it. Now the question is, how long would it take the atmosphere to reach the equilibrium stage? After some test and stuff a while ago, they claimed it would take about 30 000 years. The whole problem is, we have not reached equilibrium yet. There is more C14 now than there was 50 years ago. Scientists say C14 is forming 29% faster than it decays. So, with some logic, it means the earth is less than 30 000 years old. And this is what (most) creationists have been saying all these years.
Lets look at another example.
If you walk into a room and you see a candle burning and I ask a very simple question, how long has the candle been burning? You would say you don't know, you just got here. I would say, ok, lets do some science, lets prove it by using tests. So the both of us are now working as a team to figure out how long has the candle been burning.
We decide we start by measuring its height. Lets say its about 18 CM tall (about 7 inches). So now, when was it lit? We don't know, we don't have enough information. So, lets measure how fast it burns. Lets say after careful measure we find out it burns 2.5 CM a hour (about 1 inch). Now when was it lit? You can't tell me unless you make an assumption!
#1. How tall was it?
#2. Has it always burnt at the same rate?
Doesn't matter what you choose it can't be proven.
So if you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is that it died. The amount of C14 can be measured very precisely and a rate of decay can be determined. Now when did it live? No one has any idea, unless assumptions are made (the candle story above). To work out how old it was you would have to know how many C14 was in it when it was alive and if the earth atmosphere has reached equilibrium. Which it hasn't.
Now the bible says there was a water/ice canopy above the earth's atmosphere (a topic for another day). Now that canopy would keep out quite a bit of C14. So if you find an animal that died in the time of the big flood (when the canopy was also destroyed). So when carbon dating an animal that died in the flood, they would assume that when this animal lived the atmosphere was the same as it is today, which it wasn't according to the bible.
So thats why I believe carbon dating doesn't work. I wrote this entry very very fast so it might contain errors, please email me about those errors at mrtnstolk@gmail.com or pm me. Or even email me if you have any questions. I would be happy to answer them.
Feel free to leave your comments, but I ask everyone to try and be polite.
Thank you for reading this entry.
-Martin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
