C14 Dating

[Zakuska]

This isn't news Zakuska. What specifically are you trying to arrive at or prove with this post?

That its not simply a matter of "calibration". Only most recently are the scientists realizing all the variables that play into this. Perfect example...

For a long time they thought calibration ment simply adding or subtracting 400 years because of the reservior effect. Now we see them saying that there are ALOT more varibles in the mix that were not accounted for, that need to be.

And yet another example... Polar bears eat seals that eat mollusks that eat depleated c14. There goes all the Carbon Dating for Polar bears!

Since we have no idea how much c14 we began with in a sample to begin with.

[shalamabobbi]

Since we have no idea how much c14 we began with in a sample to begin with.

well that's not exactly true..

I think your talking of refinements that are not all that earth shaking. For example the measured oceanic reservoir effect was measured to be about 25% lower per the cited nomographs of my text in school.

That will represent the maximum error possible with C14 dating by ignoring reservoir effects completely (which isn't done but let's establish some boundaries).

A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:

t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:

t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years

t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years

t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years

t = 18,940 years old

Now let's add the 25% error due to the reservoir effect.

100% - 25% = 75%

.75 x .10 = .075

t = [ ln (0.075) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years

t = 21,305 years old

That's a maximum error of 12.5% older but a total error of 2,370 years

Let's take something that is 6,000 years old.

t = 6,000 yrs

working backwards we get

Nf/No = 0.482

now multiply by 75% and work forwards again to get

t = 8,370 years a 40% error but a total error of 2,370 years

So you see the error possible is 2,370 years.

Here is a site that explains how they calibrate by using samples of known age to correct for this effect.

http://www.radiocarbon.eu/marine-reservoir-effect.htm

Any number of unknown variables cannot exceed this maximum. Deep sea water sitting still for a maximum of 1000 years would represent a smaller correction.

If I've missed something in the intent of your post please walk me through a specific example as I did above. ( Or if I've made some crude error in my understanding or lack thereof in C14 dating as I am a nuke, not an archeologist.)

[Ceeboo]

One celled animal ------> humans

Questions?

Oh, I guess you want something like a speciation that happened in your lifetime huh?

Funny, I guess if I believed in micro-erosion but not macro-erosion I would not believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion!

Then I would ask you petulantly for an example of macroerosion. Name one! (No one ever saw a canyon form dude!)

Well, even in your lifetime (a flash in the pan geologically) there are still some examples of speciation:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

Good morning Tarski,

Thanks for the response!

I appreciate the link provided (One fly into another fly into another fly, etc)

I was hoping to see an example of macro-evolution where the fly "evolved" into somethinmg like a pig?

Also, I am not certain I know what "speciation" means exactly. Is that when one species makes changes but remains the same species (IF that is correct then I think we have found something we can agree on )

Anyhooo, I appreciate the converstaion.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Ceeboo]

That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. How about... every living thing you see around you, including in the mirror?

That sounds very Hovind-like. He loves to talk about "lots and lots of rain falling on rocks" that created life (or something like that).

Hey Krose,

Really? Everything around me, including what I see in the mirror are examples of macro-evolution?

Right now, I see my Golden Retriever and my gorgeous wife. Can you show me one examples/fossils/records/pictures/ (Anything) that gives me a hint of this transition from something else into my dog or wife?

BTW, it seems as though some are implying that there are no "Scientists" who believe in creation. Is that correct?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[krose]

I was hoping to see an example of macro-evolution where the fly "evolved" into somethinmg like a pig?

How about a dinosaur into a chicken?

I would think that anyone who has observed the vastly different breeds of dog would not deny the biological changes that obviously take place.

[Ceeboo]

How about a dinosaur into a chicken?

I would think that anyone who has observed the vastly different breeds of dog would not deny the biological changes that obviously take place.

And I would think that anyone who has observed the vastly different breeds of dogs would not deny that they are still dogs.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[semlogo]

AS if someone who holds a creation World view would have bogus "Carbon-14 dating references"

and someone who holds a Evolution World view would have real "Carbon-14 dating references".

Everyone knows creationists (who tend not to have a scientific background) know more than those satanic scientists!

[semlogo]

Good morning Tarski,

Thanks for the response!

I appreciate the link provided (One fly into another fly into another fly, etc)

I was hoping to see an example of macro-evolution where the fly "evolved" into somethinmg like a pig?

Also, I am not certain I know what "speciation" means exactly. Is that when one species makes changes but remains the same species (IF that is correct then I think we have found something we can agree on )

Anyhooo, I appreciate the converstaion.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Oh, my.

[semlogo]

And I would think that anyone who has observed the vastly different breeds of dogs would not deny that they are still dogs.

Peace,

Ceeboo

I heard a satanic scientist say that small evolutionary steps + time = large evolutionary steps. Clearly he was demon possessed. The earth is only 6000 years old!

[Ceeboo]

Everyone knows creationists (who tend not to have a scientific background) know more than those satanic scientists!

Hi semlogo,

It seems that you are implying that there are no/few "scientists" who believe in creation. Is that correct?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Ceeboo]

I heard a satanic scientist say that small evolutionary steps + time = large evolutionary steps. Clearly he was demon possessed. The earth is only 6000 years old!

Hey again semlogo,

No, I would not consider your scientist "satanic" or "demon possessed".

I would suggest that it is a possibility that your scientist has a "belief" system in that he "believes" that given enough time (millions/billions) of years that anything can/will happen.

The problem (If you care to actually discuss it with contributions instead of "satanic" mocking references) is that your scientist can not prove this belief.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[semlogo]

Hi semlogo,

It seems that you are implying that there are no/few "scientists" who believe in creation. Is that correct?

Peace,

Ceeboo

Well, it depends on what kind of scientists. Engineers who don't study biology or geology tend to believe in Creationism in larger numbers. Almost no scientists whose expertise is in fields relevant to this issue are creationists.

It just goes to show that education is of the devil!

[semlogo]

Hey again semlogo,

No, I would not consider your scientist "satanic" or "demon possessed".

I would suggest that it is a possibility that your scientist has a "belief" system in that he "believes" that given enough time (millions/billions) of years that anything can/will happen.

The problem (If you care to actually discuss it with contributions instead of "satanic" mocking references) is that your scientist can not prove this belief.

Peace,

Ceeboo

They believe it because of genetics and because of the fossil record, which shows large evolutionary steps over large amounts of time, and small steps over smaller amounts of time.

What these scientists don't know is that Satan buries those dinosaur bones in such a way to make it LOOK like they evolved. And Satan messed with our DNA to make it LOOK close to chimps. Satan is very crafty that way.

[Ceeboo]

Well, it depends on what kind of scientists. Engineers who don't study biology or geology tend to believe in Creationism in larger numbers. Almost no scientists whose expertise is in fields relevant to this issue are creationists.

Nonsense!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[semlogo]

Nonsense!

Peace,

Ceeboo

I could hardly believe it either, but it's true! It just goes to show that we, as creationists, should avoid the evil of higher education so that we may avoid the Satanic lies of educated people!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nonsense!

Peace,

Ceeboo

And thus you have seen the posting style of Logo. Lol.

This htread is interesting. I thought that it would probably die off but no..... It has erupted.

[semlogo]

And thus you have seen the posting style of Logo. Lol.

This htread is interesting. I thought that it would probably die off but no..... It has erupted.

Let's not fight - we're on the same side!

[krose]

And I would think that anyone who has observed the vastly different breeds of dogs would not deny that they are still dogs.

What is a dog? Is a wolf a dog? Is a coyote a dog? Dingo? Hyena? Fox? They are all of the genus canis, but are different species. Isn't it obvious that these species all had a fairly recent common ancestor?

How about cats? Aren't the different species of tigers, lions, bobcats, jaguars, leopards and cougars clearly the result of recently evolving from a common ancestor?

Is it really so difficult to add primates (human, chimpanzee, orangutan, etc.) to the above list of species who are so closely related that it's apparent that they share a common ancestor?

At some point in time, even closely related creatures became distinct enough that they are now classified as different species rather than variations. The macro and micro business is an artificial distinction, as if there is a magical barrier separating one species from another that cannot be crossed.

[Zakuska]

So you see the error possible is 2,370 years.

Here is a site that explains how they calibrate by using samples of known age to correct for this effect.

http://www.radiocarb...voir-effect.htm

Any number of unknown variables cannot exceed this maximum. Deep sea water sitting still for a maximum of 1000 years would represent a smaller correction.

If I've missed something in the intent of your post please walk me through a specific example as I did above. ( Or if I've made some crude error in my understanding or lack thereof in C14 dating as I am a nuke, not an archeologist.)

What's that saying? "Close only counts in horse shoes and hand gernades."

Theres an aweful lot of "assuming" going on in the process described in that link.

It also does not take into account that... say for example seals being migratory and thus eating mollusks from northern and southern hemispheres at different times of the year and thus would be effected differently by different co2 upwellings at different places and times.

The only thing that has been proven with an certianty is that there is a High percentage of uncertianty.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

Science like any other human endeavor is all about close. That is why you see that little +/-

in nearly everything.

[Vance]

Ok, so carbon dating is accurate to 3.000594 +/- 1,000,000,000,000. years.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska:

Science like any other human endeavor is all about close. That is why you see that little +/-

in nearly everything.

Yes I understand the idea of tolerances. Thus the silver gold bands on varrying sized resistors, etc. etc.

But 2370 years is quite a loose tolerance, would you not agree?

Remeber the 2nd post on the thread?

The Calogen in the bone is 44,270 years younger than the Charcoal, and 18,720 years younger than the Clay

With a 2370 year variation like that and we're all over the time line! Heck with that kind of variation the animal could have died a 100 years ago for all we know!

[semlogo]

Ok, so carbon dating is accurate to 3.000594 +/- 1,000,000,000,000. years.

Correct! This is because Satan influences the radioactive decay of C14 to go FASTER to make us think the earth is old. In fact, he makes it SO fast that it causes a lot of harmful radiation. You can protect yourself from this radiation of fast decaying C14 by wearing special clothing:

[krose]

Yes I understand the idea of tolerances. Thus the silver gold bands on varrying sized resistors, etc. etc.

Wow, that takes me back to college days. The tolerance indicator bands of gold, silver or none were represented by "Get Some Now" in the mnemonic rhyme.

By the way, what is Calogen?

[Zakuska]

Wow, that takes me back to college days. The tolerance indicator bands of gold, silver or none were represented by "Get Some Now" in the mnemonic rhyme.

By the way, what is Calogen?

Sorry Elfs Dislexia kicked in.

Collagen is a group of naturally occurring proteins. In nature, it is found exclusively in animals, especially in the flesh and connective tissues of mammals.^[1] It is the main component of connective tissue, and is the most abundant protein in mammals,^[2] making up about 25% to 35% of the whole-body protein content. Collagen, in the form of elongated fibrils, is mostly found in fibrous tissues such as tendon, ligament and skin, and is also abundant in cornea, cartilage, bone, blood vessels, the gut, and intervertebral disc.

Oh wait... he was just quoting my OP dislexic misspelling. :blush: