Carbon Dating.

[SAMMY249]

A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.

Comments?

[SAMMY249]

Guess not too bad i have to go now.Too bad ppl dont know about this.

[This message has been edited by SAMMY249 (edited 12-05-2006).]

[Martini]

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

Comments?

The person who wrote this nonsense has no idea of how Carbon-14 dating works and why it's extremely reliable. I could write pages pointing out the bullshit, but I'm not going to waste my time debunking an article when all you did was copy and paste some creationist nonsense you found on the internet. If you'd like to single out one or two points made that you think are evidence for Carbon-14 being inaccurate, I'd be happy to explain to you why the creationist nonsense you're blindly following is bullshit. I say blindly following, because we've gone through this before and it's evident that you haven't the foggiest idea of how Carbon-14 dating works, yet cling to the idea that the pseudo-scientific, fake diploma having, creationist idiots who write this shit know what they're talking about.

[Elephantitis Man]

My eyes hurt from reading all the stupid.

[truckfixr]

This is how carbon dating really works

[stormshadowftb]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

My eyes hurt from reading all the stupid.

bo bo bo!

[RAOVQ]

lets say, hypothetically, that sammy did not just post completely innacurate bullshit;

im wondering, how does that make creationism any more plausable at all? even if you assume carbon dating was complete crap, how do you make the gigantic leap to a "magic man in sky made everyone 5000 years ago"? what does one have to do with the other?

[Raw_Power]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

lets say, hypothetically, that sammy did not just post completely innacurate bullshit;

im wondering, how does that make creationism any more plausable at all? even if you assume carbon dating was complete crap, how do you make the gigantic leap to a "magic man in sky made everyone 5000 years ago"? what does one have to do with the other?

Christians have this crazy idea that if they disprove science, then their religion is automatically correct.

[Twiggy]

But then you have other dating methods such as Argon-Argon dating, Argon-Potassium dating, Thermoluminescence dating, Fission track dating... These methods can date back many, many thousands of years further back than radiocarbon dating and do indeed turn up with objects that would seem to have been around before the "creation" of the world. Also, radiocarbon dates can be calibrated to make them much more reliable.

0h n03s!

[El Coolio]

I used to go to a catholic school. in religion they said that the creationism theory doesnt work. if you add up the bible stories and shit that the world only works out to be around a few thousands years old. they even know. they said take the story with a grain of salt.