Talk:Carbon dating

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is there anyone who can confirm/deny HG's edit[1] ? I don't know if its provable either way.Keepoff the grass 20:21, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Only those on CP and the likes could confirm that garbage. Locke Random 20:29, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
As far as I know, C-14 fluctuations have been known about for years and modern dating is calibrated to incorporate known C-14 levels at different times.--MountainTiger 20:34, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Well someone who knows revert it then. Keepoff the grass 20:38, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Eggselent Mountain! Keepoff the grass 21:25, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

As far as I know, C-14 does fluctuate, but it has not yet stablized (actually evidence to some of a young Earth). If you do the differential equation, I think I remember that about 21 pounds created each day by the Sun, and the half life is 5700 years...calculate how many years and at what level C14 would stabalize, and it shows (from my understanding) that something doesn't add up. Could be misapplication of math, some drastic change in the Sun's output of particles in the recent past, etc. Anyway, I am pretty sure that C14 dating is not as simple and clean as evolutionists want to make it out to be. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 20:43, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Contents

[edit] Don't let your sister date Carbon

Carbon is known to associate with all sorts of other elements and your sister could catch any number of elemental diseases. The Silicon boyz are also bad news, but Carbon will stick its electrons just about anywhere! CЯacke® 11:48, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Am I my sister's keeper? 193.113.235.167 11:54, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Young Earth Creationists and C-14

A friend of mine (Young Earth Creationist) keeps mentioning an anomaly in the C-14 values as some sort of evidence for C-dating to be imperfect. He lacks the knowledge to go in depth, and I wondered if there was more information on this, as I think this should be included. InaVegt 18:35, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Probably the fact that Carbon 14 production hasn't been constant throughout time and has to be calibrated using other means (tree ring dating etc) see Wikipedia for example. This is often used as a reason to disqualify C14 results by YECers.
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the earth's magnetosphere. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction. Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, the combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled for a short period during the 1950s and 1960s due to atomic bomb tests.
—wp
CaycePattern 19:07, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Conservapedia

Given that CP is growing more and more irrelevant to the world at large, maybe it's better to replace the "CP is full of shit" part with the somewhat more interesting reversal in the "101 Reasons" article where they assume carbon dating is accurate because it measures thousands and not millions of years. It's rather a glaring inconsistency on the part of a much larger and more influential organization. --Kels 19:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've actually removed a few "lightweight" CP references from normal mainspace articles recently, because, yeah, they are pretty irrelevant. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
How's that look? I think there needs to be more to the article, but that's a start in trimming the excess reliance on CP for points. --Kels 21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's great. General YEC viewpoints (which may refer to CP things, I guess) are fine, since that's our job. These big fat "CP says" sections get old, though. Nice work! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Better C14 benchmark in Japanese lake.

See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121018141834.htm etc etc. The research team used cores of preserved layers of sediment which had organic material. It has been undisturbed for many millennium and this can now give more accurate C14 out through the whole 11,000-53,000-year time range. Byofrcs (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon dating in dinosaurs

There have actually been carbon dating in dinosaurs as opposed to what is currently stated. They are shown to present with C14 as well as soft tissue at times. More research is definitely required before this can be explained. — Unsigned, by: Flewk / talk / contribs

See Soft tissue preservation. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

After arguing with another willful ignorant christian, I did some research. While there is carbon 14 in coal/diamond, the argument is of course bunk. To quote " Observations also have been made of carbon-14 from radium-222, radium-224, and radium-226, as well as neon-24 from thorium-230, protactinium-231," And what is commonly in coal? Why Uranium and radium. https://www.britannica.com/nobelprize/article-48282 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support