C-14 and Other Dating Methods.

[tandytripper]

I was not sure if this should be posted in this sub-forum or off topic, but as it is science related, I popped it here. If admin think it is better elsewhere on the forum, please move it at your discretion.:D

I have often wondered, why many a religious type VALUE and reference c-14 dating info when it comes to say dating things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, however when it comes to other things they don't WANT to acknowledge, said dating method obviously screwed up. I ask as I was having a quite heated debate as to the Shroud of Turin on another site a while back and it has been bugging me since. FTR, I agreed that the dating for the DSS's (well the dating of the pot they were found in anyway) was as accurate as it could possibly be, but all that proved was that an old pot held some scrolls.

Has anyone else had such experiences in debate with xians (specifically in my case) over such issues and if so, how did YOU tackle them?

[youngmoigle]

Carbon 14 is accurate to about 50,000 years so it's ideal for 2,000 year old scrolls, but no good for million/billion year old fossils. You have to use other isotopes with a longer half-life. Potassium-40 is the only one I know, but there are others.

Fundies concentrate on C-14 because they are aware that most laymen think it's the only dating method available. The fundie can then produce (genuine) scientific evidence proving that C-14 is unreliable beyond 50,000 years and imply that anything dated in the millions or billions of years is mere guesswork. If the laymen knew about the other dating methods, the fundie's ploy would be useless

2000 year old scrolls are dated with C-14
Billion year old fossils are dated with Potassium-40 (or some other)

[Mister Pervert]

Has anyone else had such experiences in debate with xians (specifically in my case) over such issues and if so, how did YOU tackle them?

I say, "Show me your tits."

You can sned pix - I M 18 thx.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Hello Tandytriper
I work for an organisation where the bulk of staff are scientists. A handfull of us are overt atheists. Most of the staff don't discuss religion unless poked with a stick but there are a few overt Christians and Muslims about. Those that I know persnonally seem able to carry out their work well but they have to perform some nifty mental gymnastics and make obtuse scriptural interpretations to keep their science and faith from clashing. I wonder which would suffer more if an irreconcilable problem arose.
Not all science is caried out conscientiously and there are plenty of examples of fraud. You have to choose who is credible based on their evidence and the evidence from subsequent work that builds on their ideas. Unfortunately, this allows fundies to pick out the science they want to take seriously and discount that which disagrees with their world view. The C-14 example you mention is easy to test as it disputes the credibility of labs rather than techniques. Call on the other party to provide evidence that discredits the labs whose work they discount. There's been a lot of C-14 work done that establishes evidence of life before the 6000 year barrier set by young earth creationists, so they'll have their work cut out discrediting it all. C-14 dating is considered unreliable beyond the 50,000 year mark, so they could dispute relative ages based on differing techniques but, again, the onus is on them to bring forth the evidence
that discredits a particular practice.
Cheers
WLB

[Dave]

I have sat through a creationist meeting where the alternative method of dating is to hold the fossil in one hand, the bible in the other and see where it fits in. I nearly choked on my tongue when I heard this only because the meeting was a Dry argument and there was no beer in sight. I was considering making another suggestion to Dr Carl Wieland in which the method could be vastly improved but alas this would have left them with red faces.

[Dave]

@Dave: after employing this alternative "dating" method, would those conducting the test be required to stand?

Without standing the method is more cumbersome and difficult to execute:eek:

[Dave]

If you're talking young earth creationists, you'd have to get them to move their heads first.



Ah like the sounds of champagne corks popping. Let's celebrate!!

[Atrax Robustus]

Has anyone else had such experiences in debate with xians (specifically in my case) over such issues and if so, how did YOU tackle them?

@TT

There is a very quick and precise way to respond to a theist trying to mount this attack:

"OK - before we start, I assume that you are familiar with the term nuclide?

You are?

Good, and you are able to solve a differential equation such as:

dN/dt = -kT , and

solve the following equation given the values of N0, N and t from the physical and chemical constants:

(1/t)loge(N0/N)=k

You can?

Good, so why can't you tell me what is wrong with your argument then!"
They usually walk away - quickly!:D

DAMN! BB code doesn't seem to be working!:mad:

[NakedApe]

Many years ago a friend of mine (who was a fundie until a complete mental breakdown and subsequent electroconvulsive therapy jolted some sense into him) showed me a book called "The Genesis Flood". This book, he said, proved that there was geological evidence for the biblical flood, that c-14 and other dating methods were innaccurate and that dinosaurs and humans had co-existed. The evidence presented in the book for the dinosaur/human bit was the Paluxy River footprints:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluxy_River

When I explained to him that it had been known for years that the Paluxy River footprints were a hoax, he became quite hostile so I dropped it. The thing that struck me though was the way that young Earth creationists, when faced with contradictory evidence, will resort to outright lies to support their arguments. Amusingly, some young Earth creationist websites still cite the Paluxy River as evidence to support their claims:

http://www.lostworldmuseum.com/?p=163
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Another great example of the wilfull dishonesty and stubborn ignorance of young Earth creationists.

[wolty]

Carbon 14 is accurate to about 50,000 years so it's ideal for 2,000 year old scrolls, but no good for million/billion year old fossils. You have to use other isotopes with a longer half-life. Potassium-40 is the only one I know, but there are others.

Fundies concentrate on C-14 because they are aware that most laymen think it's the only dating method available. The fundie can then produce (genuine) scientific evidence proving that C-14 is unreliable beyond 50,000 years and imply that anything dated in the millions or billions of years is mere guesswork. If the laymen knew about the other dating methods, the fundie's ploy would be useless

2000 year old scrolls are dated with C-14
Billion year old fossils are dated with Potassium-40 (or some other)
Agree with all that.

From my book:

Absolute methods:

Potassuium-argon dating
Uranium-lead dating. quote " Uranium-lead dating can be used to measure deposits as old as the world itself 4.5 billion years"
Radiocarbon dating used for over the last 50,000 years ( 70,000 with new methods)

Thermoluminescence dating: especially used 50000-100000 years
Fission-track dating, cross check Potassuium-argon dating

Relative dating:

Faunal dating
Paleomagnetism (magnetic shift before 700,000 years ago)
Chemical methods eg flourine, amino acids


The fundies pick particular parts of these and pull them apart. eg radiocarbon doesn't work over 50,000 years so it is discredited.
They all have their blinkers on.

[youngmoigle]

You'll have to tell us about your book some time. It sounds interesting...

[wolty]

You'll have to tell us about your book some time. It sounds interesting...
"People of the Past"
The Illistrated history of Humankind General Editor Goran Burenhult
2003
440 Pages Kinda good as a general overview of human development.

I have read Jared Diamond as well,
Guns,Germs and Steel. 1997
Collapse, How Societies choose to fail or survive . 2005
Numerous other books especially ancient history books, Homer and so on.