Having taken a few chemistry and physics classes in my life, I am one who absolutely and completely believe in the science behind carbon dating. I'm not a specialist in carbon dating, but I assume that those who use it regularly on it, do so with the precision that makes it accurate and feliable. I'm wondering if there are people out there who still think it's "theory" like "evolution" and "GW".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Mar 25 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]411918[/snapback]</div> Only if a proper relationship evolves! :lol: MB
all i know is that when i order a 35S labeled gtp(gamma)s solution, if i don't use it within 5 or 6 weeks it's decayed enough to be useless for my purposes. (half life= 87 days) i also know that i never have to consider decay as a troubleshooting issue when i use 3H, given the 12.5ish year half life. as far as i can tell, the principles work.
Do you mean do people consider carbon dating a "theory" in the colloquial sense that "theory" means "guess"? In which case the answer is yes -- young earth creationists are pretty much required to discount carbon dating. In the scientific sense that "theory" means "model supported by evidence and experiment with no observed falsification" then in this case, too, carbon dating is on the level of evolution, GW, and gravity as a scientific theory.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 25 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]411913[/snapback]</div> Yes. Young Earth creationists assert that radioactive dating (not just carbon, but other elements as well) is flawed. They have several specious arguments against it, all of which are hogwash, but all of which sound good enough to their supporters, which is all they care about.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 25 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]412063[/snapback]</div> Yep, they will deny that it has any kind of accuracy, and besides the universal Flood "pressurized" all the carbon forms and make them look older. (I think that's actually in one of Duane Gish's books.) Francis Collins does a pretty good treatment of this in his book "The Language of God" about mapping the human genome; Collins was the scientist chosen to head up the project and is a Christian evolutionist to boot.
The real key to your question, and you hit it right on the head, is the word "theory." People who like to argue against science take that word to have a very different meaning than the way scientists use it. Evolution and Global Warming are theories. Wikipedia (which, to be fair, the creator of conservapedia.com believes to be liberal-biased ) says: So, yes millions, or thousands, or hundreds of years age might not be easy to prove in any other way, which would make radioactive dating a theoretical prediction, but it's also a theoretical prediction that you'll fall down if there's nothing supporting your weight (given, of course, close proximity to a very massive object, e.g. Earth).
14C half-life is 5730 (by some measures as low as 5680?) years. Using this to date fossil (or just very old) biological samples was originally based on the presumption that its concentration in the atmosphere is constant through time. This has turned out not strictly to be the case, and the breakthrough involved bristlecone pine wood samples from trees that were extraordinarily old. The sun's emission of ionizing radiation and charged particles converts some atmospheric N into C. Its radiation output is not completely constant. This has all been very well worked out with different groups and techniques. One might read: http://www.c14dating.com/int.html http://www.unmuseum.org/radiocar.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Material...ic%20dating.pdf for a start. The 'latest thing' in radioactive half-lives is a report from New Scientist last October that they can be slightly shortened by ultracold temperatures. Report was titled 'Half-life heresy: Accelerating radioactive decay'. I have not found that outside of subscription sites, but could pirate it into here if there is interest. Somebody is going to try to test the predictions sometime this year in one of the large particle accelerators. Then it will be news again and we will hear of early confirmation or refutation.
you mean old stuff doesn't have a 'born on' date printed on the bottom? That would definitely proof it .... 'created on' date
No, lywyllyn. In fact the Bible is a little ambiguous about both the "created on" date AND the "best if used by" date.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Mar 26 2007, 09:49 AM) [snapback]412348[/snapback]</div> I didn't know the Bible had a "best if used by" date. Jesus said nobody would know the hour, though he clearly thought the world would expire within the natural lifetime of his followers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Mar 26 2007, 10:50 AM) [snapback]412264[/snapback]</div> This reminds me of a discussion I had with a high school science teacher. I said "So, if I've got this right, you mean there's no certainty the Sun will rise tomorrow, because that theory is based merely on empirical evidence."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Mar 26 2007, 01:11 PM) [snapback]412494[/snapback]</div> Well, an asteroid could smash the Earth into smithereens. If there's no "tomorrow" because "tomorrow" is defined according to the Earth's rotation, then once there's no Earth, there's no tomorrow, and by extension the sun would not rise tomorrow.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Mar 26 2007, 01:11 PM) [snapback]412494[/snapback]</div> I'm sure somebody's worked out which will happen first: the earth's spin finally stops, or sol's death cycle incinerates the earth. Either way, sunrise will have long before ceased to have any meaning for whomever is still around to ponder it. Better get busy on those escape space ships - time's a wastin'! Mark Baird Alameda CA
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 26 2007, 04:27 PM) [snapback]412589[/snapback]</div> The Earth's spin should eventually synchronize with the orbital period of the moon, making for long days, but a continued (slow) spin, and continued sunrises. Perhaps by then the human race will have evolved back into a slime mold, and won't care.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 26 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]412589[/snapback]</div> Sorry, burritos, one more diversion and then you can have your thread back. I had a National Geographic poster up in the bathroom for a long time, showing the known universe in several exploded diagrams, each a vastly different scale. Of course I had to add a "You are Here" marker, and after the description of how Sol would engulf Earth billions of years hence, I wrote "RUN!" About the spin stopping: any idea of the latest thinking on how the differential rotational speeds of the core and the crust might cause reversals in Earth's magnetic poles?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Mar 25 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]411918[/snapback]</div> President Bush has said that he's OK with carbon dating, as long as it isn't gay carbon.
