Carbon dating
[email protected]
<<What made you change your mind? I'm interested. Usually people
go the other way. They discover science and realise that
regardless of whether god did the creating or not, the earth is well
older than 12000 years.
The aborigenes reached Australia 30,000 years ago. Hard to do if it
weren't there yet....>>
I have much more to learn on this issue but I have heard, from several
sources, that carbon dating is questionable. One reason being that it is
based on preset dating based on fossil levels. It's a form of circular
thinking, "This fossil is 10,000 years old because it was found in a
layer which is 10,000 because it has a fossil which is 10,000 years old."
If carbon dating is based on a pre set idea of how old things SHOULD be
it may not be accurate. It has been a while since I read anything about
this and if anyone knows more on the issue I would be interested in
learning.
Honestly, if I thought carbon dating was reliable I would be open to the
idea that creation took place over time. However, that would still be a
long way from dismissing creation altogether.
Kris
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
go the other way. They discover science and realise that
regardless of whether god did the creating or not, the earth is well
older than 12000 years.
The aborigenes reached Australia 30,000 years ago. Hard to do if it
weren't there yet....>>
I have much more to learn on this issue but I have heard, from several
sources, that carbon dating is questionable. One reason being that it is
based on preset dating based on fossil levels. It's a form of circular
thinking, "This fossil is 10,000 years old because it was found in a
layer which is 10,000 because it has a fossil which is 10,000 years old."
If carbon dating is based on a pre set idea of how old things SHOULD be
it may not be accurate. It has been a while since I read anything about
this and if anyone knows more on the issue I would be interested in
learning.
Honestly, if I thought carbon dating was reliable I would be open to the
idea that creation took place over time. However, that would still be a
long way from dismissing creation altogether.
Kris
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Deborah Lewis
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:50:58 -0700 louisam1@... writes:
and animals, in all living things and it accumulates at the same rate as
other carbons but upon death of the living organism C14 stops
accumulating and starts to decay. The rate of decay is known but the
problem is in the rate of absorption while the critter or plant was
alive. C14 dating assumes atmospheric radiation levels have remained
relatively the same throughout history. Not exactly the same, but
relatively the same. Scientist have taken steps to adjust for
atmospheric difference and there are standards for C14 dating.
We should remember this is only useful for about 60,000. years. Most C14
labs agree that they can be accurate at 70,000 years to within 1,000,
years. I think I can live with that. A thing could be 70,000 years old
plus or minus 1,000 years. Good enough for me. Later than that the rate
of decay is to narrow to be measured, and other means of dating must be
used. ( hotdate.com?<g>)
There is something to be said about dating according to the material a
thing was found in. If were talking about rock that is a certain age and
a fossil in that rock, we certainly know the animal didn't crawl into the
hardened rock to die. We certainly know the two existed at the same
time. If rock can be dated (that's radio metric dating, which is
probably not a respectable measurement either according to creationists)
than it's reasonable to assume a fossil within that rock wouldn't be
younger. Radio carbon dating is not used for rocks.
And also let's remember many useful instruments of measure are not
entirely accurate yet we use and rely on them every day. A thermometer
measures the temperature at a given location but can't measure the
temperature three blocks away nor adjust for wind chill. Our clocks and
calendars are imperfect and need adjustment. The Earth's rotation is
slowing, the moon continues to move away from us, there are many, many
methods of measure we use that have to be adjusted and perfected yet we
accept them as useful for us right now.
Deb L
>C14 is not entirely precise. It's based on carbon 14 levels in plants
> I have much more to learn on this issue but I have heard, from
> several
> sources, that carbon dating is questionable. One reason being that
> it is
> based on preset dating based on fossil levels. It's a form of
> circular
> thinking, "This fossil is 10,000 years old because it was found in
> a
> layer which is 10,000 because it has a fossil which is 10,000 years
> old."
and animals, in all living things and it accumulates at the same rate as
other carbons but upon death of the living organism C14 stops
accumulating and starts to decay. The rate of decay is known but the
problem is in the rate of absorption while the critter or plant was
alive. C14 dating assumes atmospheric radiation levels have remained
relatively the same throughout history. Not exactly the same, but
relatively the same. Scientist have taken steps to adjust for
atmospheric difference and there are standards for C14 dating.
We should remember this is only useful for about 60,000. years. Most C14
labs agree that they can be accurate at 70,000 years to within 1,000,
years. I think I can live with that. A thing could be 70,000 years old
plus or minus 1,000 years. Good enough for me. Later than that the rate
of decay is to narrow to be measured, and other means of dating must be
used. ( hotdate.com?<g>)
There is something to be said about dating according to the material a
thing was found in. If were talking about rock that is a certain age and
a fossil in that rock, we certainly know the animal didn't crawl into the
hardened rock to die. We certainly know the two existed at the same
time. If rock can be dated (that's radio metric dating, which is
probably not a respectable measurement either according to creationists)
than it's reasonable to assume a fossil within that rock wouldn't be
younger. Radio carbon dating is not used for rocks.
And also let's remember many useful instruments of measure are not
entirely accurate yet we use and rely on them every day. A thermometer
measures the temperature at a given location but can't measure the
temperature three blocks away nor adjust for wind chill. Our clocks and
calendars are imperfect and need adjustment. The Earth's rotation is
slowing, the moon continues to move away from us, there are many, many
methods of measure we use that have to be adjusted and perfected yet we
accept them as useful for us right now.
Deb L