carbon 14 dating very inaccurate

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of70
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Skeptic

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jun 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
1. In the Bible's book of Deuteronomy it says that if a man marries a woman and then decides that he hates her, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they married. At that point her father must prove she was a virgin.(How is not explained.) If he can't, then the girl is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.
2. If you see a pretty woman among your captives and would like her for a wife, then bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can simply "let her go." (Deuteronomy)
3. If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deuteronomy)
4. In the book of Esther the king apparently decrees a sex contest among young virgin women to see who can best please him.(There is debate on how.) He eventually chooses Esther. However, since women are viewed as inherently dirty, Esther must be "purified" for twelve months before she can be made queen.(Esther)
5. Paul points out in New Testament Romans that "the natural use" of women is to provide men with sex.(Romans)
6. Heaven is to be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men who have not been "defiled" by women.(RE 14:1-4)[One wonders how this squares with God's command to, "Be fruitful and multiply...(Genesis )]
7. A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest. Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's wife: "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine (wife); let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The women were subsequently ravished and killed.(JG))
8. In Exod. we see that it is permissible to sell one's daughter (but apparently not one's son) into slavery..
9. According to St. Jerome, "Nothing is so unclean as a woman in her periods; what she touches she causes to be unclean." In Leviticus it states, "If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days...if she bears a female child she shall be unclean two weeks...."
10. "A woman dropped a stone on his head and cracked his skull. Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer,'Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can't say a woman killed me.' So his servant ran him through, and he died." (Judges)
11. Under God's direction, Moses' army kills all the adult males, but they mercifully just take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some women and children alive, he angrily says: "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Throughout Bible history God is said to demand that thousands, if not millions, of men, women and children be slaughtered. And they are.
12. A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders.(Deuteronomy 25:5-9) And in case you are Jewish, you may be familiar with the Jewish prayer: "Blessed be the God who has not created me a heathen, a slave or a woman."
It's a simple question, but you didn't take the hint:

Have you corrected your book yet? Then keep that lying rag out of our faces.
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jun 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Carbon 14 dating can not be accurate because of the changing magnetic field of earth for one thing.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jun 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There are many things that effect carbon dating.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jun 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KJV wrote:
Carbon 14 dating can not be accurate because of the changing magnetic field of earth for one thing.
Carbon 14 dating has nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field.
Skeptic

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You do need to study more. The magnetic field is what stops harmful radiation from entering our atmosphere
Carbon 14 dating uses the current strength of the magnetic field as a fixed number in it calculations when we all know the magnetic field has changed greatly over the years. The radiation greatly effects the carbon atoms which makes dating by this method impossible.
Before you attack Carbon Daing, lets hear your evidently more accurate and detailed method of determining the age of the Earth.

Oh wait, you guys just: MAKE SH*T UP DON"T YOU???!?!?!

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jul 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You do need to study more. The magnetic field is what stops harmful radiation from entering our atmosphere
Carbon 14 dating uses the current strength of the magnetic field as a fixed number in it calculations when we all know the magnetic field has changed greatly over the years. The radiation greatly effects the carbon atoms which makes dating by this method impossible.
Where the hell did you come up with this crap.

Hint, try reading real text books on Physics.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You do need to study more. The magnetic field is what stops harmful radiation from entering our atmosphere
Carbon 14 dating uses the current strength of the magnetic field as a fixed number in it calculations when we all know the magnetic field has changed greatly over the years. The radiation greatly effects the carbon atoms which makes dating by this method impossible.
Question: Creationist Thomas G. Barnes has claimed that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially with a half-life of fourteen hundred years. Not only does he consider this proof that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years but he also points out that a greater magnetic strength in the past would reduce C-14 dates. Now if the magnetic field several thousand years ago was indeed many times stronger than it is today, there would have been less cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere back then and less C-14 would have been produced. Therefore, any C-14 dates taken from objects of that time period would be too high. How do you answer him?

- page 27 -
Answer: Like Cook, Barnes looks at only part of the evidence. What he ignores is the great body of archaeological and geological data showing that the strength of the magnetic field has been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years and that it has reversed polarity many times in the geological past. So, when Barnes extrapolates ten thousand years into the past, he concludes that the magnetic field was nineteen times stronger in 4000 BC than it is today, when, actually, it was only half as intense then as now. This means that radiocarbon ages of objects from that time period will be too young, just as we saw from the bristlecone pine evidence.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jul 3, 2012
 
^^^^Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationis...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jul 3, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You do need to study more. The magnetic field is what stops harmful radiation from entering our atmosphere
Carbon 14 dating uses the current strength of the magnetic field as a fixed number in it calculations when we all know the magnetic field has changed greatly over the years. The radiation greatly effects the carbon atoms which makes dating by this method impossible.
Creationists are vile creatures that think inventing sh*t from your imagination and passing it off as "science" is fair play.

You liars need a new trick.
KJV

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jul 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>Question: Creationist Thomas G. Barnes has claimed that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially with a half-life of fourteen hundred years. Not only does he consider this proof that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years but he also points out that a greater magnetic strength in the past would reduce C-14 dates. Now if the magnetic field several thousand years ago was indeed many times stronger than it is today, there would have been less cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere back then and less C-14 would have been produced. Therefore, any C-14 dates taken from objects of that time period would be too high. How do you answer him?

- page 27 -
Answer: Like Cook, Barnes looks at only part of the evidence. What he ignores is the great body of archaeological and geological data showing that the strength of the magnetic field has been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years and that it has reversed polarity many times in the geological past. So, when Barnes extrapolates ten thousand years into the past, he concludes that the magnetic field was nineteen times stronger in 4000 BC than it is today, when, actually, it was only half as intense then as now. This means that radiocarbon ages of objects from that time period will be too young, just as we saw from the bristlecone pine evidence.
Your earlier post: "Carbon 14 dating has nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field"

So by your own investigating how's that Crow tasting?

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jul 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your earlier post: "Carbon 14 dating has nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field"
So by your own investigating how's that Crow tasting?
Yes, I misspoke and should have said it has little effect, approximately in the 5 to 15% range.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jul 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Creationists are vile creatures that think inventing sh*t from your imagination and passing it off as "science" is fair play.

You liars need a new trick.
You're wrong not me.
You need to read up not me
You are the one who needs to learn science not me.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Jul 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>Before you attack Carbon Daing, lets hear your evidently more accurate and detailed method of determining the age of the Earth.

Oh wait, you guys just: MAKE SH*T UP DON"T YOU???!?!?!
"Carbon-14 decays with a halflife of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute.

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration."

So if it's only good for 50,000 years how is it they know when the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and the earth is 4.6 billion years old, not to mention the 13.7 billion year old universe?

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jul 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Carbon-14 decays with a halflife of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute.
The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration."
So if it's only good for 50,000 years how is it they know when the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and the earth is 4.6 billion years old, not to mention the 13.7 billion year old universe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dati...
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jul 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nontheist wrote:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radio...

The only dating methods discussed (over and over again) by evolution-believing scientists and the mass media are ones that supposedly "prove" that the earth is billions of years old. One of the most popular of these is known as radiometric dating. However, not as well known is the fact that such methods have a number of serious flaws which are usually glossed over, or ignored when writing on, or discussing this subject in public.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Jul 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.

Intentional misuse of these methods is common by those who attempt to discredit Earth science.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Sep 7, 2012
 
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops your brains just fell out and splatted all over the floor.
See Reply #40

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Sep 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Carbon-14 decays with a halflife of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute.
The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration."
So if it's only good for 50,000 years how is it they know when the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and the earth is 4.6 billion years old, not to mention the 13.7 billion year old universe?
This is why people laugh at you!
Dinosaurs aren't dated using C14!

C14 only works for about 50,000 years. Beyond that other isotopes are used (and there are many).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dati...
Different isotopes have different decay rates and thus are useful for different time periods.
Using C14 dating for dinosaurs is like using a six inch ruler to measure the width of a continent.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Sep 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Doctor Who Two wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.ne t/q-aig/aig-c007.html
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Scientists are well ahead of you on this.

"The uncalibrated radiocarbon date (abbreviated as 14C yr BP) is often used in academic publications, because it is the firm result of a repeatable experiment. The translation to a calibrated, or calendar date (cal yr BP) is less precise, especially where the calibration curve flattens out, making one raw date correspond to a range of calibrated dates. The calibration curve is continuously being refined on the basis of new data gathered from tree rings, coral, etc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dati...

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Sep 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Phil wrote:
The 'experts' who claim dinosaurs/earth are billions of years old are the same PC quacks claiming global warming
Anything for a dollar
Dinosaurs appeared only 230 million years ago not billions of years ago.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of70
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••