carbon 14 dating very inaccurate

[Igor Trip]

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...

[Igor Trip]

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.

[-Skeptic-]

Doctor Who Two wrote:

<quoted text>
Skippy did anyone ever tell you that you're a smart kid? Didn't think so.

Evidence or F*ck off troll, its that simple.

[-Skeptic-]

Doctor Who Two wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Skippy, I'll give you nothing.
It's that simple.

Goodbye then.

[polymath257]

Why do creationists focus so much on carbon-14 dating? Why not any other the *other* methods that *can* date back millions and even billions of years? How about Rubidium-Strontium dating that is even able to tell when its requirements are not met?

[polymath257]

Doctor Who Two wrote:

<quoted text>
Umm not sure maybe because carbon 14 dating is used a lot and is worthless.

It is used for things less than about 50-70,000 years old. That is the limitation of the method. It is quite useful for that time period. OTHER methods are used to show things like the age of the earth or the times involved in geology. C-14 is certainly NOT used for geology or paleontology.

[Langoliers]

Igor Trip wrote:

<quoted text>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.

C14 doesn't work at all.

[Langoliers]

Igor Trip wrote:

<quoted text>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...

Ya their guess just keep getting fine tuned.(to what? Who the hell knows)

[Langoliers]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>Evidence or F*ck off troll, its that simple.

Skippy's getting pissed!

F**********ck U

[-Skeptic-]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Skippy's getting pissed!
F**********ck U

Evidence or F*ck off, its that simple you Creationist liar.

[-Skeptic-]

Doctor Who Two wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a nice day.

Go f*ck yourself you filthy Creationist lying sack of sh*t who know absolutely nothing about science or honesty and why it sh*ts on your ridiculous hallucinated fairytale you call a faith.

[Igor Trip]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Ya their guess just keep getting fine tuned.(to what? Who the hell knows)

It's fine tuned to ever greater accuracy.

Your desperate need to rubbish carbon dating won't save your bronze age myths.

[-Skeptic-]

Igor Trip wrote:

<quoted text>
It's fine tuned to ever greater accuracy.
Your desperate need to rubbish carbon dating won't save your bronze age myths.

The only weapon Creationists have against facts and evidence is lies attacks and misinformation.

It's what all people that lose arguments do.

[Givemeliberty]

Lulz! You and Doctor retard there believe there were dinosaurs living during the bronze age?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!!!

Langoliers wrote:

You'll get no argument from me on that one.
Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?- At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other!- how’s that for an "exact" science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

[Langoliers]

Igor Trip wrote:

<quoted text>It's fine tuned to ever greater accuracy.

Your desperate need to rubbish carbon dating won't save your bronze age myths.

Here are a few items you should consider. You people call the Bible a myth book written by goat herders.

1) those goat herders had this to say straight to you from 2000 years ago!

Deuteronomy 5:9

English Standard Version (ESV)
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"

2) And the shapes [or "resemblance"] of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men

That goat herder is describing a modern era HELICOPTER

Not bad for a goat herder from 2000 years ago but there's more.

3) That I will cause the flesh to fall from their bones before their body can hit the ground, and their eyes shall melt in their sockets and their tongue in their mouth.(Zechariah 14:12)

These goat herders from 2000 years ago are describing Nuclear War or at least a big bomb. A bomb that the goat herders could not foresee 2000 years ago. God says wake up and smell the burning flesh before its too late.

[Givemeliberty]

Wow project much? And no the bible was a collection of God myths stolen from other cultures and loosely cobbled together by sheep herders.

Your two examples are so off so wrong gosh it's just sad. Helicopters do not look like miniature flying horses.

Being caught in an atomic blast would completely annihilate you no time for melting eyes and such it works faster than that.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Here are a few items you should consider. You people call the Bible a myth book written by goat herders.
1) those goat herders had this to say straight to you from 2000 years ago!
Deuteronomy 5:9
English Standard Version (ESV)
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"
2) And the shapes [or "resemblance"] of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men
That goat herder is describing a modern era HELICOPTER
Not bad for a goat herder from 2000 years ago but there's more.
3) That I will cause the flesh to fall from their bones before their body can hit the ground, and their eyes shall melt in their sockets and their tongue in their mouth.(Zechariah 14:12)
These goat herders from 2000 years ago are describing Nuclear War or at least a big bomb. A bomb that the goat herders could not foresee 2000 years ago. God says wake up and smell the burning flesh before its too late.

[England 2012]

Dinosaurs on Noahs ark,! And these people can get elected to high office in the US. FFS,

[Givemeliberty]

Oh those bronze age sheep fckers got one over on the weak minded!

England 2012 wrote:

Dinosaurs on Noahs ark,! And these people can get elected to high office in the US. FFS,

[-Skeptic-]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Here are a few items you should consider. You people call the Bible a myth book written by goat herders.

Who gives a cr*p what a bunch of illterate goat hoarders think?

You're using technology today to post this opinion that disproves your god and your made up fairy story.

That's how ridiculous you people are in the modern world. That's why scientists don't have patience for you willfully ignorant people.

[Hedonist]

Doctor Who Two wrote:

<quoted text>
"Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps. First, are the...

When your first sentence starts out lying, your entire rant become meaningless and there's no reason to even bother reading any more.