Carbon Dating

>10 seconds on Google later...
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

>The error doesn't drop to acceptable levels until you get to something like 500 years old iirc.
I highly doubt there were mammoths 500 years ago. Did you mean 500 thousand?

In your first post you say that carbon dating doesn't work if the specimen is too old and now you're saying the error drops with age? Which one is it? And if it's both, how exactly can we know about dinosaurs that lived hundreds of millions of years ago?

If the error is quite large then why is it used? I thought the point of science was to create replicable results.

That source provides a nice, "He said, she said." Element

...

>Assuming his citations are credible

hoooo-wee

I try to do that when citations are provided. After analyzing them myself, not always in depth, I determine whether or not they are credible.

What exactly makes him untrustworthy, to you?

>And if it's both
It is.

>how exactly can we know about dinosaurs that lived hundreds of millions of years ago?
with other forms of radiometric dating

>It is.
What's causing this nonlinear error? Can you explain in more detail why?
>with other forms of radiometric dating
So like we use elements other than carbon or is it a different process entirely?

Primarily the fact that over half the claims he's made have been dropped by other mainstream creationists. He's on the fringe of the fringe.

In high school, I dated carbon a couple times. On the third date, i found out it was 14. Talk about awkward.

Unless you got held back in high school that's completely normal and legal.
>inb4 pedo

Did he claim that pictured was a human thigh bone?

>What's causing this nonlinear error?
Carbon-14 half life is 5730 years. After 50k years there's not enough left to do the dating accurately.
In the short term, see >So like we use elements other than carbon
ayup
also you don't date the fossils themselves generally

I'd also like to hear about these other, apparently more accurate(?) methods. I assumed carbon dating was the most used.

It's not about more or less accurate, it's about the optimal range for each of them.
Carbon 14 has a rather short half life so you use it for relatively recent material.

Did you bother to look for alternative interpretations though? If you only read from one fringe source and are not knowledgeable enough to verify that source, you will never know anything. a simple Google search would show you that pretty much everything Kent Hovind has ever said has been thoroughly debunked.

Interesting. So which element was used to date dinosaurs, or the moon rocks that told us earth was 3.5-4.6 billion years old?

>we use elements other than carbon
Yes. Different radioisotopes have different half lives. Each radioisotope had a range at which we have an arbitrary level of statistical confidence in it's accuracy. Carbon-14 simply has the shortest half life of the radioisotopes that we use (18,000 years iirc), and so it's commonly used to date things that are relatively recent on a geologic time scale.

I respect the fact that you're being respectful and humble in your inquiry, but you could at least read like the wikipedia page on radiometric dating first.

Honestly, no. I stumbled upon the video when another user commented it in a Veeky Forums thread. I watched it, and then came to Veeky Forums with my question. Does that count for alternative interpretations?

>also you don't date the fossils themselves generally
What do you date? The surrounding rock?

Not that guy but I thought the earth's age was calculated using the temperature of the earth and blackbody equation along with some information about how much heat radioactive stuff produces.

Diologue > Research

>18,000
Nope I was wrong, is right, 5730

that or some metallic insert

Yeah but dialogue is much more fruitful when everybody has done their homework.

I hadn't heard of that, but I'll look it up.

youtube.com/watch?v=zfF1y3QM1C8

uranium-lead, potassium-argon
there are plenty

there are several ways to date the Earth but I believe the uranium-lead dating of meteorites is the most accurate one

I have read it before, quite awhile ago though. I honestly don't recall anything about elements other than carbon-14. Maybe I read this instead:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Wait, so carbon is only accurate up to 5,730 years? Isn't that strange considering creationists believe the earth is about 6,000 years old..?

...

Old Tjikko says hi.

*facepalms over failure to understand the concept of half-lives*

*double facepalms over what passes for scientific discussions on this board*

OP likely trolling everyone, willfully lazy to go learn, truly impaired in mental fashion, or some combo of all of the above.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html

I mean radiocarbon dating has the most fame for a number of reasons. It's the only one useful for dating things on an anthropological scale. This is why it's also the one that creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old get in a hissy fit about because it most appears to immediately contradict that (most of these people don't even know that forms of radiometric dating exist).

>2:20
>calls the emperor Maximinus "Maximus"
>"this is where we get the word "maximum" from"
Okay I'm fully triggered now. I don't even care that he's naive enough to think he was actually 8'6''

I was only going off of what someone else implied. You tell me, then. Up to how many years is Carbon dating accurate?

About 60 thousand.

When 50% of the carbon-14 is left, you know the sample is 5730 years old. When 25% is left, you know that it is 11460 years old. 12.5% - 17190 years old, etc.
I swear to god read the fucking wikipedia page. I'm not answering your dumb ass questions anymore.

>willfully lazy to go learn

many have kindly pointed others to professors Google and Wiki to start.

It's your question and problem. No one has any actual obligation to answer it for you or to your satisfaction.

>talkorigins
creationwiki.org/Fossils_are_dated_from_strata;_strata_are_dated_from_fossils

Can you tell me how?

I really don't think me coming to a science board and asking questions such as these is a sign of me being "wilffuly lazy to go learn."

Stop feedng the lazy one.

welp, this was a troll thread after all

Yes, it is. Because others have directed you to more credible sources as a start.

Yet, you're expecting them to look it up for you.

-> That's how.

Okay, so my next natural question is, how do we determine that a thing has 50% of it's Carbon 14 left?

Yeah okay you've worn down my patience too.

You're prolonging this with someone who will try to poke holes in your reasoning. Guess it's your kicks. Have fun.

I'm sorry about that. I know very little about this and figured coming to this board would teach me about it more efficiently than my own research would.

By asking Jesus

...

We know that living creatures have a certain amount of carbon-14 in their bones and shit. This amount of carbon-14 is kept constant because it's replenished by our intake of food as said. So we know the amount or C-14 something will have at the moment of its death, we can calculate how old it is. Sort of like using Newton's heat equation to calculate when a person died because we know all humans have a temperature of 98.6 and it doesn't start decreasing until they die.

Most people will lose patience with or become suspicious of those who don't help themselves.

You're big enough to use the internet. Go look up your own answers first.

If you have a genuine question for which you can't find a source, then a dialogue can begin.

Oh, good. I can entertain myself seeing what new question s/he is going to cook up.

Thanks for feeding him/her.

The conditions you listed for knowing the amount of Carbon 14 in a body upon death sound highly variable. What's the margin of error?

Okay. How accurate is accelerator mass spectometry?

What's variable about it? I honestly don't know why living things have a constant C-14; this is the point where you go find out for yourself. I even posted the link to radiocarbon dating wiki It's painfully obvious this person is not a troll. Why are you so butthurt about people teaching each other online? Did you have nobody to teach you so you think everybody needs to learn on their own? If you don't want to waste your own time that's fine, but why are you telling me what to do? You're wasting more time arguing with us than you would have if you actually contributed.

See, that's fair. Because you say you don't know, now I'm more inclined to look it up.

This will be fun.

It should have been clear that the person has a creationist agenda, when s/he said "not a creationist, but want to see other side." red flag for, "i'm really here to poke holes in so-called scientific arguments."

it's like someone stepping into organic chem without learning basic chem first.

yes, it's great to teach them, if you have an academic year's worth of time and that's your job.

but biggest rule of sci is not to do people's homework. should be implicit not spoon feed people.

Also food intake would be the variable thing. I've been asking all the questions, yet I forgot to answer one when I was asked.

You're feeding into the narrative that you can learn and criticize at the same time.

So what if I have a creationist agenda? You have an evolutionist agenda, do you not? You're right, it's obvious I came to debate this topic. You're not contributing anymore, though. So what's your point?

and the mask comes off.

(Critic)ize
(Critic)al thinking

Are you actually saying you can't learn and criticize at the same time?

>So what
If you come to debate something, it's generally in good taste to not be completely ignorant of it.

You see, politeness isn't just saying hello and goodbye, it's also not wasting everyone's time.

i am contributing by marking this thread for what it really is:

an evolution vs. creationist debate.

I've long since done my part. Thank you for at least admitting your real intent.

You're truly the troll at this point who is wasting his own time.

Yes, I am saying that. Of course that would seem weird to somebody who never learned anything beyond the surface level.

I admit I'm a superficial person, but I won't admit that criticizing/being critical to what you learn is the wrong way to go.

Read up on constructive vs. destructive criticism.

Constructive, you ain't.

Taking things apart helps me understand how they work.

And you don't always need others to help you do so.

Learned helplessness isn't pretty. But if you like being drained that way, go right ahead.

Well then I guess it's a good thing I don't always do what I've been doing for the past hour.

>It should have been clear that the person has a creationist agenda, when s/he said "not a creationist, but want to see other side."
They never said they were the OP. The first post they made was and it's obvious by now they were not a troll and just actually didn't understand half lives. Who knows maybe this is just a kid that hasn't had as much exposure to these concepts as we have.

>red flag for, "i'm really here to poke holes in so-called scientific arguments."
They aren't poking holes in the theory, they are asking questions to fill the holes in their knowledge. It's not like he's using the bible as counter evidence, he's asking for help and you're getting angry at him.

>yes, it's great to teach them, if you have an academic year's worth of time and that's your job.
It should be EVERYONES job to educate one another, especially on sci. Why do you care if I'm teaching him for free? I realize this is a pol thing to say but you're being a huge jew.

>You're feeding into the narrative that you can learn and criticize at the same time.
Whenever you're in class learning something new, is it frowned upon to ask questions? No, because learning and criticizing come hand in hand. It's called being a skeptic.

I don't think it's the food intake that keeps it constant but something about how we digest food. This is where I learned about it so I'm not an expert at all. youtube.com/watch?v=1N1ydPJGGj4

Actually I prefer being drained via your mothers blowjobs.
>Learned helplessness
Psychology is not a science.

>Whenever you're in class learning something new, is it frowned upon to ask questions?
It is very frowned upon to come with the attitude of "you HAVE to prove to me you're not full of shit before I start studying", yes.

Also the guy admitted to be arguing for creationism, why did you even write this long winded post?

so s/he can depend completely on you? what good does that serve, next the person has questions?

learning is good, but that requires effort on the learner not to passively depend on others to give them all answers.

i mean, did you once try to refer the person the various vendors who develop the equipment for carbon dating (and their error ranges) or the experts who developed the methodology?

i find it a greater hubris not encourage someone to seek out knowledge for themselves.

I'm a creationist in the rawest sense, meaning I believe in a creator. That's about it. I'm assuming you're an atheist, so maybe you just don't like the idea of science being discussed with someone that could have such a ludicrous viewpoint. Am I right?

>if you're not a young earth creationist you must be an atheist!
Only in America

No, but they do a decent job helping one recognize funny social interactions like these.

Are you Agnostic then? That's a position that requires a lot of research and personal thought.

>fossils subordinate all other methods
As creationwiki itself admits, this only occurs when it is obvious what caused the discrepancy:

"And creationists fully recognize the fact that there are folds and faults, and yes they do account for some examples, but not all. All this really shows is that uniformitarian geologists can explain it away, so the most it does is eliminate out-of-order fossils as evidence against the geologic column."

>There is no evidence for index fossils
The evidence is that they consistently appear only in certain known strata. This is basic science.

>The geologic column is based on pre-Darwinian common ancestor theory
This is utter bullshit. The scientists who created the theory of the geologic column were creationists. The geologic column was not derived from evolutionary ideas and creationwiki fails to even give a conjecture on how it was.

You are aware that Biblical literalism is XIXth century heresy right?

No, but as soon as you see me citing the Bible literally, you can alert the proper authorities.

He never had that attitude. He asked why. The same way I asked why the error was nonlinear. That user didn't have to answer me but it saved me time that I can now use to help others learn. If you don't come to Veeky Forums to learn things or teach people why are you here?
>inb4 discussion
If you're having a discussion that doesn't involve an exchange of new knowledge you might as well just be masturbating.

>He never had that attitude
ahahah, please
read again
His attitude is quite clearly "you HAVE to convince me at the same time you're teaching me"

Besides, I'm getting really sick at you and himself presenting him as "critical" and "inquisitive". You know what an actualy inquisitive person would have done? That's right, read the fucking wikipedia article we kept mentioning.