[Editor's note (26/09/2010): I wrote this post when my understanding of theology was juvenile and of science, even worse. At the time I made this post, I should have heeded the advice of not writing about something I knew nothing about.
I have since rejected that creationsim as scientific, but I choose to keep this post in its original form to remind myself of how ignorant I once was.]
How do you tell how old a fossil is? Or how long a body is dead? Or the age of the earth? Well, one method is to use carbon dating.
I have since rejected that creationsim as scientific, but I choose to keep this post in its original form to remind myself of how ignorant I once was.]
How do you tell how old a fossil is? Or how long a body is dead? Or the age of the earth? Well, one method is to use carbon dating.
As any good upper secondary physics student should know, carbon dating works using the principle of radioactive decay of carbon-14. Most carbon on earth exist as carbon-12 but a small percentage exists as carbon-14. So even some of the carbon we eat of we breathe is radioactive. Yes, you my friend, are radioactive.
So when the the organism dies, it stops taking in carbon. The carbon-14 slowly decomposes with a predictable rate similar to the graph above. (The y-axis represents radioactivity/mass of carbon-14, while the x-axis represents time.) Hence by finding out the radioactivity of the subject, we can deduce the time of death.
However, there are many flaws to this method. For one, it assumes that the ratio of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant throughout the ages. Well that is not really true. We have to concede that at certain periods in history, the ratio is significantly lower due to the the Industrial Revolution, the comsic flares from the sun,the atomic age and if you believe it, the Genesis flood.Secondly, it assumes that organismes take up carbon-14 at the constant rate. Some plants do not, and we definitely cannot be sure for fossils.
So do not be so eager to accept whatever your textbook says. In other words, the world could only be a few thousand years old.
The Alternative: better than any newspaper or textbook.
Dr Storm
35 comments:
I know I’m two years late in commenting but when I read it, I couldn’t let it go…
“In other words the world could only be a few thousand years old”…By a few, I assume you mean 6. Why not 15 or 23.5 or several zillion?
Yes, there are flaws in carbon dating but in general, it is a good dating technique for ages up to 50,000 years. The anomalies you site cannot add up to the gaping inaccuracies you imply when imagining that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This suggests that carbon dating is regularly 90% inaccurate.
You fail to site (or are just ignorant of) the many alternative dating techniques which back up the majority of the original carbon dated dates. And what about the plethora of other scientific research that empirically proves that the earth cannot be just a few thousand years old?
This is yet another typical creationist argument where you take one scientific error or inconsistency and assume that it must all be flawed. My car failed to start one winter morning last year; the only time it has done so. Do I now call my car unreliable??
When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth!
Neil... you miss the point of a "theory". Carbon Dating has not been proven, it is a "theory". You show ignorance in your last statement.
And technically, if your were relying on your car to start that morning... and it didn't, I would say it was unreliable.
Thanks for your comment "Nature of Science".
I think you’re missing my point also. My car may have been unreliable that morning but 1 morning out of 365 would not make it a bad and unreliable method for getting from A to B which is analogous to the occasional inaccuracies of radio dating rendering it unreliable in general.
Anyhow, if my car doesn’t start, I’ll just hop onto the atheist bus... - last stop, the truth!
Neil,
Why are you attacking religion? I see the doctor using information based on science to prove a point. Is that not what all scientific theory is? It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder to a person’s belief system rather than holding intellectual scientific debate. I will not tell you if I am a man of God or not. The doctor did not as well, he simply gave another theory. Isn't that what scientist do? You know that Albert Einstein did not think splitting an atom was always possible. Good thing he was open to debate and not so closed minded. And didn't Darwin recant his finding years before his death. He stated there were too many inconsistencies to his theory. He too was open to debate. Try it.
Thanks Jenny…
I know it sounds like I have a chip on my shoulder and you’re probably right. However, you seem to be implying that I am not open to scientific debate and on that point, you couldn’t be more wrong. In fact, isn’t that precisely what I am doing?
I am passionate about the advancement of scientific understanding and I feel that religious belief and science are not only incongruous, but religion is actually holding back the advancement of science.
You see the doctor using information based on science to prove a point. I see him attempting to debunk a scientific technique in an effort to propagate the hypothesis that the earth may only be a few thousand years old.
I’m not attacking anyone’s belief system although I am entitled to disagree with it. My point is that time and time again, creationists exploit accepted flaws in some scientific techniques to conclude that science is wrong and therefore creationism must be right as if there are no other possibilities.
I agree with the doctor that carbon dating is not an exact science, so to speak, but why should that infer that the earth may be just a few thousand years old. To me, he was clearly implying the creationist’s argument and my passion for scientific truth moved me to comment.
As for Darwin, it is well known that he often speculated over the outcome of his ideas, as do all objective scientists, but there is no substantive evidence that he recanted or renounced his theory of evolution.
Please feel free to continue the debate!!!
Neil.
Darwin absolutely, positively NEVER recanted his conclusions regarding evolution. neither on his death bed nor ever. That's a total fabrication by creationist zealots. And what if he did? How, in fact, would that detract from his findings? Regarding carbon dating: it is NOT a "theory", it is a technique accepted by 100% of the world's scientific community. Perhaps "scientific" is a bad word among creationist ignoramus', but for those of us with the capability of reason it actually means something. When it is stated that carbon dating is "flawed", it is more properly defined as "variable" within MINUTE degrees overall. And remember, it is SCIENCE that exposes these variations, not a heavenly vision. In fact, that is the task of science: to monitor and adjust it's findings in neverending endeavor to be more accurate. So please, if you have any respect for your children, try to help the world advance it's body of knowledge rather than hinder growth. What SHOULD be a sin is that humanity is forced to progress at the pace of it's slowest members.
i think all you fake science loving people a stupid carbon dating is flawed and not reliable and i pray for your souls
Ok anonymous up there. Honestly? Just because a theory is accepted (not by 100%, by the way. get your facts straight) by a vast majority of a scientific community, doesn't mean it is correct. Scientists once believed the world was flat. Scientists once believed the universe revolved around the earth. It is, in fact, a theory. Scientists are constantly discovering new information on almost every topic ever. New info. is being unearthed that rebukes other theories every day. If you are a creationist, helium dating reinforces the 6 thousands year old theory. Potassium-argon dating reinforces the billion year theory. These are all theories. We will never know for sure.
Different Anonymous
Bryan.......so true and so right. So much assumption based on nothing more than what you are told, not what is actually fact. No way of really knowing. Preaching science as a "fact", is no different that preaching creationism as a "fact". You can't possibly know for sure. Nothing is exact.
Wow, first of all... Neil, I must say you express your self well with the words you are using but at the same time they show your true ignorance. You have done absolutly no research on this topic other than what elementary text book told you.
The flaws in carbon dating is being proven inaccurate by the very scientists that do NOT believe in Genesis. And allow me to correct your math... it has been proven that carbon dating is 10% off so take your 50,000 years and multiply that by 10% and you get 5,000... hmmm sounds like a match (that would mean your 90% comment is a slightly off the mark).
Second, the many alternative dating techniques you mention are just as inaccurate as carbon dating. Did you know (this is a FACT) that scientists had to do multiple tests and then vary the numbers used in the calculations to meet what they were looking to achive? YES!!!! they altered the data to make it what they wanted. As it has been pointed out here several times, it is theory, not fact, there for scientists are simply guessing and pulling numbers out of the air to meet what ever they believe. Mind you the flaws being noted are not theory, they are mathematically determined using factual numbers.
Third, I could care less if your car failed to start 10 TIMES that winter... it means your battery stinks. The reliability of a mechanical device has nothing to do with the fact that every current dating technique is flawed.
Fourth, to have an actual debate about something you must actually have some knowledge of the subject. You have proven that all you have is an oppinion, nothing more.
You have also read too many Dan Brown books. Wait, is that where all your information is coming from? That would make sense.
I believe in God with all my heart, and Jesus died for our sins and is the only way into heaven. I'm also an engineer that has spent his entire life studying science and wanting nothing more than to have the world advance in science, but not driven by ignorance, greed, and self promoted ideas by people that are looking for their 15 minutes of fame (Al Gore comes to mind). That being said, Darwin was a nut case and he absolutly did back track on several of his THEORIES (everything, and I mean everything Darwin published was THEORY) nothing was backed with solid scientific facts. That is the end of that debate.
And Mr. anonymous who stated that Darwin NEVER recanted his findings etc... You my friend are the one slowing the class down. Everything you said was 100% wrong! It is not even worth explaining how ignorant you sound. I think most people here already know that so I'll leave it at that.
I am so sick and tired of uneducated people spouting off at the mouth about topics they know nothing about. If you post a comment on any web site please have some clue to what it is you are talking about. If the topic is opinion based, then fine, state your opinion, but stay away from the technical issues. You only show your absurd inability to BS your way through a topic way above your capabilities and knowledge base. Bottom line... LET IT GO! You are wrong!
God bless us all.
This is for all the crazy religious zealots. Where do dinosaurs fit into the bible? Please dont tell me they were around prior to creation. Genesis is clear that prior to creation there was nothing. In gen 1:3 god created light, so previous to creation our sun supposedly didn't even exist meaning there couldn't have been life of any kind. So with that being the case you must believe they were created along with all the other animals. How is it possible that they don't get a mention in the bible? Dinosaurs?! come on, if they were around in bible time of course they would have been mentioned. It goes on to say in gen 1:16 He also made the stars. Do you seriously believe the entire universe is only 6000 years old? Just so you know though, I grew up in a christian family I know what the bible says and it doesn't make sense.
The bible may not talk about dinosaurs in genesis but then again it doesn't talk about monkeys, or hippos or rhinos... are we to say that those living in the creation times didn't have those animals? That's just a plain ignorant stupid.
This is in answer to one of the many “Anonymous” contributors above, specifically the person accusing me of not doing any research and getting my maths wrong (3 posts up from here)…
“You have done absolutely no research on this topic other than what elementary text book told you.” You call me ignorant then follow up with this statement. How on earth do you know what I have or haven’t researched? It has taken me five years of research to finally become an Atheist during which time I have objectively studied both religious and scientific arguments in great depth in order that I could make an informed decision about what is an extremely important matter.
You then go on to “correct” my maths…
If you take the time to read my post properly (it’s still at the top here if you want another try) you will realise that there is nothing wrong with the numbers. I am saying that if carbon dating is reliable for dates up to around 50,000 years then the Doctors postulation that the earth may only be five thousand years old suggests a dating inaccuracy of at least 90% which is way more than the accepted 10% tolerance. I say at least because I, like may others, I believe the earth to be over 4 billion years old.
As for my car failing to start…
Again, if you take the time to read my post properly you will see that I am using an analogy. My point is that it’s wrong to call something totally unreliable if it’s only a little bit flawed. Yes, there are flaws in current dating techniques which is why no scientist ever says, this fossil is precisely 48,267 years old. They would say it is somewhere in the region of 40 to 50 thousand years, which given your 10% statement would be a correct assessment.
And on Darwin…
Of course it’s all theory. Evolution cannot be empirically proved as none of us are around long enough to see it happen. I assume that you don’t subscribe to the theory evolution and you mention the lack of solid scientific fact which leads me to believe that you must be a “show me the evidence” type of a person. How do you square this with your religious belief which is clearly based on zero evidence as there isn’t any? And by the way, there are plenty of solid scientific facts that back up the theory of evolution.
Several times you berate me for debating with no knowledge yet you fail to even read my comments properly. You say that all I have is my opinion yet you are the most opinionated contributor on this page! You show your ignorance (not to mention arrogance) in your final paragraph by banging on about uneducated people spouting their opinions when you clearly fall into this category and to further prove my point, you’ve made at least five spelling errors in your post. I know, I know, it’s very childish of me to point it out but you deserved it my friend.
Brian says,
I get a kick out of all you people who claim you want to "debate" your views and beliefs. Instead you are resorting to childish judgements, and tit for tat personal implications and attacks.
If you are going to debate, than debate! If you're just looking to blow off pent up anger and hostility, take up boxing!!
You don't HAVE to hate each other just because you disagree!
lol. well said Brian
Hello everyone,
Fist and foremost, I want to say that english is not my first language. I also am what people usually call a 'christian' I believe what the bible says. But I want to ask other christians to spend time to understand what the issue is rather than taking the fight where it does not belong:
When reading the genesis, the first thing the reader can see is that the first verse is separated from the next one! By a period ( pun intended) but also because verse two starts a new paragraph.
How much time happened between these two sentences ? No one knows.
Christians assuming that everything from verse one to verse 5 belongs to day 1 seem to me to be short-sighted to a point where they can only be called fanatics.
A debate about earth being 6,000 years old is pointless and based on downright stupidity or a process of thoughts similar to what the roman catholic church believed or taught centuries ago about the Earth being flat or the sun orbiting earth.
Wow. If you cannot do basic math... A 10% margin for error means 50,000 could be 55,000 or 45,000. To go from 50,000 to 5,000 one would have to believe in a margin of error of 90%.
" Leo said...
The bible may not talk about dinosaurs in genesis but then again it doesn't talk about monkeys, or hippos or rhinos... are we to say that those living in the creation times didn't have those animals? That's just a plain ignorant stupid."
The bible mentions only animals known in the region in which it was written--the bible was not a worldwide phenomenon at the time.
The Genesis flood may indeed have happened, but it was also not worldwide. If a major flood happened in the bronza age & neither you nor anyone you knew or had heard of had ever traveled out of your home region, it would seem to affect the 'entire world'. You are willfully ignorant--and your grammar is atrocious.
Actually dinosaurs are mentioned in Bible 35 times. Not the word dinosaurs a this was not invented until the 18th century and the bible was translated in the 16th. Read "Job". Almost every part of the world people talk in stories about dragons. This is another name for them.
The funny thing about "evolution" is people assume the magic ingredient is time. For some reason if we have a stone on the table after billions of years the stone will become a living person. That is was evolution says. Death brought life into the world!
As this post seems to have been hijacked for a religious debate, here are a few salient quotes to keep the Atheist fire burning…
•We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. – Gene Roddenberry
•Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. – Anonymous
•Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination. – Edward Abbey
•With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg
•Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. – Anonymous
•It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image. – Ludwig Feuerbach
•Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. – Richard Dawkins
•What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. – Christopher Hitchens
•On the first day, man created God. – Anonymous
•I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. – Stephen Roberts
•You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate. – Richard A. Weatherwax
•Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish. – Anonymous
•Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. – Frater Ravus
•Atheists will celebrate life, while you’re in church celebrating death. – Anonymous
hahaha, this is just too much fun to read.
All I wanted to offer was this comic. Hope everyone here can read it with an open mind.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
^wow Mark, I don't know how long it has been since I first read that comic and I'd say I was "wowed" by the Christian argument. The student may be right about the first 5 points written on the blackboard were not observed, so what if they weren't? And what of the gluon thing being a "made-up dream". Don't they know that a quark-gluon was successfully been made from a Large Hadron Collider? In case they haven't, read this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110524-densest-matter-created-lhc-alice-big-bang-space-science/. Oh, yeah I know this comic was made a long time ago so synthesis of quarks and gluons were just "made-up dreams". So what's my point? True, theories are not to be considered fact. So what? Should scientist stop working on revising these theories? If they did follow this notion of gluons are just "made-up" dream, then will they be able to produce this quark-gluon plasma thing? I know this feat don't yield practical uses for the meantime, but if you can follow me then it might be up until now we will still accept that the earth is the center of our solar system if Copernicus were discouraged by the church! Not only these, it might be electricity hasn't been utilized at all, or we might be not able to produce planes or venture the space at all, if the scientist of the old had stopped working on their "made-up" dreams!
There's nothing wrong with believing in the scriptures. Go ahead if that helps you. My appeal is, for some christians, don't go bashing that they are just theories. That way of bashing is somewhat discouraging. Theories are there to utilize them, for better way of life! And for science freaks just continue do the explanation to some misinformed christians, but limit it to the scientific realm. If they want to believe the earth is 5000 years old, they are free to do so and don't bash them! But if they do say that the earth is roughly 6 billion years old is plainly absurd, then that's pretty rude...
By the way Mark, thanks for sharing the link! :)
Can we send some of these unbelievers some fish oils?
top [url=http://swedeninternetcasino.com/]blackjack[/url] brake the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]realcazinoz[/url] autonomous no store bonus at the best [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]loosen casino
[/url].
I'm impressed, I have to admit. Rarely do I encounter a blog that's both equally educative and interesting, and let me tell you, you've hit the nail on the head. The problem is something that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy I came across this during my hunt for something regarding this.
Here is my web-site :: diet plans that work
I'm impressed, I have to admit. Rarely do I encounter a blog that's both equally educative
and interesting, and let me tell you, you've hit the nail on the head. The problem is something that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy I came across this during my hunt for something regarding this.
my web blog ... diet plans that work
My web site > Diets that work Fast
I must thanκ you for the efforts yοu have put in ρenning thіs website.
I am hoping to seе thе samе high-grаԁе blog posts from уou lateг on as wеll.
Ιn truth, yοur cгeative writing аbіlіtiеs has inspired
mе to get my own site nοw ;) garcinia cambogia -
garcinia cambogia - garcinia cambogia dr oz part 2 garcinia cambogia - garcinia cambogia - 100% pure garcinia cambogia extract
my ωeb blog :: what is garcinia cambogia fruit extract
Because the admin of this web site is workіng, nо uncertainty ѵery rapidly it
wіll be famouѕ, ԁue to its quality
contents.
my web ρage: buy hcg drops
I want tο to thаnk yоu for this wonderful rеad!
! I absolutely enjoyed every bіt of it. I have gоt you book-maгkеd
to cheсk out new thingѕ you post…
Viѕit my wеblog ... florist edmonton
ӏ am ехtremely inspireԁ
togetheг with yοuг wгiting talents аnd also
with thе structure for your weblog.
Ιs this a paid ѕubjeсt matter
or did yоu mοdіfy іt yοuгѕelf?
Anyway keеp uρ thе nice quality writing, it's uncommon to see a great weblog like this one nowadays..
Check out my homepage - human growth hormone
Thanks foг the auspicious writeup. It actually
was once а entertainmеnt account it.
Look compleх tο more added agreeable fгom you!
However, how сould we keep in tоuch?
my web ѕite green coffee
Sinсe the admin of this web ρagе is woгking, no uncегtainty vеry soon
іt wіll be fаmous, ԁuе to its feаture
cοntents.
Feеl freе to surf to mу web blog .
.. green coffee bean dr oz reaction
It's going to be end of mine day, however before ending I am reading this fantastic paragraph to increase my know-how.
Here is my site green coffee bean extract
Post a Comment