Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104855 |
Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
- 697 Replies
We dont know how old they are and people drew on walls in pompeii as far as we know it could be something like this
We know they're old enough to draw themselves hunting Mastodons.
We know they're old enough to draw themselves hunting Mastodons.
Yes but we dont know the true age of mastadons either
Yes but we dont know the true age of mastadons either
Well, I would argue that we use carbon dating, but we all know where that's going to lead to.
Seriously dude, find some sources, or stop arguing all your bull. You say "Well this one dude said carbon dating is inaccurate because blah blah blah," but you never give a source. So as far as I'm concerned, your views remain unproven and inaccurate.
Seriously dude, find some sources, or stop arguing all your bull.
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called âequilibriumâ). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libbyâs original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libbyâs calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr.Libbies exact quote
Samy, if you are going to copy from other sources, please state where they came from. You always need to list your references.
I was just about to say that, for another fairly important reason.
You can pull quotes from anywhere, and they can be used out of context. If you want to make a point with a quote, give the whole article. I can easily pull a quote of the Pope saying "God doesn't exist..." and cut off the rest, which would be "God doesn't exist where evil reigns," or something of the sort.
i thought religion and schools were supposed to be separate
anyway yes because it is a theory w/ some evidence and is regarded as science
there is no christianity class
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
the article and i know you guys count it all as biased crap but this is science and the quote is from...
W. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1952, 8
You can pull quotes from anywhere, and they can be used out of context. If you want to make a point with a quote, give the whole article.
Yes, you always need to link back to the sources.
i thought religion and schools were supposed to be separate
Yes, they are. The argument that intelligent design believers use however, is that their theory is not religious. Which is why they call the creator the 'designer' and not 'God'. But it is just replacing one word with another, and trying to rename the theory.
Thanks samy =)
anyway yes because it is a theory w/ some evidence and is regarded as science
But that's the thing, there actually is no evidence. There is no scientific research that supports the theory. If there was, perhaps they would have an argument. But this theory is just that, a theory. There is nothing to support it.
1952
I'm assuming that's the date the article was written, correct?
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.
What you said is that Libby claimed that the carbon half-life was changing over time. This quote doesn't prove that. It doesn't deny anything, in fact. I'm completely dumbfounded as to where you got your assumptions from.
Really neither theory has enough evidence to even come close to a fact...and most of the evidence for each is corrupted because if the original ideas are wrong then everything comes crumbling down and i beleive that both have the same amount of evidence it's just interpreted differently...also creationists and evolutionist put more stock into some scientific discoveries...and ill admit creationism has a lot of gaps and weaker points...but the so does evolution
You must be logged in to post a reply!