Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Radiocarbon-dating was performed on the the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. This was published in a paper by M. C. Kieth and G. M. Anderson, August 16, 1963. "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells." Science 141:634ff.
Thanks both. That explains the unusually old date because there was far less c 14 than there should be, giving the impression that more had leaked away. I can well imagine that the explanation is dismissed by YE Creationists as any excuse to avoid the conclusion that C14 dating is not reliable. (1)
That of course is not related to Radiometric dating of rocks. I don't know of any serious query of the results other than speculative objections that have not been to shown to skew the results significantly.
(1) (from your link) "Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from"
If put forward as a hypothetical explanation, an accusation of 'any excuse' might draw some water. Just as the unsupported objections to radiometric dating does, but evidence that the mussels got their carbon from sources low in C14 would prove that the explanation is a valid one.
P.s Anyone know where the sealskin -dating and mortar -dating came from?
Pp.s couldn't find it and I gave a sharp response to the Googlquery 'Did you mean sealskinz?'
"No I did not!"
Wiki had a useful entry on the most ancient C14 -datable remains.
"Errors and reliability
The reliability of the results can be improved by lengthening the testing time. For example, if counting beta decays for 250 minutes is enough to give an error of ± 80 years, with 68% confidence, then doubling the counting time to 500 minutes will allow a sample with only half as muchto be measured with the same error term of 80 years....
Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient to be measurable. Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow dates up to 60,000 and in some cases up to 75,000 years before the present to be measured."
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-12-2014 at 01:15 PM..
Yes you do seem "kinda smart", thus the reason I wonder why you hold onto this God idea. Is it because you were raised to believe in a God and simply modified your belief in God to fit the science?
You know, Amaznjohn, that is a really good question. Through-out my life, I have questioned that myself. It is true that I was born into a Christian family and being from the deep South, God and Jesus are just a special father and son that live down the road - not a scary pair somewhere far away- that I see and visit with everyday. So, I am sure that plays a part in what I believe. I'm not sure that I can answer your question. The closest thing I can offer is because of how I feel.
I think everyone has loved someone or something in their lives. But, can anyone explain love? What are the words to tell someone what love is? It boils down to a feeling. I believe that I have interacted with God and He with me. I believe that I have felt is hand on my shoulder and that I have been given peace in times of trouble. I feel Him.
I have times when I don't feel Him; when I am unable to connect. However, when my heart and mind are right, I feel him. I think there are many times when He has interceded in my life. These may just be coincidences. I'm sure that atheists have good things happen to them, too. I don't know how an atheist "feels" inside. I don't even know how another Christian feels inside. I see "Christians" doing horrible things while professing to be a Christian and many are doing it in the name of God. I can only speak for myself.
My life has not been a bowl of whipped cream. I've had my ups and downs - just like everyone else. I don't think God is going to make my life "good" because I believe. I need a new car, but I don't expect one to show up in the driveway. I do think I have a conscience that makes me try and do better because of God. But, I have met a lot of atheists on this forum that seem to be good people and also have a conscience and a lot of Christians that aren't and don't.
Maybe there is no God and I have been fooled or maybe there is a God that takes care of everybody - including Atheists.
You know, Amaznjohn, that is a really good question. Through-out my life, I have questioned that myself. It is true that I was born into a Christian family and being from the deep South, God and Jesus are just a special father and son that live down the road - not a scary pair somewhere far away- that I see and visit with everyday. So, I am sure that plays a part in what I believe. I'm not sure that I can answer your question. The closest thing I can offer is because of how I feel.
I think everyone has loved someone or something in their lives. But, can anyone explain love? What are the words to tell someone what love is? It boils down to a feeling. I believe that I have interacted with God and He with me. I believe that I have felt is hand on my shoulder and that I have been given peace in times of trouble. I feel Him.
I have times when I don't feel Him; when I am unable to connect. However, when my heart and mind are right, I feel him. I think there are many times when He has interceded in my life. These may just be coincidences. I'm sure that atheists have good things happen to them, too. I don't know how an atheist "feels" inside. I don't even know how another Christian feels inside. I see "Christians" doing horrible things while professing to be a Christian and many are doing it in the name of God. I can only speak for myself.
My life has not been a bowl of whipped cream. I've had my ups and downs - just like everyone else. I don't think God is going to make my life "good" because I believe. I need a new car, but I don't expect one to show up in the driveway. I do think I have a conscience that makes me try and do better because of God. But, I have met a lot of atheists on this forum that seem to be good people and also have a conscience and a lot of Christians that aren't and don't.
Maybe there is no God and I have been fooled or maybe there is a God that takes care of everybody - including Atheists.
Maybe you should ponder, which is the more rational? What are the chances that this feeling you have is God instead of your own conscience that calms you? Which God would it be? What are his/her/its attributes and can they be demonstrated? Why would he intercede in your life and not the lives of the millions of children around the world who suffer and die everyday from starvation, diseases, and natural disasters? Do you think that he considers you special and/or more deserving of intercession?
Just because science said so? How can they when they were not even there?
If you get mistakes in from their dating methods as found sometimes when dating something within our known lifetime or history; how can anyone date something beyond the scope of human history without confirmation?
Living mollusks have been carbon dated at 2,300 years old dead.
Mortar from an English castle less than 800 years old -carbon 14 test dated at 7,370 years old.
Even fresh seal skins had been carbon 14 test dated at 1,300 years old.
The C-14 system depends on the idea that there has been no catastrophic event in the past fifty thousand years, and yet we are getting errors in the dating method.
So "if" the global flood happened within the 6,000 years time period, it would throw all the measurements out of whack as it also explains why there are errors in the scientific dating method that we have today.
Feel free to share why you believe that the earth is 4.54 billion years old without science and history being able to confirm it.
If a person has to lie and misrepresent science in order to support their religious beliefs, what does that say about their beliefs? What's the point?
The geologist and geophysicist modern age that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years. This value was determined by radioisotope age of meteorites and the age of the oldest material on Earth was known as the pattern on the Moon.
Last edited by russell coleman; 12-13-2014 at 01:09 AM..
Maybe you should ponder, which is the more rational? What are the chances that this feeling you have is God instead of your own conscience that calms you? Which God would it be? What are his/her/its attributes and can they be demonstrated? Why would he intercede in your life and not the lives of the millions of children around the world who suffer and die everyday from starvation, diseases, and natural disasters? Do you think that he considers you special and/or more deserving of intercession?
Yes, I am sure that a lot of people think a belief in God is irrational. I don't. Besides, if I am wrong, then no harm, no foul. But if you are wrong, ....
I know that my time spent in prayer brings me solace. You can say it's just meditation and that always make people feel better. But, it makes a difference in my life. I call it God. Others may call it something else.
I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean about "which God would that be?"
I don't think I can demonstrate attributes to anyone other than myself.
I don't know that He doesn't intercede in the lives of millions of children elsewhere. This statement indicates that I get "stuff" from God and that my life is great or I have everything I ever wanted. I don't, it's not, and I don't. I don't think God intercedes in people's lives with "things" very often. He intercedes with me by giving me spiritual comfort, strength, and peace, and guidance. Why there are hungry, sick, and dying children or why there are billions of other terrible things in the world. I don't know. There are a lot of theories, even some of my own. I do not know the answer. Would these questions be answered if we just declared there was no God? Why is it the fault of God? Why do people think God should snap is fingers and make everything ok?
No, I don't think I'm special. Very, very far from it. The people I know well (well enough that they share with me about such matters) who believe in God find the same kind of intercession as I find - comfort, strength, peace. Those are our only intercessions. We haven't won the lottery or found a new car in the driveway when we needed it or such - if that's what you mean by intercession. It hasn't stopped death or other tragedy from touching me and mine, but God gives us comfort during these times. I have no doubt about that.
If a person has to lie and misrepresent science in order to support their religious beliefs, what does that say about their beliefs? What's the point?
Moderator cut: deleted
PoorinSpirit said: If you get mistakes in from their dating methods as found sometimes when dating something within our known lifetime or history; how can anyone date something beyond the scope of human history without confirmation?
The fact that a solution for the false date was found is irrelevant. Nobody would know it was a false date if the specimen wasn't from within known history. The fact that scientists knew the age was younger caused them to look for reason for the false dating.
I don't believe this was an isolated case either; PoorinSpirit mentioned some mortar as well as some seal skins giving false dates. I have read of others as well. Now lets say that all of these false dates have reasonable explanations for giving a false reading. Lets for sake of argument say that all of these reasonable explanations have been identified by scientists. That doesn't negate the fact that the false readings were discovered because scientists already knew the dates of the specimens.
Now try to comprehend this: Potassium-Argon 40 dating is used to date rock that are thought to be millions or even billions of years old. They come up with these dates because they have been able to measure the rate that Potassium 40 turns into Argon 40 in sealed rock. This rate is very slow. Scientists make the assumption that any Argon 40 in the sample would have escaped while the rock cooled. Scientists make the further assumption that nothing contaminated the samples during these millions of years.
Again PoorinSpirit asked "If you get mistakes in from their dating methods as found sometimes when dating something within our known lifetime or history; how can anyone date something beyond the scope of human history without confirmation?"
That is a very good question. How can you know? With carbon-14 dating Scientists have been able to confirm dates by doing tests on organic specimens with a known history. They have also discovered false dates which gave them cause to investigate limitations within the testing method. Can the same be said for potassium-argon40 dating?
Last edited by june 7th; 12-14-2014 at 03:14 AM..
Reason: Rude.
Geologist do not assume that outside events do not influence old rocks but do through experimental methods and theory assert that SOME elements are not affected by those events.
There are rules for collecting samples set forth to minimize errors, whether it be sampling for rock ages or contamination in water or soil. These have been tested over time and modified as more data becomes available or testing equipment improves the standards are revised.
Ages of the earth are not derived from a single sample or even a couple of samples. Statistically for almost all to be in error is very low.
Poorinspirit appears to be getting all his information from non-science sites, has not seemed to investigate anything about this info and repeats it no matter how often it is explained to be false. But more than that those who supply him with this misinformation must be knowingly be doing so. Who would take a fresh sample with the knowledge that the test they are sending it to be done has to be unable let to deal with a sample this young. And that's sites do not revise their information as their own errors are pointed out.
Questioning science is good and healthy but only if you are also willing to question the site's that provide you with your original info. If someone made a claim that a YES site makes an outlandish claim I would go to the site to see for myself. He could too, especially to find out what the terms he is using actually mean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
