There are really not that many half lives in the amount of time that carbon dating can say how old each specimen is. Carbon dating does accuratley tell you how old something is but there is new technology so what is the point of carbon dating anyways. We can go back so much further then this can which, according to Bill Bryson, is 5,600 years. We can go all the way back to dinasours this day in age.
C14 dating has a big list of things to test for before accepting a date. An organism that gets it carbon from old sources will test older so marine creatures can be a problem. Snails and shellfish may be sourcing carbon from old sources. Material in proximity to a radiation source may test wrongly, everything after 1950 will test differently because of nuclear tests. The majority of these are known and accounted for by the people who actually do it.
@SqueakerAlpha True, but there are so many fluctuations among dates that many times they don't corroborate very well. Even different parts of the same animals have turned up having different ages by billions of years. That's too large of an error margin for an accurate reading. Either they filed down the dinosaur bones so that they fit in order to place different aged bones together, which would make no sense, or it's inaccurate. Either one does not look good towards the accuracy of carbondating
@mangaka08 carbon dating does not go much past 35,000 years ago. Different radiometric tests are used for fossils. Any test has an error margin but if the test is conducted properly with a full understanding of what can mess up a test the results are very consistant. No radiometric test has an error margin of billions of years because the earth is only 4-5 billion years old.
If creationism has more basis and more evidence then I'm in full support of it, if C14 dating has any evidence supporting it, then it has my vote. Either way, so far odds are in creationists favor as most of C14 results have generally been fabricated and tampered with to give more desirable results. Regardless, most of this post had little to do with creationism vs evolution. I simply claim that there are flaws with C14 dating as apposed to other methods.
It seems to me that most evolutionists are more accepting of anything that looks like evolution even if they don't research it any. It's in a museum so it MUST be real, right? They couldn't possibly have created this to put it in a museum because their whole argument falls apart otherwise as they still have no evidence aside from it. I've looked at everything at the table and have discarded nothing I didn't like. I only believe what is true and throw away what is fabricated.
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner but how can the Earth be 6000 years old if the continents allegedly were all joined before and broke off into pieces that takes much longer than 6000 years ago
@stoneman619 dont forget by carbon dating dinosaur remains, which are clearly millions of years old, obviously the earth has been around for quite a while
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner I just am interested how you know it has been constant over billions of years if things like the Ice Age would have disrupted the number of Carbon 14 atoms in circulation as a result of the lack of plant life. Also, many things that have absolute known dates have been tested with Carbon 14 dating and they have given millions of years which clearly is not a good indication of its accuracy, but rather, its inaccuracy.
@mangaka08 Believe me, a lot of the people who disagree with Carbon 14 dating and its accuracy due to its numerous flaws are all scientists as well. The only one being foolish is yourself acting like a child over someone simply stating that there may be problems with your thesis. If your conclusion was so solid and accurate, wouldn't you be able to explain away all the flaws of C14 dating because, based on your claim, it is impossible for it to have any.
@mangaka08 What you are talking about is things that have died and been tested after the present carbon dating will be inaccurate after the present so you cannot compare things that died thousands of years ago to things that died after the present. Btw the present is 1950.
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner I'm not trying to spark a fight with anyone. I just would like to see they're explanation on the subject if they claim that it is a flawless system. I'm not attacking anyone or calling them an idiot for accepting C14 dating. I just, as an individual who has a great interest in the field of science, would like an explanation. If it's what you believe, then give me your reasons regarding why there are problems and logically and scientifically "set me right", so to speak.
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner People were here 6000 years ago. Several civilizations in China were present at this time. We weren't just HERE, we we're prospering.
@Omega1000AQW The earliest known age of the formation of the Chinese civilization, namely the Xia dynasty, is agree to be at least 5,000 years old, and, yes, there were many credible sources that claimed that Egyptian civilization was prospering. Heck, even the bible says that it was.
@DutchNordic Honestly? Logic is the word you want to use? How hard must it be to hold on to a belief that you see contradicted every day of your life. By simply walking into a museum your religion is debunked. In order to believe in your religion you must condemn reason, logic, and science. A fourth grade science text book has to become a conspiracy by the evolutionist. Even when something is explained you must shut your ears and PRETEND it makes no sense because it goes against the bible.
@NYC26Lawyer And what exactly is there in museum that can possibly disprove the bible aside from fabricated lies about how a society lived and thrived off of simply a tooth. For me, to believe that a person with a Phd can conclude how an entire society functions with only a tooth of unknown origin. It's hard enough to decipher how a social body functions with structural findings. These scientists that claim this are either arrogant and they are just foolish. I'll go for the former for their sake
but then that means that carbon comes raining from space down to the earth?
ok, sooo it's something that the atmosphere that lets certain amounts come down right?? and rains down on us. because thats kind of what i have been understanding.
my question is, does the atmosphere's strength limit the amounts of carbon come down in the earth.
@gattler yes cosmic rays come from the sun, the Nitrogen in the air absorbs it making C14, so it is everywhere and gets into plants and the animals that eat the plants.
@gregrutz hmm.. so wouldn't the carbon dating be a bit different or off? if the younger atmosphere was much better, stronger, and healthier unlike today's ozone layer, etc. wouldn't the amount of cosmic rays be reduced due to the past atmosphere's greater strength? maybe that's the reason why the c14's fade in time.(mind bobbled)
@gattler ''past atmosphere's greater strength'' WTF? The Carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere no matter how dirty we have made it. The dating method has been proven to work, too late.
He says, "But once the organism dies, the amount of C14 begins to decrease. After about 5,000 about half the number of C14 atoms will have decayed."
Um, how exactly did we, 5,000 years ago, test how long it would take for them to decrease? Perhaps they used a method to date from today to 1934 when it was first discovered to use that as a function and find out how long it would take to decay at that rate, but frankly thirty years isn't enough for me to believe its accuracy.
@mangaka08 LOL! You're an idiot! It doesn't matter when the half-life of C14 was discovered. 5000 years ago, the half-life was still 5000 years (rounded). In 5000 years, the amount of C14 in something that died will be 1/2 of what it is now. In 10,000 years, it will be 1/4. In 15,000 years, it will be 1/8. So, if you dig up something that has 1/16th of the normal (living) amount of C14, then it is 20,000 years old!
@kw757 Say what you like, but don't you find it strange that scientists are stating that the process of carbon 14 dating is completely constant without any evidence of these claims? Especially when so many real items have been dated by very known dates and they say that they are millions of years old?
Of course, that would be logical assuming all things constant. However, what evidence is there for it to be known as constant? Just my thoughts.
@kw757 Again, I'm just curious. I haven't found any reason to believe that there is valid evidence in support of a constant decay of carbon 14. It is imperative that the ratio does not change in any way, but aren't there other causes to believe that the ratio could have been altered at certain points in time? For instance, wouldn't the lack of plants during the Ice Age, assuming it happened, cause any change in the ratio as there would be much less plant life?
@kw757 Again, I'm just curious. I haven't found any reason to believe that there is valid evidence in support of a constant decay of carbon 14. It is imperative that the ratio does not change in any way, but aren't there other causes to believe that the ratio could have been altered at certain points in time? For instance, wouldn't the lack of plants during the Ice Age, assuming it happened, cause any change in the ratio as there would be much less plant life?
What I don't get.. and I NEVER will accept carbon dating is this: Without actual evidence, a dated document from the time frame or a time machine, they can never know if something dated ten million years ago is from ten million years ago until they have something to compare it too, it will always be a theory: always. ITS impossible to prove carbon dating this is logic. Dangerous.
Think about.. someone says this thing is a million years old, impossible unless you have something to compare it to
Aww, I like seeing an apologetic talking about things he does not understand. My grandfather is 81 and all his brothers and sisters are dead, guess I will never know how old he is since I cant compare with them.
@HppdCure Thats why carbon dating never is applied alone, along with carbondating there are like 40 other ways of measuring the age of something and they all give similar results give or take a thousand years, but those thousand years are a margin of error of less that 0,1%
you dopey git, c14 dating is only used to date things a few thousands if years old, and errors in accuracy are well managed and accounted for. do your homework before posting.
To people who seem to be so sure that they've "disproved" carbon dating, please go collect all the evidence, perform all the experiments, write scientific papers and have them peer-reviewed.
Quoting creationist videos everywhere instead of studying it for real is just retarded.
@clerlic JUST APPLY THE SAME CRITERIA TO YOUR SELF.PLEASE GO AND RESEARCH ALL THE FACTS THAT PROVE THAT ACTUALLY CARBON DATING DOES NOT WORK .THEARE ARE A LOT OF THEM...
@VESANG I can't find any facts that disprove carbon dating, I can only find false and ignorant creationist statements with zero real evidence. But you seem to be so knowledgable, why don't you compose a sciencific paper, disprove carbon dating and improve science, instead of commenting on YouTube videos.
I'm not a scientist of that field, but I'll rather trust the overwhelming majority of real geologists and phycisists who have worked on this for decades, than a nobody, sorry.
@clerlic I see your point and i want to make it clear that I do respect You and Your believe. i am just trying to pass a valid point because when i found that i have being brain washed in every aspect of life that was a bitter pill to swallow.you say you rather trust the majority .the majority thought that the earth was flat and that more blood on doctors hands helps the patience. i can sent you nice links that disprove carbon dating . do you want me to do that?Ttry to understand the other sid
@VESANG If those links are for proper sciencific papers, then go ahead, if they are for ramblings by nutjobs such as Kent Hovind or Venomfangx, then no thank you.
It's not about the majority, it's about science, anyone can examine the evidence and reach the same conclusions, it will be much harder if you don't understand the evidence. I bet the creationists would argue that the Earth was flat if it wasn't for the space photos, ordinary people don't understand carbon dating and are easily fooled
It's only a tool, and it's only one of the tools. The professionals that use this method needs something that they can get usable results from and then cross reference those results with results comming from other methods. Sceinteists are fully aware of exactly how ands when they need to compensate for the tools they have been using for a whole career. They don't need creationists telling them about e.g. the reservoir effect. It was the scientists who discovered it, not prayer, eh?
well since it takes 5000 years for 6 carbon atoms to disapear this is only acurate within 1000 years error posibility. So no, it is not as acurate as you would wish. Thank God the bible is so clear and precise.
the only thing wrong with that is that it cant date anything less than 10,000 years old. The wollymamoth they found in Siberia cant be dated because it preserved so good that it only gives a couple thousand year life span. I heard one time they carbon dated a snail at 3 billion years old not knowing it was a snail.
I'm sorry, but I think you're very mistaken. Carbon-14 has been tested for artifacts known to be 1000, 2000, 3000, years old, all the way back to the dawn of history.
Also, I seriously doubt your "3 billion year" story, because every carbon dating facility knows that Carbon Dating can't date beyond around 50,000 years old, so they would never report a number in the billions.
" I heard one time they carbon dated a snail at 3 billion years old not knowing it was a snail."
This story is a lie, no scientist can give such a big number using carbon dating. Depending on the machine used its practical limit of carbon dating is 58000 - 62000 years.
Even if carbon dating is wrong other dating mechanism clearly shows Earth is billion of years old and life many millions.
@obaeyens no science is the study and observation based upon observation and experimentation and as such no one was alive to classify this as science. Also, no chemical or biological tests can prove anything about dating anything more than 1000 or 2000 years old because carbon 14 and other elements/chemicals decay at varying rates and that includes plants, animals, and soil.
@pblinehan You don't get it. The decay is predictable it is follows a predefined curve based on a half-time. You calibrate the curve with a known date taken by some other means. Counting rings of trees for example. If you have a 1000 and 2000 year calibration then it also works for 50.000.
Only living fossils nowadays will absorb the C14 not old fossils so increased C14 because of atomic bombs will annoy scientists in 200 years or so. trying to date 200 year old samples
@obaeyens decay is unpredictable, period. This is because it is contaminated with other chemical compounds, even those buried in ice. if you had an entirely isolated sample then yes the C14 dating theory works flawlessly.
@obaeyens getting angry is no way to argue, unless your 12, first off. Secondly, what i previously stated is the definition of science, i should know i have i degree in bio molecular chemistry. And third, regardless of the definition, C14 dating is flawed due to samples being contaminated by their environment and preexisting chemical compounds and due to bias experimentation.
@obaeyens it comes from preexisting chemical compounds with in the soil and/or surrounding environment. Any scientist in any branch of science that has actually been out in the field knows this is a very common occurrence, just as they know rates of decay and carbon ratios in the atmosphere differ
@pblinehan what do you mean by C14 being used one way....? and they do not cross-examine as much as you think they do with older samples, because there a very limited amount of options.
It's a shame they didn't explain the reservoir effect =/
Some Creationists try to disprove carbon dating with it...
Basically, if you don't know already, the reservoir effect describes how carbon dating doesn't work in all circumstances - it works best when organisms get their carbon straight from the atmosphere, like plants, and it it is very unreliable for the like molluscs which get their carbon filtered out by water. If you ever hear about living snails dated at 27,000 years, ignore it :)
But damn it! If it's opposed to some desert scribbling written by a bunch of barbaric sand monkeys in the middle east, 2000 years ago, the quantum theory about how particles interact and decay and particle physics in general doesn't work. Sure.
You are telling me that environmental factors cant change the dating outcome. Even physicist will tell you that it is comprised of theories. Even as a scientist one has to be willing to accept new evidence and data. How do you know the exact elements the living organisms were made up of. If something so small as to wether or not it was exposed to the atmosphere can change it, how reliable is it.
@MOSESOLIVER agreed, C14 dating is flawed due to sample contamination through preexisting environmental compounds and the unknown ratios of carbon 12, 13, and 14 in the atmosphere more than a few thousand years ago and the plants/animals the samples are from.
Carbon dating is only good for about 60,000 years, so we couldn't use it for dating T-Rex even if there were any organic carbon left in the fossils (which there is not). Other methods must be used for dating these older specimens. However, in using isotope ratios of any element to provide age information, it isn't the amount of the element that is important but the relative abundance of the various isotopes. It is the ratios that count.
I do think that is true, what proof do you have that creationists think the earth is flat. Fact is most earlier scientist were Christian. And believed in a creator. What you trying to say is christian or creatian are backward thinking. The fact is there is more proof in what I believe in God then is just believing that all this happen by some big bang or chance. In fact tell me has there been a car, or computer built by chance or just appeared.
Earlier scientists didn't know that living things are entirely made of non-living things - atoms. They didn't know about glaxies, carbon dating, red shifts, and much much more. All they "knew" was that if they didn't believe they would have end up just like Galileo did.
So if the BB didn't happen then tell us your explanation of why all galaxies are running away from us and what was the source of background radiation?
Another shallow argument about the car. First of all we have no natural explanation of how a car came to be unlike for the universe, which is big bang theory.
Another thing is that (almost) nothing in the universe is govern by chance, because every configuration is infinitely improbable, however ultimately the system must exist in a state - statistical thermodynamics. It is govern by chemistry. :)
Carbon dating doesn't work in certain circumstances, but it works best in organisms which get their carbon straight from the atmosphere (like plants).
@theneonfire it would work if you had an isolated sample free from other chemical compounds, but such is not the case due to varying levels and ratios of C12, 13, and 14. These variations and exposures to other compounds make it impossible to get even a semi-exact answer.
@cassiopeiaproject carbon dating is inaccurate and flawed period because of the amounts of carbon 12 and unstable carbon we've put in our environment through the atomic bombs and other related substances. To begin with carbon, and for that matter any other element, does not and has not existed or decayed at a current rate due to many factors. On top of that, many scientists engage in carbon 14 dating experiments with a certain amount of bias and as such disregard a lot of conflicting data.
@pblinehan "carbon, and for that matter any other element, does not and has not existed or decayed at a current rate due to many factors."
Wrong the decay is very very very precise like a clock ticking. It does not speed up or slow down once it starts ticking. It is a claim that only pseudo-scientists would claim. People that lack understanding of science. something buried in ice or ground will not get contaminated. Parts in a river might become contaminated because fresh water seeing trough.
@cassiopeiaproject Ratios... wouldnt that be reflected by as Kirbienstien said... "the original amounts of carbon". To have a ratio in the organism you would need to know the atmospheric ratio as it would follow basic chemistry rules etc... and then calculate atmospheric/organic Carbon. Im not a creationist, I am a doctor and geneticist... just wondering how reliable this data is as ive always been sceptic...
@pondsj01 The half-life of radioactive isotopes is a very reliable measure. In a perfect world then you just need to know the ratios of isotopes in a sample to know how old it is. This assumes that you know the original ratios at some past origination time. And it assumes that no intermediate processes have somehow altered the rates of decay.
@pondsj01 In the real world, scientists work very hard and diligently to make sure of their knowledge of these possibilities. Mistakes sometimes happen but they are very rare. In addition, a single dating method is almost never used in isolation. Reliable dating comes from using as many dating methods as are available for a given problem.
@thejoeking97 No. We kept the same number of nucleons, just changed a neutron into a proton. So going from 6 protons to 7 protons changes us from carbon to nitrogen, and we still have 14 nucleons -- Nitrogen-14.
@cassiopeiaproject yeah if firgured that out after a sec,but I wasn't thinking you know and I tried to delete that comment after I posted it so sorry XD!! and also wtf why are there a bunch of porno comments on a scientfic video do they show no respect for nuclear physics?
@kirbienstien We scientists don't know the levels of carbon, nor do we know whether a particular sample has been contaminated with other compounds and ions through out the years, even samples preserved in ice.
@kirbienstien Carbon dating of older prehistoric objects like rocks and alike is fine,
but using that same method on extinct organics is to far fetched; there are far more variables with calculating the time of a living thing than something inanimate. In the end it's just to theoretical to come to a decise conclusion.
Very Bad Things would be happening in the world if radioactivity ran at different rates in the past than today. There are a number of dating methods using radioactivity as the clock for measurement, as well as others that use other phenomena than radioactivity. Different methods work for different purposes, and they often overlap. C14 is used for organic remains (not fossils, which are rocks) that are not more than 60,000 years old. Also cannot be used for shellfish or anything since 1800.
CARBON.. dating... ROCK... yes, OF COURSE the method doesn't work with a sample containing no carbon in the first place, its limited as to how far back it can date accurately, and then there are other radiometric dating methods.. what you are talking of is a very explicit example that shows how it cannot be used properly, and how it doesn't apply to uncarbonated materials such as rocks...
really, your statement is utter tripe.. look down to cassiopeiaprojects comment answer from 2 months ago!
The problem is that if they believe in biblical inerrancy, then Ussher's estimate about when the world was created has to be fairly close to the right time. That limits the age of the Earth to around 6000 years, which is well within the accurate range of radiocarbon dating. It such a dating returns a value for a sample of 20,000 years in the past, that does not bode well with your initial assumption of Bible inerrancy. Something has to give, and they insist that it must be the dating method.
The only other assumption open to them is that god created the world at the appointed time complete with evidence that the world is much older. This implies a sneaky, duplicitous god, which is not a very palatable position for most Christians, though there are some that do cite that as a possibility.
I'm taking an Anthropology class and here are acouple other ways of dating things:
Thermoluminescence Dating
Electric Spin Resonance Dating
Paleomagnetic Dating
Uranium-Series Dating
Fission-Track Dating
I dont know what they mean, but they do exist. Oh yea, any bible nut who thinks that we should put no intrest in the scientific community is a blind moron. I'm a Catholic, I know blind morons when I see em. :)
lol you're still in the section with em... you sound like a person from VA with a slight accent telling a person from Texas with a deep accent that they have an accent and you dont... you both are country and have accents. If you want to be a true scientific person? drop the delusions and you can go alot further
Great video, by the way. Could you explain if the following assumptions are true regarding radiometric dating. i.e. as scientists use it.
Assumption 1: The original number of unstable atoms can be known. Scientists assume how many unstable (parent) atoms existed at the beginning based on how many parent and daughter atoms are left today.
Assumption 2: The rate of change was constant. Scientists assume that radioactive atoms have changed at the same rate throughout time
Assumption 3: The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay. Scientists assume that no outside forces, such as flowing groundwater, contaminated the sample.
We don't need to know the number of atoms in the original sample, just the relative abundance of the different isotopes. Sample contamination is always considered, and cross-checking with different dating methods is performed whenever possible. If by "rate of change" you mean the half-life of various isotopes, this question has been asked recently by scientists from Purdue, and a number of investigations have been done. (continued)
Indeed. To strengthen that, review some of the other physics and standard model videos on cassiopeiaproject, and reflect that the weak force mediates radioactivity while the electro-mechanical force mediates chemistry. No known chemical reaction has any affect at all on radioactivity or any nuclear reactions. None at all.
Actually carbon dating is very accurate when carbon reservoir based ecosystems are avoided and it is calibrated using dendrochronology and varve-counted sediments to compensate for variations in the atmospheric C-14 / C-12 ratio from changes in cosmic ray flux.
Just like any tool it needs to be used properly. A screwdriver is "a joke" and "snake oil" when you're trying to drive a nail.
By the way, that is a Santans besides a commune in eastern France?
satan invented science? that makes sense why so many religious folk hate it! id rather be a good person, atheist, without doing good things for a selfish reason of an eternity of joy in heaven, and then go to hell. Its funnier that way.
Nope, it is only inaccurate for dates since about 1850 (start of the industrial revolution) and dates over 60,000 years in the past. There are some other exceptions, such as shellfish.
C14 is mostly used for archaeological purposes - studying mankind's civilization remains, things like charcoal, wood, food (not fish), cloth and bones. Fossils, by the way, are rocks (rock dissolved in water has replaced the organic matter in the remains) and so in general are not usefully dated by C14.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of a God. It disproves the first few verses of the Bible, that is all. However, that depends on how you interpret the Bible. A day to you could mean millions to God.
"However, that depends on how you interpret the Bible. A day to you could mean millions to God."
Yes that is true but may I remind you that true orthodox Christianity and ancient Judaism took Genesis allegorically? In fact it was Christian pastors in the United States to first accept the theory. It isn't about the date, how it happened, or anything like that. The real problem is the pain and suffering, but Christians must accept that with or without evolution.
just proves that god must have been a dumb ass cuz why would he put days if he knew what a day for us was? plus if u dont take all the bible literally, then u cant take any of it like that. all religions have the same chance of being right.....which is none!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
God is more real than life itself because (imperfect physical) life is not forever. The evidence shows that there is nothing in this known universe that is able to make any life forms. That means that God is greater than this entire universe.
Oh, so is "religion" on a much lower level than "science" or is it on a much higher level?
You might find it surprising that God's word is true. That means that it is trustworthy. Everything that God says is absolutely true. This makes it much easier for us to know what the truth is. For instance, the Bible describes dinosaurs and the burial of millions of creatures and we see both. The Bible says there were many people not directly related to us that died in the flood and we see that too.
No. No, we don't find it "surprising". What I find particularly "surprising" (not!) about you IDiots, is that you inevitably steer your religious conclusions back to the god of christianity.
Prove it was yours and not some god doing it for a bet bullied by other more important gods. Maybe a god created the world. It doesn't follow he gives a shit about humanity. I refer you to 'Pascal's Wager' ... and not the expurgated version. And stop wearing ties with sweaters. Just stop; really.
This was much more precise than my prof's 30 min lecture on this topic..:p
hellokittilove1 4 days ago
Carbon is a huge bitch. I dumped her for Relative.
Trashcansam123 1 week ago
There are really not that many half lives in the amount of time that carbon dating can say how old each specimen is. Carbon dating does accuratley tell you how old something is but there is new technology so what is the point of carbon dating anyways. We can go back so much further then this can which, according to Bill Bryson, is 5,600 years. We can go all the way back to dinasours this day in age.
LivvieBas8 1 month ago
its so simple to understand this concept. screw the hate comments. u know nothing , NOTHING !!!
SKools2012 1 month ago
That was actually kinda easy to understand....goddamn physics hw.
cakecrumb095 1 month ago
urhhhhhkkkkk soooo geeky D=
meskiiniee 2 months ago
IM JUST TRYNA FIGURE OUT MY HOMEWORK
NickleDimeRecords 3 months ago
C14 dating has a big list of things to test for before accepting a date. An organism that gets it carbon from old sources will test older so marine creatures can be a problem. Snails and shellfish may be sourcing carbon from old sources. Material in proximity to a radiation source may test wrongly, everything after 1950 will test differently because of nuclear tests. The majority of these are known and accounted for by the people who actually do it.
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha True, but there are so many fluctuations among dates that many times they don't corroborate very well. Even different parts of the same animals have turned up having different ages by billions of years. That's too large of an error margin for an accurate reading. Either they filed down the dinosaur bones so that they fit in order to place different aged bones together, which would make no sense, or it's inaccurate. Either one does not look good towards the accuracy of carbondating
mangaka08 3 months ago
@mangaka08 carbon dating does not go much past 35,000 years ago. Different radiometric tests are used for fossils. Any test has an error margin but if the test is conducted properly with a full understanding of what can mess up a test the results are very consistant. No radiometric test has an error margin of billions of years because the earth is only 4-5 billion years old.
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
If creationism has more basis and more evidence then I'm in full support of it, if C14 dating has any evidence supporting it, then it has my vote. Either way, so far odds are in creationists favor as most of C14 results have generally been fabricated and tampered with to give more desirable results. Regardless, most of this post had little to do with creationism vs evolution. I simply claim that there are flaws with C14 dating as apposed to other methods.
mangaka08 4 months ago
It seems to me that most evolutionists are more accepting of anything that looks like evolution even if they don't research it any. It's in a museum so it MUST be real, right? They couldn't possibly have created this to put it in a museum because their whole argument falls apart otherwise as they still have no evidence aside from it. I've looked at everything at the table and have discarded nothing I didn't like. I only believe what is true and throw away what is fabricated.
mangaka08 4 months ago
Very clear. Thanks for the video.
nikanj 6 months ago
LIES CARBON 14 IS NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE I AM TO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND IT. THEREFORE THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD.
STOP BEING SMART, I HATE SMART PEOPLE, STOP SAYING THE EARTH IS 4.5 WITH YOUR INTELLIGENCE.
THERE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD.
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 7 months ago 15
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner but how can the Earth be 6000 years old if the continents allegedly were all joined before and broke off into pieces that takes much longer than 6000 years ago
stoneman619 5 months ago
@stoneman619 dont forget by carbon dating dinosaur remains, which are clearly millions of years old, obviously the earth has been around for quite a while
drummerdude0515 5 months ago
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner I just am interested how you know it has been constant over billions of years if things like the Ice Age would have disrupted the number of Carbon 14 atoms in circulation as a result of the lack of plant life. Also, many things that have absolute known dates have been tested with Carbon 14 dating and they have given millions of years which clearly is not a good indication of its accuracy, but rather, its inaccuracy.
mangaka08 4 months ago
@mangaka08 Believe me, a lot of the people who disagree with Carbon 14 dating and its accuracy due to its numerous flaws are all scientists as well. The only one being foolish is yourself acting like a child over someone simply stating that there may be problems with your thesis. If your conclusion was so solid and accurate, wouldn't you be able to explain away all the flaws of C14 dating because, based on your claim, it is impossible for it to have any.
mangaka08 4 months ago
@mangaka08 What you are talking about is things that have died and been tested after the present carbon dating will be inaccurate after the present so you cannot compare things that died thousands of years ago to things that died after the present. Btw the present is 1950.
All hail QI
Neeidea 3 months ago
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner I'm not trying to spark a fight with anyone. I just would like to see they're explanation on the subject if they claim that it is a flawless system. I'm not attacking anyone or calling them an idiot for accepting C14 dating. I just, as an individual who has a great interest in the field of science, would like an explanation. If it's what you believe, then give me your reasons regarding why there are problems and logically and scientifically "set me right", so to speak.
mangaka08 4 months ago
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner People were here 6000 years ago. Several civilizations in China were present at this time. We weren't just HERE, we we're prospering.
Omega1000AQW 3 months ago
Comment removed
mangaka08 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Omega1000AQW The earliest known age of the formation of the Chinese civilization, namely the Xia dynasty, is agree to be at least 5,000 years old, and, yes, there were many credible sources that claimed that Egyptian civilization was prospering. Heck, even the bible says that it was.
mangaka08 3 months ago
4 people prefer the logic and accuracy of ancient scriptures over carbon dating.
DutchNordic 8 months ago 6
@DutchNordic Honestly? Logic is the word you want to use? How hard must it be to hold on to a belief that you see contradicted every day of your life. By simply walking into a museum your religion is debunked. In order to believe in your religion you must condemn reason, logic, and science. A fourth grade science text book has to become a conspiracy by the evolutionist. Even when something is explained you must shut your ears and PRETEND it makes no sense because it goes against the bible.
NYC26Lawyer 4 months ago
@NYC26Lawyer And what exactly is there in museum that can possibly disprove the bible aside from fabricated lies about how a society lived and thrived off of simply a tooth. For me, to believe that a person with a Phd can conclude how an entire society functions with only a tooth of unknown origin. It's hard enough to decipher how a social body functions with structural findings. These scientists that claim this are either arrogant and they are just foolish. I'll go for the former for their sake
mangaka08 4 months ago
but then that means that carbon comes raining from space down to the earth?
ok, sooo it's something that the atmosphere that lets certain amounts come down right?? and rains down on us. because thats kind of what i have been understanding.
my question is, does the atmosphere's strength limit the amounts of carbon come down in the earth.
gattler 8 months ago
@gattler Nitrogen in the air is converted to C14 by cosmic rays.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz cosmic rays come from space right? and our atmosphere also lets amounts in the earth come in?
gattler 8 months ago
@gattler yes cosmic rays come from the sun, the Nitrogen in the air absorbs it making C14, so it is everywhere and gets into plants and the animals that eat the plants.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz hmm.. so wouldn't the carbon dating be a bit different or off? if the younger atmosphere was much better, stronger, and healthier unlike today's ozone layer, etc. wouldn't the amount of cosmic rays be reduced due to the past atmosphere's greater strength? maybe that's the reason why the c14's fade in time.(mind bobbled)
gattler 8 months ago
@gattler ''past atmosphere's greater strength'' WTF? The Carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere no matter how dirty we have made it. The dating method has been proven to work, too late.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz lol funny expression. oh ok then kool i thought it did but i guess not.
gattler 8 months ago
Hmm... interesting
Guillotine2084 9 months ago
itt: butthurt creationists
red2seata 9 months ago
He says, "But once the organism dies, the amount of C14 begins to decrease. After about 5,000 about half the number of C14 atoms will have decayed."
Um, how exactly did we, 5,000 years ago, test how long it would take for them to decrease? Perhaps they used a method to date from today to 1934 when it was first discovered to use that as a function and find out how long it would take to decay at that rate, but frankly thirty years isn't enough for me to believe its accuracy.
mangaka08 10 months ago
@mangaka08 They can count every atom is a sample. They don't need 30 years to figure out the rate of decay.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@mangaka08 LOL! You're an idiot! It doesn't matter when the half-life of C14 was discovered. 5000 years ago, the half-life was still 5000 years (rounded). In 5000 years, the amount of C14 in something that died will be 1/2 of what it is now. In 10,000 years, it will be 1/4. In 15,000 years, it will be 1/8. So, if you dig up something that has 1/16th of the normal (living) amount of C14, then it is 20,000 years old!
kw757 4 months ago
@kw757 Say what you like, but don't you find it strange that scientists are stating that the process of carbon 14 dating is completely constant without any evidence of these claims? Especially when so many real items have been dated by very known dates and they say that they are millions of years old?
Of course, that would be logical assuming all things constant. However, what evidence is there for it to be known as constant? Just my thoughts.
mangaka08 4 months ago
@kw757 Again, I'm just curious. I haven't found any reason to believe that there is valid evidence in support of a constant decay of carbon 14. It is imperative that the ratio does not change in any way, but aren't there other causes to believe that the ratio could have been altered at certain points in time? For instance, wouldn't the lack of plants during the Ice Age, assuming it happened, cause any change in the ratio as there would be much less plant life?
mangaka08 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kw757 Again, I'm just curious. I haven't found any reason to believe that there is valid evidence in support of a constant decay of carbon 14. It is imperative that the ratio does not change in any way, but aren't there other causes to believe that the ratio could have been altered at certain points in time? For instance, wouldn't the lack of plants during the Ice Age, assuming it happened, cause any change in the ratio as there would be much less plant life?
mangaka08 4 months ago
I'd love to know what the song is. It's ringing a huge ass bell in my mind! Just can't figure it out!
mangacrazy07 10 months ago
@mangacrazy07 Right? This song is really good!!
mangaka08 10 months ago
Alternative view of evolution see book video trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have thousands of profiles for Naughty women mworld5.info
AILEENROBERTAify 1 year ago
Success your life with Asian women **lushfmlk.info**
OiujhCvfr 1 year ago
Think about your marriage and get trusted women ** rockmycity.info **
genisenoka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sexy woman with a lot of love to give naneedj.info
sachnehasane 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
best Latino women dating site ** rockmycity.info **
fgfdgd1000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gives the same respect I give to them naneedj.info
kamalpalin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actual profiles group for Naughty women benaughtyman.info
dilsanikasuni 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi brother needs to chat a, Asian women busizz4me.info
LoraJanake 1 year ago
What I don't get.. and I NEVER will accept carbon dating is this: Without actual evidence, a dated document from the time frame or a time machine, they can never know if something dated ten million years ago is from ten million years ago until they have something to compare it too, it will always be a theory: always. ITS impossible to prove carbon dating this is logic. Dangerous.
Think about.. someone says this thing is a million years old, impossible unless you have something to compare it to
HppdCure 1 year ago
Aww, I like seeing an apologetic talking about things he does not understand. My grandfather is 81 and all his brothers and sisters are dead, guess I will never know how old he is since I cant compare with them.
TheSpiffyGamer 1 year ago
@HppdCure Thats why carbon dating never is applied alone, along with carbondating there are like 40 other ways of measuring the age of something and they all give similar results give or take a thousand years, but those thousand years are a margin of error of less that 0,1%
Sweddude 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Latino women need to be your wife rockmycity.info
brandiellya 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be Naughty brides so sexy benaughtyman.info
dilsanikasuni 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not sleep naughty women here benaughtyman.info
dgffdhfdh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Low cost marriage service for you gettop5.info
gwynrangeraal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Real online naughty women collection benaughtyman.info
qaswedasdfr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep an Asian woman as your bride *lushfmlk.info*
NickolasDarling 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Big single women are looking for you naneedj.info
sarahiashl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Create a profile and search a naughty lady mworld5.info
nsameeraify 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Need many sexy and hot guys for date naneedj.info
minthaify 1 year ago
Local naughty girls online here for chatting mworld5.info
WynneXanthia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Asian women online now lostlk.info
AlysWorth 1 year ago
* up to a few tens of thousands of years.
eeeaten 1 year ago
you dopey git, c14 dating is only used to date things a few thousands if years old, and errors in accuracy are well managed and accounted for. do your homework before posting.
eeeaten 1 year ago
yes . . it can be quite inaccurate when dating anything over a few thousand years old . . .
and imagine how inaccurate dating methods are that make those assumptions "millions of years ago".
It has already been shown that the C14/C12 ratio in the atmosphere has changed in the past 30 years!
To assume it has not changed for thousands/millions/billions of years is ludicrous.
BUT . . . very nice animation !!
StocksDoc 1 year ago
If the earth was millions of years old, would the ocean not be almost 100% salt?
Fail.
BryceBnc 1 year ago
carbon dating has been proven time and again by scientists to be uneffective. doesn`t work!!!!!!!!
djphlange 1 year ago
@djphlange where did you hear that, a creationist video? If so, you are being lied to.
quote55 1 year ago
To people who seem to be so sure that they've "disproved" carbon dating, please go collect all the evidence, perform all the experiments, write scientific papers and have them peer-reviewed.
Quoting creationist videos everywhere instead of studying it for real is just retarded.
clerlic 1 year ago
@clerlic JUST APPLY THE SAME CRITERIA TO YOUR SELF.PLEASE GO AND RESEARCH ALL THE FACTS THAT PROVE THAT ACTUALLY CARBON DATING DOES NOT WORK .THEARE ARE A LOT OF THEM...
BEST REGARDS
VESANG 1 year ago
@VESANG I can't find any facts that disprove carbon dating, I can only find false and ignorant creationist statements with zero real evidence. But you seem to be so knowledgable, why don't you compose a sciencific paper, disprove carbon dating and improve science, instead of commenting on YouTube videos.
I'm not a scientist of that field, but I'll rather trust the overwhelming majority of real geologists and phycisists who have worked on this for decades, than a nobody, sorry.
clerlic 1 year ago
@clerlic I see your point and i want to make it clear that I do respect You and Your believe. i am just trying to pass a valid point because when i found that i have being brain washed in every aspect of life that was a bitter pill to swallow.you say you rather trust the majority .the majority thought that the earth was flat and that more blood on doctors hands helps the patience. i can sent you nice links that disprove carbon dating . do you want me to do that?Ttry to understand the other sid
VESANG 1 year ago
@VESANG If those links are for proper sciencific papers, then go ahead, if they are for ramblings by nutjobs such as Kent Hovind or Venomfangx, then no thank you.
It's not about the majority, it's about science, anyone can examine the evidence and reach the same conclusions, it will be much harder if you don't understand the evidence. I bet the creationists would argue that the Earth was flat if it wasn't for the space photos, ordinary people don't understand carbon dating and are easily fooled
clerlic 1 year ago
It's only a tool, and it's only one of the tools. The professionals that use this method needs something that they can get usable results from and then cross reference those results with results comming from other methods. Sceinteists are fully aware of exactly how ands when they need to compensate for the tools they have been using for a whole career. They don't need creationists telling them about e.g. the reservoir effect. It was the scientists who discovered it, not prayer, eh?
heyawhaw 1 year ago
What?
clearword1 1 year ago
Things to consider about Carbon Dating:
Samples of Known Ages are tested → It Doesn't Work
Unknown Ages are tested → It's Assumed to Work
...That's...not...Science.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
well since it takes 5000 years for 6 carbon atoms to disapear this is only acurate within 1000 years error posibility. So no, it is not as acurate as you would wish. Thank God the bible is so clear and precise.
salahhe 1 year ago
can you give me an example?
grendelee 1 year ago
@grendelee an example of what?
pblinehan 1 year ago
the only thing wrong with that is that it cant date anything less than 10,000 years old. The wollymamoth they found in Siberia cant be dated because it preserved so good that it only gives a couple thousand year life span. I heard one time they carbon dated a snail at 3 billion years old not knowing it was a snail.
777tone888 2 years ago
They found out snails don't get there carbon from the air, so it doen't work on them.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
@777tone888
I'm sorry, but I think you're very mistaken. Carbon-14 has been tested for artifacts known to be 1000, 2000, 3000, years old, all the way back to the dawn of history.
Also, I seriously doubt your "3 billion year" story, because every carbon dating facility knows that Carbon Dating can't date beyond around 50,000 years old, so they would never report a number in the billions.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@777tone888
" I heard one time they carbon dated a snail at 3 billion years old not knowing it was a snail."
This story is a lie, no scientist can give such a big number using carbon dating. Depending on the machine used its practical limit of carbon dating is 58000 - 62000 years.
Even if carbon dating is wrong other dating mechanism clearly shows Earth is billion of years old and life many millions.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens no science is the study and observation based upon observation and experimentation and as such no one was alive to classify this as science. Also, no chemical or biological tests can prove anything about dating anything more than 1000 or 2000 years old because carbon 14 and other elements/chemicals decay at varying rates and that includes plants, animals, and soil.
pblinehan 1 year ago
@pblinehan You don't get it. The decay is predictable it is follows a predefined curve based on a half-time. You calibrate the curve with a known date taken by some other means. Counting rings of trees for example. If you have a 1000 and 2000 year calibration then it also works for 50.000.
Only living fossils nowadays will absorb the C14 not old fossils so increased C14 because of atomic bombs will annoy scientists in 200 years or so. trying to date 200 year old samples
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens decay is unpredictable, period. This is because it is contaminated with other chemical compounds, even those buried in ice. if you had an entirely isolated sample then yes the C14 dating theory works flawlessly.
pblinehan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pblinehan
"no science is the study and observation based upon observation and experimentation and as such no one was alive to classify this as science"
This is BS and you know it. Science does not required someone being alive to witness it to classify it as science.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens getting angry is no way to argue, unless your 12, first off. Secondly, what i previously stated is the definition of science, i should know i have i degree in bio molecular chemistry. And third, regardless of the definition, C14 dating is flawed due to samples being contaminated by their environment and preexisting chemical compounds and due to bias experimentation.
pblinehan 1 year ago
@pblinehan "getting angry is no way to argue" I am getting angry? Where did I get angry?
How can you contaminate an fossil buried in ice or the ground? Where does the contaminate come from?
obaeyens 1 year ago
@obaeyens it comes from preexisting chemical compounds with in the soil and/or surrounding environment. Any scientist in any branch of science that has actually been out in the field knows this is a very common occurrence, just as they know rates of decay and carbon ratios in the atmosphere differ
pblinehan 1 year ago
@pblinehan what do you mean by C14 being used one way....? and they do not cross-examine as much as you think they do with older samples, because there a very limited amount of options.
pblinehan 1 year ago
It's a shame they didn't explain the reservoir effect =/
Some Creationists try to disprove carbon dating with it...
Basically, if you don't know already, the reservoir effect describes how carbon dating doesn't work in all circumstances - it works best when organisms get their carbon straight from the atmosphere, like plants, and it it is very unreliable for the like molluscs which get their carbon filtered out by water. If you ever hear about living snails dated at 27,000 years, ignore it :)
theneonfire 2 years ago
So it works for the (fission) atom bomb.
It works for the (fusion) hydrogen bomb.
It works for (cesium) atomic clocks.
It works for nuclear power plants.
It works for (prototype) fusion power plants.
It works for the fluorescent dials in your watch.
But damn it! If it's opposed to some desert scribbling written by a bunch of barbaric sand monkeys in the middle east, 2000 years ago, the quantum theory about how particles interact and decay and particle physics in general doesn't work. Sure.
MateiAlexandruBogdan 2 years ago 7
@MateiAlexandruBogdan
You are telling me that environmental factors cant change the dating outcome. Even physicist will tell you that it is comprised of theories. Even as a scientist one has to be willing to accept new evidence and data. How do you know the exact elements the living organisms were made up of. If something so small as to wether or not it was exposed to the atmosphere can change it, how reliable is it.
MOSESOLIVER 2 years ago
Yep. You're right. So then a guy in the sky that takes the form of a burning bush, turns water into wine and is immortal created the universe. :))
MateiAlexandruBogdan 1 year ago
@MOSESOLIVER agreed, C14 dating is flawed due to sample contamination through preexisting environmental compounds and the unknown ratios of carbon 12, 13, and 14 in the atmosphere more than a few thousand years ago and the plants/animals the samples are from.
pblinehan 1 year ago
@pblinehan C14 is only one way. Science uses cross-checks with other dating methods.
obaeyens 1 year ago
but for animals that are not alive today, like t -rex
how do you know the original amounts of Carbon???
kirbienstien 2 years ago
Carbon dating is only good for about 60,000 years, so we couldn't use it for dating T-Rex even if there were any organic carbon left in the fossils (which there is not). Other methods must be used for dating these older specimens. However, in using isotope ratios of any element to provide age information, it isn't the amount of the element that is important but the relative abundance of the various isotopes. It is the ratios that count.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago 6
So it's holeproof? So many creationists tell me it's a sham. But they think the world was flat too, so not much of a credible source..
pokerstaaars 2 years ago
I do think that is true, what proof do you have that creationists think the earth is flat. Fact is most earlier scientist were Christian. And believed in a creator. What you trying to say is christian or creatian are backward thinking. The fact is there is more proof in what I believe in God then is just believing that all this happen by some big bang or chance. In fact tell me has there been a car, or computer built by chance or just appeared.
dsbuckeye 2 years ago
i think you got through school by chance
pokerstaaars 2 years ago
Another thing you are comparing things with completely different CRITICAL CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTIES - the Universe/a car.
Its the same as if you stated that if birds don't fall to the ground like rocks is proof that Newton was wrong about gravity.
Pretty stupid, don't you think?
Vejita12 2 years ago
no idea what your on about sorry
pokerstaaars 2 years ago
Its me who's sorry. Simple missclick. :)
Vejita12 2 years ago
More proof of god? Ok! Show me one. :)
Earlier scientists didn't know that living things are entirely made of non-living things - atoms. They didn't know about glaxies, carbon dating, red shifts, and much much more. All they "knew" was that if they didn't believe they would have end up just like Galileo did.
So if the BB didn't happen then tell us your explanation of why all galaxies are running away from us and what was the source of background radiation?
Vejita12 2 years ago 2
Another shallow argument about the car. First of all we have no natural explanation of how a car came to be unlike for the universe, which is big bang theory.
Another thing is that (almost) nothing in the universe is govern by chance, because every configuration is infinitely improbable, however ultimately the system must exist in a state - statistical thermodynamics. It is govern by chemistry. :)
Vejita12 2 years ago
@pokerstaaars
Carbon dating doesn't work in certain circumstances, but it works best in organisms which get their carbon straight from the atmosphere (like plants).
theneonfire 2 years ago
@theneonfire it would work if you had an isolated sample free from other chemical compounds, but such is not the case due to varying levels and ratios of C12, 13, and 14. These variations and exposures to other compounds make it impossible to get even a semi-exact answer.
pblinehan 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject carbon dating is inaccurate and flawed period because of the amounts of carbon 12 and unstable carbon we've put in our environment through the atomic bombs and other related substances. To begin with carbon, and for that matter any other element, does not and has not existed or decayed at a current rate due to many factors. On top of that, many scientists engage in carbon 14 dating experiments with a certain amount of bias and as such disregard a lot of conflicting data.
pblinehan 1 year ago
@pblinehan "carbon, and for that matter any other element, does not and has not existed or decayed at a current rate due to many factors."
Wrong the decay is very very very precise like a clock ticking. It does not speed up or slow down once it starts ticking. It is a claim that only pseudo-scientists would claim. People that lack understanding of science. something buried in ice or ground will not get contaminated. Parts in a river might become contaminated because fresh water seeing trough.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject Ratios... wouldnt that be reflected by as Kirbienstien said... "the original amounts of carbon". To have a ratio in the organism you would need to know the atmospheric ratio as it would follow basic chemistry rules etc... and then calculate atmospheric/organic Carbon. Im not a creationist, I am a doctor and geneticist... just wondering how reliable this data is as ive always been sceptic...
pondsj01 1 year ago
@pondsj01 The half-life of radioactive isotopes is a very reliable measure. In a perfect world then you just need to know the ratios of isotopes in a sample to know how old it is. This assumes that you know the original ratios at some past origination time. And it assumes that no intermediate processes have somehow altered the rates of decay.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@pondsj01 In the real world, scientists work very hard and diligently to make sure of their knowledge of these possibilities. Mistakes sometimes happen but they are very rare. In addition, a single dating method is almost never used in isolation. Reliable dating comes from using as many dating methods as are available for a given problem.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject does carbon 14 use alpha or beta decay
thejoeking97 11 months ago
@thejoeking97 Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14 through beta-decay.
cassiopeiaproject 11 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject wouldn't that be nitrogen-15 not 14 because it adds a proton
thejoeking97 11 months ago
@thejoeking97 No. We kept the same number of nucleons, just changed a neutron into a proton. So going from 6 protons to 7 protons changes us from carbon to nitrogen, and we still have 14 nucleons -- Nitrogen-14.
cassiopeiaproject 11 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject yeah if firgured that out after a sec,but I wasn't thinking you know and I tried to delete that comment after I posted it so sorry XD!! and also wtf why are there a bunch of porno comments on a scientfic video do they show no respect for nuclear physics?
thejoeking97 11 months ago
@kirbienstien We scientists don't know the levels of carbon, nor do we know whether a particular sample has been contaminated with other compounds and ions through out the years, even samples preserved in ice.
pblinehan 1 year ago
@kirbienstien Carbon dating of older prehistoric objects like rocks and alike is fine,
but using that same method on extinct organics is to far fetched; there are far more variables with calculating the time of a living thing than something inanimate. In the end it's just to theoretical to come to a decise conclusion.
ShadesOfGrey18 1 year ago
Very Bad Things would be happening in the world if radioactivity ran at different rates in the past than today. There are a number of dating methods using radioactivity as the clock for measurement, as well as others that use other phenomena than radioactivity. Different methods work for different purposes, and they often overlap. C14 is used for organic remains (not fossils, which are rocks) that are not more than 60,000 years old. Also cannot be used for shellfish or anything since 1800.
puncheex 2 years ago
carbon dating has been disproved.
It's faulty.
Samples from volcanic rock only 50 years old have turned up under carbon dating of being 3 million years old!
EllomateyoinThailand 2 years ago
CARBON.. dating... ROCK... yes, OF COURSE the method doesn't work with a sample containing no carbon in the first place, its limited as to how far back it can date accurately, and then there are other radiometric dating methods.. what you are talking of is a very explicit example that shows how it cannot be used properly, and how it doesn't apply to uncarbonated materials such as rocks...
really, your statement is utter tripe.. look down to cassiopeiaprojects comment answer from 2 months ago!
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
It won'y work if its only 50 years old, where the fuck are you getting your info?
FAUX news?
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
@EllomateyoinThailand
Carbon dating is only used on organic stuff less than 60,000 years old,
Double Fail
gregrutz 2 years ago
ur a theist arent you
Supernova310 2 years ago
citation?
Jantles 2 years ago
"carbon dating has been disproved. It's faulty."
Only in the minds of creationists.
puncheex 2 years ago
im curious why would they say that ...is it so hard to accept reality?
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
The problem is that if they believe in biblical inerrancy, then Ussher's estimate about when the world was created has to be fairly close to the right time. That limits the age of the Earth to around 6000 years, which is well within the accurate range of radiocarbon dating. It such a dating returns a value for a sample of 20,000 years in the past, that does not bode well with your initial assumption of Bible inerrancy. Something has to give, and they insist that it must be the dating method.
puncheex 2 years ago
The only other assumption open to them is that god created the world at the appointed time complete with evidence that the world is much older. This implies a sneaky, duplicitous god, which is not a very palatable position for most Christians, though there are some that do cite that as a possibility.
puncheex 2 years ago
too bad volcanic rocks dont have carbon in them -.-
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
Comment removed
pblinehan 1 year ago
what about carbon dating on objects like stone tools etc, non alive objects , non-organic :P
runner784 2 years ago
If the non-organic object cannot be affiliated with an appropriate carbon-datable, organic object, then other dating methods must be used.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
I'm taking an Anthropology class and here are acouple other ways of dating things:
Thermoluminescence Dating
Electric Spin Resonance Dating
Paleomagnetic Dating
Uranium-Series Dating
Fission-Track Dating
I dont know what they mean, but they do exist. Oh yea, any bible nut who thinks that we should put no intrest in the scientific community is a blind moron. I'm a Catholic, I know blind morons when I see em. :)
ljhoeniges 2 years ago
lol you're still in the section with em... you sound like a person from VA with a slight accent telling a person from Texas with a deep accent that they have an accent and you dont... you both are country and have accents. If you want to be a true scientific person? drop the delusions and you can go alot further
Supernova310 2 years ago
These can be easily researched and cross-referenced on wikipedia.
puncheex 2 years ago
Great video, by the way. Could you explain if the following assumptions are true regarding radiometric dating. i.e. as scientists use it.
Assumption 1: The original number of unstable atoms can be known. Scientists assume how many unstable (parent) atoms existed at the beginning based on how many parent and daughter atoms are left today.
encarta007 2 years ago
Assumption 2: The rate of change was constant. Scientists assume that radioactive atoms have changed at the same rate throughout time
Assumption 3: The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay. Scientists assume that no outside forces, such as flowing groundwater, contaminated the sample.
encarta007 2 years ago
We don't need to know the number of atoms in the original sample, just the relative abundance of the different isotopes. Sample contamination is always considered, and cross-checking with different dating methods is performed whenever possible. If by "rate of change" you mean the half-life of various isotopes, this question has been asked recently by scientists from Purdue, and a number of investigations have been done. (continued)
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago 3
So far the evidence supports the conventional view that half-life is an unchanging measure.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
Indeed. To strengthen that, review some of the other physics and standard model videos on cassiopeiaproject, and reflect that the weak force mediates radioactivity while the electro-mechanical force mediates chemistry. No known chemical reaction has any affect at all on radioactivity or any nuclear reactions. None at all.
puncheex 2 years ago
And thank you.
encarta007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Carbon dating is a joke.
it's snake oil ...... wildly inaccurate, leading the masses into another of Santans lie.
Traynorcustomreverb 2 years ago
Carlos Santana would NEVER lie! >=(
NewColdness 2 years ago 3
Actually carbon dating is very accurate when carbon reservoir based ecosystems are avoided and it is calibrated using dendrochronology and varve-counted sediments to compensate for variations in the atmospheric C-14 / C-12 ratio from changes in cosmic ray flux.
Just like any tool it needs to be used properly. A screwdriver is "a joke" and "snake oil" when you're trying to drive a nail.
By the way, that is a Santans besides a commune in eastern France?
majorvoltage 2 years ago
Is that Santa's lie or Carlos Santana's lie?
StoicAtheist 2 years ago 2
Santans? Is that like some weird cult to Santa. I sure hope they have spell check in heaven buddy.
ljhoeniges 2 years ago 6
satan invented science? that makes sense why so many religious folk hate it! id rather be a good person, atheist, without doing good things for a selfish reason of an eternity of joy in heaven, and then go to hell. Its funnier that way.
TomGezen 2 years ago
Unless the animal is from the sea.
joelfwilson 2 years ago
What this video does not tell you is that Carbon dating is inaccurate under 5000 years.....
sneakysneaky333 2 years ago
Nope, it is only inaccurate for dates since about 1850 (start of the industrial revolution) and dates over 60,000 years in the past. There are some other exceptions, such as shellfish.
C14 is mostly used for archaeological purposes - studying mankind's civilization remains, things like charcoal, wood, food (not fish), cloth and bones. Fossils, by the way, are rocks (rock dissolved in water has replaced the organic matter in the remains) and so in general are not usefully dated by C14.
puncheex 2 years ago
Evolution does not disprove the existence of a God. It disproves the first few verses of the Bible, that is all. However, that depends on how you interpret the Bible. A day to you could mean millions to God.
bj07bran7 2 years ago
"However, that depends on how you interpret the Bible. A day to you could mean millions to God."
Yes that is true but may I remind you that true orthodox Christianity and ancient Judaism took Genesis allegorically? In fact it was Christian pastors in the United States to first accept the theory. It isn't about the date, how it happened, or anything like that. The real problem is the pain and suffering, but Christians must accept that with or without evolution.
ogirv101 2 years ago
just proves that god must have been a dumb ass cuz why would he put days if he knew what a day for us was? plus if u dont take all the bible literally, then u cant take any of it like that. all religions have the same chance of being right.....which is none!
keggerous 2 years ago
Wow it's much more simple than I thought! Great video!
b1gr1g 2 years ago
wow, thank you. this information is going to come in handy while debating annoying christens at my college.
Not that i haven't already proved my point like a million times but you know how they are, they only hear what they want to.
JackMoranRain 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God is more real than life itself because (imperfect physical) life is not forever. The evidence shows that there is nothing in this known universe that is able to make any life forms. That means that God is greater than this entire universe.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
why would a christian even watch this vid? very strange.
slimjunks 2 years ago 2
great video
even though I think God is beyond science
lberettal 3 years ago
There is certainly nothing wrong with that belief. Just note that it is then religion and not science.
cassiopeiaproject 3 years ago
Oh, so is "religion" on a much lower level than "science" or is it on a much higher level?
You might find it surprising that God's word is true. That means that it is trustworthy. Everything that God says is absolutely true. This makes it much easier for us to know what the truth is. For instance, the Bible describes dinosaurs and the burial of millions of creatures and we see both. The Bible says there were many people not directly related to us that died in the flood and we see that too.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The bible also claims that Pi=3..... Fuckwit
myrmecia1977 2 years ago
No. No, we don't find it "surprising". What I find particularly "surprising" (not!) about you IDiots, is that you inevitably steer your religious conclusions back to the god of christianity.
Prove it was yours and not some god doing it for a bet bullied by other more important gods. Maybe a god created the world. It doesn't follow he gives a shit about humanity. I refer you to 'Pascal's Wager' ... and not the expurgated version. And stop wearing ties with sweaters. Just stop; really.
TuneInTurnonWakeup 2 years ago 2
"You might find it surprising that God's word is true. That means that it is trustworthy"
This has a name. It's called 'Argument from Authority'.
It's not a valid argument. In fact... It's dangerous with history as my witness...
TuneInTurnonWakeup 2 years ago