Carbon dating. Is this a theory?

[burritos]

Having taken a few chemistry and physics classes in my life, I am one who absolutely and completely believe in the science behind carbon dating. I'm not a specialist in carbon dating, but I assume that those who use it regularly on it, do so with the precision that makes it accurate and feliable. I'm wondering if there are people out there who still think it's "theory" like "evolution" and "GW".

[huskers]

I don't know if I believe in carbon dating or not. Do they allow them to get married?

[airportkid]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Mar 25 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]411918[/snapback]</div>

Do they allow them to get married?[/b]

Only if a proper relationship evolves!

MB

[galaxee]

all i know is that when i order a 35S labeled gtp(gamma)s solution, if i don't use it within 5 or 6 weeks it's decayed enough to be useless for my purposes. (half life= 87 days)

i also know that i never have to consider decay as a troubleshooting issue when i use 3H, given the 12.5ish year half life.

as far as i can tell, the principles work.

[tcjennings]

Do you mean do people consider carbon dating a "theory" in the colloquial sense that "theory" means "guess"? In which case the answer is yes -- young earth creationists are pretty much required to discount carbon dating.

In the scientific sense that "theory" means "model supported by evidence and experiment with no observed falsification" then in this case, too, carbon dating is on the level of evolution, GW, and gravity as a scientific theory.

[daniel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 25 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]411913[/snapback]</div>

Having taken a few chemistry and physics classes in my life, I am one who absolutely and completely believe in the science behind carbon dating. I'm not a specialist in carbon dating, but I assume that those who use it regularly on it, do so with the precision that makes it accurate and feliable. I'm wondering if there are people out there who still think it's "theory" like "evolution" and "GW".
[/b]

Yes. Young Earth creationists assert that radioactive dating (not just carbon, but other elements as well) is flawed. They have several specious arguments against it, all of which are hogwash, but all of which sound good enough to their supporters, which is all they care about.

[fshagan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 25 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]412063[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Young Earth creationists assert that radioactive dating (not just carbon, but other elements as well) is flawed. They have several specious arguments against it, all of which are hogwash, but all of which sound good enough to their supporters, which is all they care about.
[/b]

Yep, they will deny that it has any kind of accuracy, and besides the universal Flood "pressurized" all the carbon forms and make them look older. (I think that's actually in one of Duane Gish's books.)

Francis Collins does a pretty good treatment of this in his book "The Language of God" about mapping the human genome; Collins was the scientist chosen to head up the project and is a Christian evolutionist to boot.

[Ichabod]

The real key to your question, and you hit it right on the head, is the word "theory." People who like to argue against science take that word to have a very different meaning than the way scientists use it.

Evolution and Global Warming are theories. Wikipedia (which, to be fair, the creator of conservapedia.com believes to be liberal-biased ) says:

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
[/b]

So, yes millions, or thousands, or hundreds of years age might not be easy to prove in any other way, which would make radioactive dating a theoretical prediction, but it's also a theoretical prediction that you'll fall down if there's nothing supporting your weight (given, of course, close proximity to a very massive object, e.g. Earth).

[tochatihu]

14C half-life is 5730 (by some measures as low as 5680?) years. Using this to date fossil (or just very old) biological samples was originally based on the presumption that its concentration in the atmosphere is constant through time. This has turned out not strictly to be the case, and the breakthrough involved bristlecone pine wood samples from trees that were extraordinarily old.

The sun's emission of ionizing radiation and charged particles converts some atmospheric N into C. Its radiation output is not completely constant. This has all been very well worked out with different groups and techniques. One might read:

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
http://www.unmuseum.org/radiocar.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm
http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Material...ic%20dating.pdf

for a start. The 'latest thing' in radioactive half-lives is a report from New Scientist last October that they can be slightly shortened by ultracold temperatures. Report was titled 'Half-life heresy: Accelerating radioactive decay'. I have not found that outside of subscription sites, but could pirate it into here if there is interest. Somebody is going to try to test the predictions sometime this year in one of the large particle accelerators. Then it will be news again and we will hear of early confirmation or refutation.

[Lywyllyn]

you mean old stuff doesn't have a 'born on' date printed on the bottom? That would definitely proof it .... 'created on' date