Scientific Dating Method Question...?

Question

I'll try not to generalize but it seems that there's a lot of distrust in dating methods in the religious community. Someone earlier today said that it was seriously flawed.

I'm curious though. What makes you think this? What do you know about dating methods that make you distrust it? Do you know how it works or no?

More questions to come based on answers.

Answer 1

Since I was the one who originally said it was flawed, I will give you a starting point for your own research.



Consider the following quote of a noted Canadian anthropologist:



"...The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement, and better understanding,the underlying assumptions ave been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix as we go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration wherever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely then, that the remaining half come to be accepted.



No matter how 'useful' it is though, the radiocarbon method is STILL NOT CAPABLE of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are in reality selected dates....." Lee, Robert, "Radiocarbon, Ages In Error," ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF CANADA, Vol 19, No. 3, 1981 pp 9, 29.



For an excellent breakdown of how the carbon dating process works and why it cannot work from a scientific perspective, go here:



www.creationontheweb.com/images/

pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf



You can even Google "errors in carbon dating" and go from there. If you need additional support, email me.

Answer 2

If Carbon 14 was the only method that we had to determine the age of fossils and rock layers, I would be very skeptical - the half-life of C14 is, what, 5700 years? The best techniques used now can't go past 70000 some years before present.



But it's not. We have at least three or four other methods that we can use, different forms of radioactive decay that we can use, to provide a correlation. Between that and the simple understanding that similar fossils occur in the same rock layer (something we've known since the 1800's) we can use relative dating to further hone our time estimates.



Theists take one thing and latch on to it - it's not an easy topic (kind've like evolution) and in the quest of making it easier to understand for the non-scientific masses it becomes a series of soundbites and oversimplifications. ("Carbon 14 is inaccurate, therefore the scientists are wrong!")



A period of study of the methods of research used to determine age of fossils, the earth, and even the galaxy will show that the scientific method *while not perfect nor 100% accurate* is still giving us reliable and consistent results.



I am not happy that we don't fully understand the complexities of C14 dating. However, we've come a long way in the last 100 years - better methods, better calibrations. I see progress, I see the scientific community adopting better standards when previous methods have been outdated (so to speak =) ).



I wish I could see the religious community show that kind've flexibility. The difference, of course, is that scientists are human and can be wrong whereas God inspired a book, and of course the human beings who wrote or are reading that book couldn't possibly be *wrong*....





Saul



EDIT: yachadho... I agree with you to a certain extent. Results change when assumptions made are challenged and proven wrong.



However, I've done my research, and I know that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed as who the christians claim him to be. Jocephus is interpolation, Tacitus is vague, and there are no other contemporary non-christian historians to attest to Jesus' life.



It's no biggie to me anymore - as long as christians aren't trying to force their beliefs on other people and as long as christians aren't trying to say something that isn't true. There is no historical evidence for God or that Jesus is the son of God. Men named Yeshua lived - we know that, it was a very common name at the time. A carpenter's son who turned preacher named Yeshua? Not that unlikely. As the son of God? No proof... what they call "absence of evidence".



I simply think we need more than documents written at least two decades after his alleged death to support evidence that Yeshua bin Yosef was the son of god.



Like some C14 dating. =)

Answer 3

I had always blindly trusted the dating methods until I heard someone criticize the results. I looked into the various methods and have come to see how flawed they really are. Now I take them with a grain of salt and try to really see what is being analyzed.



Hope that helps.



You could look at the various creationist's sites that refute the methods or for a more in depth look I recommend that you go to the source and look at the sites from the labs doing the testing. Check out university libraries, look at the methods for yourself to see how they actually work. I did and was amazed at what I found.

Answer 4

AWW Tony, it flies in the face of bible teaching and they just can't have that. The bible is their rock 2000 yrs old (like they knew anything back then) authored by males out of the Middle East. Can you get their brains around carbon dating and the micro-wave background. Whats even more comical is that some thumpers do believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old but they still believe in Jesus who is the son of a God that really is God and was sent to die because a walking, talking snake talked a woman made from a rib into eating a forbidden fruit from a magical tree in a special garden God just built and wasn't watching CUTE HUH.

Answer 5

I know how the dating methods work. There are several and I trust them to give an estimate of age only for the time frames that work for each dating test.

Answer 6

The Bible is not "clear", as some make it out to be...as to how old the universe is.

If the universe was billions of years old, it would not change the reality that a Creator created it.



As far as scientific dating mehods are concerned...

In the past, I have always accepted them as fact and truth.

Perhaps one could say I had a "blind faith" in them...and that what I was told regarding them was accurate and true.



But quite frankly, a healthy amount of skepticism is in order.



If someone says anything is a billion years old, were they around a billion years ago to prove this? Of course not.



I trained and worked as an engineer...and if there is anything any scientist knows is that the development of ANY formula based on all available observable data is subject to extremely erroneous values when extrapolating beyond that which is known.



This has been the "problem" or "joy" of science from the beginning...in attempting to come up with the best and most eloquent and simple "formula" that describes everything.



Physicists are in desperate search for the theory of everything...a unified theory that combines all fundamental branches of science into one.



Newton came up with his formulas...which were accepted by ALL scientists...until Einstein came along and questioned Newton with his theory of relativity.



...and sure enough, Einstein was proven right!



Do we abandon all of Newton's "Laws", even though they are wrong?



Of course not...because for all practical applications...Newton's formulas work perfectly. It is only when speeds approach the speed of light that they give extremely erroneous results and must be abandoned!



-



Let's consider global warming. Now sure, in the history of recorable temperatures by man, we have shown a very slight rise in global temperatures. (The anthropologic impact on this is the most debateable issue regarding this. Has man "caused" this? Can man prevent it? These are the *bigger* questions)



But over observable time, all but a few people accept that the earth has gotten a bit warmer in the past 100 years.



However, using observable data in a short period of time has been used to develop models that have been horrible inaccurate when extrapolating into the past! They have been way off! Why? Because conditions change, assumptions don't hold up, and other *unforseeable* factors come into play.



So, other scientific methods must be employed to "estimate" the temperature of the earth many years ago due to the extremely erroneous extrapolated models predict based on known observable data.



Science is always like this.



We start by looking at all observable data regarding something...and come up with a formula to "describe" the behavior.



For instance, take a known amont of air, put it in a fixed volume, and vary the temperature. If you do this enough, you will find that you can calculate the pressure according to the temperature very accurately...



And so, we develop a formula...like the Ideal Gas Law...which is PV = nRT.



And THEN, we have this "best fit" formula for observable data and use it very succefully in other applications. However, one day, we find out that the formula is WAY off for a substance...and incompressible substance...



And so, we come up with modified formulas...that grow more and more complex...all in an attempt to make our formulas more accurate.



YET, science still uses the Ideal Gas Law...which works amazingly well under "ideal" circumstance...



-

The inherent "problem" with dating methods...is that we only have CURRENT observable data. No one was around millions of years ago to make calculations. So, at best, we extrapolate using current formulas WAY beyond the power of those formulas.



...and we can't *tweak* the formulas or adjust them...because we aren't absolutely certain about the state of the universe millions of years ago and if conditions stayed the same throughout those millions of years to make our formulas be 100% definitive.



So, how do we do it at all?

By making ASSUMPTIONS.



Now, I don't know if you have heard the phrase before...but the problem when you ASSUME...is that you often end up making an *** of U and ME.



But in science, it is necessary to make assumptions in order to test many theories...and develop many formulas....especially concerning historical extrapolations.



Dating methods make assumptions. They HAVE to. There is no way around it. No one was alive millions of years ago to test the ratio of element isotopes. No one was alive during that millions of years to test if the rate of decay was contant during that entire period. No one was alive back then to test the ratio of isotopes in the atmosphere...



...etc....etc...etc...

-



But here is the deal:

If science were to come out with a "new" method of dating...and show that the old method was accurate....or grossly inaccurate...would it really make a difference at all?



No.



Whether the earth is 6000 or 6,000,000,000 years old still does not "answer" the question: was it created...or did everything come into existance from nothing without a Creator? Or was everything always eternally existant?



-



SOME (incorrect) Christians use to think that the Bible plainly showed that the earth was the center of the universe. When, if you read the Bible honestly...even as an atheist (which I use to be)...you will see that the Bible does NOT make this claim. Why did "Christians" interpret the Bible to say this? I don't know. But who cares? They were wrong. And the fact that the earth is NOT the center of the universe...did it destroy Christianity? Of course not! Why? Because the BIBLE does not state that the earth is the center of the universe.



-



So..."proving" anything about the age of the earth and universe won't prove or disprove a single thing. For the Bible is not so definitive that all of Christianity will rise and fall because of the calculations and assumptions of man.



I'll tell you what will destroy Christianity:

Prove that Jesus never existed.

Prove that Jesus never died.

Prove that Jesus never came back from the dead.



If you can prove ANY of these, you will have destroyed Christianity.



But as it stands, these are facts...and true....proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with HISTORICAL proofs (not scientific proofs, as if that could even be done!).



-



Grace and peace in Christ.



-

Answer 7

They're looking for something that will allow them to cling to their creationist beliefs without feeling like fools at the same time.



Notice they never question the complete lack of evidence for a flood. Or the plausibility of an ark containing 2 of every species. They can't - it's in their big book.

Answer 8

Question to you. I'm no scientist but if the environment were far different a few thousand years ago, would that effect the outcome of dating processes?

Answer 9

I looked into the various methods and have come to see how flawed the really are. Now I take them with a grain of salt and try to really see what is being analyzed.

Answer 10

The flood would throw carbon dating methods off.

Answer 11

It conflicts with their delusions, so of course, it must be wrong, because they are infallible. The fact that they trust a 2000 year old book of fairy tales over all the scientific research that's been done since then, is laughable. Silly christians, myths are for kids.

Answer 12

I prefer online dating. No commitment.

Answer 13

It was written that the saucy Flying Spaghetti Monster changes all the results with his noodly appendage.



There is no other rational explanation as to why it shouldn't be trusted.

Answer 14

There have been many tests done where there were discrepancies of over 100,000 year in the same animal. One sample from the head and another from the foot. Is it any wonder that some of us are skeptical? Volcanic rock that they watched form at Mt St. Helen was dated at 300,000 years. It is not reliable.

Answer 15

...Oh, man. I thought you meant dating, as in personal relationships.



I was wondering how scientists got dates. :-P

Answer 16

That eHarmony guy is a Fundie. So what's the problem?

Answer 17

they consider that it must be flawed, because if it is not flawed then their belief system is wrong. That is something that their minds can not accept.