Carbon Dating Bogus Says Friend

[boracay]

Other radiogenic dating techniques include:
* Fission track dating
* Uranium-thorium dating
* Uranium-lead dating
* Cosmogenic isotope dating
* Rubidium-strontium dating
* Samarium-neodymium dating
* Rhenium-osmium dating
* Lutetium-hafnium dating
* Paleomagnetic dating
* Thermo-luminescence dating (quartz exposure to heat)
(wiki)

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. link

[soon2bepro]

If you want a fast, reliable answer, don't just quick google for this type of information.

Radiocarbon Dating

[Leaky Eye]

How does your friend feel about estimating the age of the universe using distances and the speed of light?

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
And, remember, "in the beginning," God created the heavens and the earth -- before "let there be light" on the first day. An arbitrarily old rock, as long as it doesn't have a fossil in it, isn't a dealbreaker for a fundamentalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
How old can science accurately declare the earth to be? For example, with what certainty can we state that the earth is at least 1 million years old? with what certainty can we state it is at least 100 million years old? How certain a billion? How certain 4-5 billion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bogard, D., D. Burnett, P. Eberhardt, & G. J. Wasserburg. 1968. 40Ar-40K ages of silicate inclusions in iron meteorites. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 3: 275-283.

This book describes the dating of iron meteorites and explains that most are 4.5 ± 0.2 billion years. While rocks on earth have only been dated to around 3.8 billion years, meteorites and moon rocks have been dated to 4.5 billion years which is the general scientifically accepted age of the earth.

[rainonacongadrum]

My next question would be that since there are rocks or minerals older than 4 billion years old on Earth how come there are so many that believe the age of the earth is in the thousands? What facts are they arguing with?

I just talked to my friend and he said that he believes the age of the Earth to be in the thousands or millions...most likely the thousands. If, he says, the age is in the millions it would be in the low millions. This leads to another question: can his assumption be reasonably derived from the scientific facts at his disposal or, to arrive at his conclusion that the earth is merely thousands of years old, must he be using his faith as a guide? For example, assume an individual has no religious knowledge whatsoever; would this reasonable, thinking individual seriously be able to reach the same conclusion as my friend when presented with the science?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
My next question would be that since there are rocks or minerals older than 4 billion years old on Earth how come there are so many that believe the age of the earth is in the thousands? What facts are they arguing with?

[/ QUOTE ]
My impression is that these people are refuting what are perhaps not facts, per se, but very convincing evidence.

I would presume these same people refute the existance or the timeline of dinosaurs as well. And I won't even get into evolution. I guess if you believe that God created earth and put man on it 6000 years ago, then there's a lot more science that has to be refuted as well.

[ QUOTE ]
My next question would be that since there are rocks or minerals older than 4 billion years old on Earth how come there are so many that believe the age of the earth is in the thousands? What facts are they arguing with?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are no facts that prove the earth is thousands of years old and not 4.5 billion years.

This brings up another interesting question. I wonder if there are any people who are non-religious yet don't believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And if they don't, I wonder what they base that on.

[CORed]

Carbon dating isn't the only means of dating. I think your friend is right about it not being accurate beyond 50,000 years or so, but there are other dating techniques, based on other elements and isotopes, some of which can go back billions of years. These only work for certain types of rocks, so there is still a lot of dating by comparing fossils, stratigraphy, etc., which has more uncertainty.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
My fundamentalist Christian friend said carbon-14 dating is "bogus"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm convinced.

[rainonacongadrum]

Okay in this clip Dawkins says "The scientific method clearly demonstrates that the world is 4 and a half billion years old, do you accept that?" to Ted Haggard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjqUm...ed&search=

Haggard counters saying that he is only accepting some of the views that are accepted in some of the scientific community as fact. Haggard then says maybe 100 years from now Dawkins grandkids might laugh at him for saying that. Dawkins replies, "Do you want to bet?"

So, is Dawkins right that the scientific method clearly demonstrates that the world is 4 1/2 billion years old? And again, is there any possible way a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Earth is less than a million years old with the scientific information available?

My friend is essentially saying the distance from Los Angeles to New York back to Los Angeles is 1 mile (probably less) instead of 4800 miles (if that's what science says it is). Or 5,280 feet (at most) instead of the 25,344,000 feet that it takes. This is what I would call an alarming difference of opinion.