/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9880344]

>he still believes in carbon dating

[Anonymous No.9880355]

>send a sample to a lab
>lab has a stated accuracy of ±20,000 years
>samples come back "wrong"

it's a common tactic by the creationist crowd. Take samples which you know are from a certain era, and then specifically bring them to a dating lab which has the right amount of 'slop' in their technique.

Another example is when that one creationist brought a 'modern' rock to one lab and the lab said it was a million years old! But, that lab was set up for extremely old rocks, and a million years was well within their error bars.

We discussed this at length in an earth sciences class I took.

[Anonymous No.9880362]

Is this framed on a wall in the Creation Museum or what?

[Anonymous No.9880373]

>>9880355
A 1000000 years margin of error for something that's supposed to be a scientific process means that we clearly don't understand how to date these things yet, especially if the lab is set up the certain procedures.

[Anonymous No.9880377]

>>9880355

i always ask myself though : do they do this intentional? Like do they really understand how it works and just generate false data to convince their sheeple? Or do they genuinely think they try applying it correctly?

[Anonymous No.9880378]

>>9880344
Fake creationist bullshit. Guarantee you this sample was impure. Carbon may have existed from preservatives.

[Anonymous No.9880383]

>>9880373

if you use a radiometric method that dates something in the range of billions of years then 1 Million years is a pretty good error. We talk about less than one tenth of a procent here.

[Anonymous No.9880385]

>>9880373
completely incorrect. Depending on the isotope/dating mechanism, your error bars change, but the range of dates you can determine change as well.

Carbon / radioisotope dating is extremely robust and repeatable. That doesn't mean that you have zero error bars, though. Let's say you date something to 1.6 billion years. you're going to have error bars of probably hundreds of millions of years.

If you date something to 50,000 years, it's a completely different process, and your error bars might be on the order of 10,000 years.

The issue here is the creationists mix and match, and often go to, the term is a "dirty" lab which is cheap, but more error.

>>9880377
It is often intentional on the part of the creationists. There's a surprising amount of money to be made

[Anonymous No.9880411]

>>9880385
>>9880373
Regardless of the error bars though, it's undeniable that the dating can only be an estimation (often very rough estimations) if the samples and math can't produce exact answers. That's just the definition of it.

[Anonymous No.9880415]

>>9880411

by that logic every time you read of of every clock and every length taken with any ruler are just estimations as well.

[Anonymous No.9880416]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods

[Anonymous No.9880431]

>>9880344
With a 5.6k year halflife, it is probably an error in the equipment retard

[Anonymous No.9880489]

>>9880415
>by that logic every time you read of of every clock and every length taken with any ruler are just estimations as well.

Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.9880508]

How do you date elements when they were all created with the big bang?

[Anonymous No.9880512]

>>9880489
It's true, everything is an estimation with varying accuracy. Your high school ruler probably has a margin of error of at least 1%, that's 10.000 years if you're measuring a million. The average deviation of clocks from the average in a specific time zone is probably way higher than 1%.

[Anonymous No.9880513]

>>9880508
By the ratio of different isotopes of carbon. The older the carbon, the more of it has decayed or something.

[Anonymous No.9880516]

>>9880508

they weren't . And b radioisotope methods are not to date the elements. we use the elements to date things in which those elements are present.

[Anonymous No.9880522]

>>9880344
I never understood Christians and their problem with earth and life age, I mean I'm very religious too, but science comes first

[Anonymous No.9880534]

>>9880522

i don't want to be snarky, but you say science comes first. Then how can you be religious at all?

[Anonymous No.9880539]

>>9880534
Because the greatest thing you can do to approach god and the spiritual purity is by knowledge and science, I believe that God made the essence of life and then everything else is a succession of events.
I studied evolution and belive it's a reasonable theory

[Anonymous No.9880543]

>>9880539

if you are scientifically minded, how can you ever come across the thought "oh i don't know, i'll just make stuff(i.e. god or "life essence") up" Thats fundamentally incompatible with the scientific process.

[Anonymous No.9880549]

>>9880543
For the creator, I just feel it, it's a spiritual thing, even great scientists who were not really religious like Einstein, Tesla believed in a superpower referred to it by "the universe" which grants us knowledge.
I'd rather belive in a great being that can teach me trough life and guide me than to be empty and flat headed

[Anonymous No.9880552]

>>9880549

okay so your reasons are a.) You'd like a god to be there and b.) other people are religious too. Pretty bad reasons and obvisously not scientific, if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.9880555]

>>9880552
I didn't say because other people are religious too, if I wasn't Muslim I'd be Christian, if I wasn't Christian I'd be Jewish, if I wasn't Jewish I'd be Buddhist, if there was none, I'd still be very spiritual

It's not very much related to science, but a psychological thing, when I was young I became atheist and then I started reading books of philosophy and religion, then I became very religious and I'm extremely happy this way

[Anonymous No.9880557]

>>9880552
I think we can all agree that it's just cognitive dissonance. If he enjoys it, go for it since it seems like he's not cramming it down anyone's throat, but it has nothing to do with science.

[Anonymous No.9880563]

>>9880552
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.9880571]

>>9880552
Not every aspect of life is rational and scientific.

[Anonymous No.9880594]

>>9880512
A common fallacy.

Here's why:

Let's say you have a ruler and measure 50 cm. Then you measure the inaccuracy to be +- 0,5 cm.
So, uh, now you have 'sure' 'accurate' measurement of 50 +- 0,5 cm, right?

Incorrect. Now you have to measure the inaccuracy of your inaccuracy. So your real result looks now like 50 cm (+- 0,5 cm +- 0,1 cm).

Ready? Of course not. Next you have 50 cm +- 0,5 cm +- 0,1 cm +- 0,01 cm.

This will continue forever. Real solution is to admit that what you measure IS reality. "Inaccuracy" is a statistical variable out of your completely accurate, reality-defining measurements.

No prominent scientist ever thinks bullshit like "reality cannot be understood"

[Anonymous No.9880609]

>>9880594
But you just explained why there will always be inaccuracy no matter how "deep" you go, anon.

[Anonymous No.9880610]

I know and am well aware that this is a joke thread. So be it.

Actual geologist here. Part of the problem is totally and completely failing to learn about how we calibrate carbon dating or any other radiometric techniques.

Contrary to what you may learn in school the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (which is taken up by plants) varies over time. This means we have to calibrate it to known dating methods with greater accuracy. The two most popular for calibrating carbon dating are tree ring dating and lake sediment dating.

We have known this for 50 years. We don't hide it, we don't have to, we're upfront about what we know and don't know whenever something is dated. This will factor in to our error which is part of everything we publish. You would know this if you picked up anything beyond a beginners geology textbook for entry level college or high school but you haven't.

[Anonymous No.9880625]

>>9880609
Wrong. I explained why "adding" inaccuracy to your measurement doesn't change the algebraic structure of your measurement.

50 cm is just as truthful than 50 cm +- 0,5 cm. The other one is maybe one measurement, and the other one is maybe three measurement and a some kind of statistical variable.

All measurements fully replicate the reality into numbers.

[Anonymous No.9880631]

>>9880594
If your error is .5cm it's meaningless to talk about fractions of that.

>>9880625
>50 cm is just as truthful than 50 cm +- 0,5 cm.
No.

[Anonymous No.9880639]

>>9880631
Yes it is. Why the hell you think REPEATING the measurement gives ANY better estimation to what it is?

[Anonymous No.9880656]

>>9880639
Repeating your measurement until the end of time isn't going to reduce the error of the tool you're measuring with. Not sure what you're trying to even say

[Anonymous No.9880672]

>>9880594
Is this some sort of troll? If not, you are out of your mind. If you ignore accuracy there is no reason to strive for higher accuracy, which is equally insane as your post.

[Anonymous No.9880692]

>>9880344
Creation scientists like Kent Hovind put the nail in the coffin of "carbon dating" years ago. You can safely disregard anyone who uses those flawed methods to support their argument

[Anonymous No.9880708]

>>9880672
>higher accuracy

You measure the length of a person with a measuring device and get a result of 183,5 centimeters. Explain what kind of "inaccuracy" there is if the man doing the measurement is sane. (6 points).

[Anonymous No.9880718]

>>9880373
Are you completely idiotic? If we date a 3 billion year old rock with a 1 million year error, then we know the age of the rock with a 0.03% accuracy.

[Anonymous No.9880720]

>>9880708
There's no way to know how accurate the measurement is with no error given, that's exactly the fucking point.

[Anonymous No.9880725]

>>9880718
It's a shame then that nothing on Earth is even close to 3 billion years old. The crust replaces itself completely every 50 million years

[Anonymous No.9880730]

>>9880543
i'm not religious but at this point in history saying god caused the big bang is just as good as any other explanation. we just don't know.

[Anonymous No.9880732]

>>9880730

Nope. Any "x caused the big bang" is fundamentally not scientific, because causation implies time and we have no possible way of knowing wether there is time outside of our universe. And if people suggested "god" is "the thing that causes the big bang and nothing else" we have a proposition that could not be rationally justified anyway. It's fundamentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable and can therefore not be any explanation for anything. Just a dishonest placeholder for "we don't know".

[Anonymous No.9880734]

>>9880725
If you're serious and not just being a shit, you're probably thinking of ocean crust. Continental crust is old senpai

[Anonymous No.9880741]

>>9880725

uhm even the oldest fossiles we have are older than 3 billion years.

[Anonymous No.9880776]

>>9880741
According to what? (((Carbon dating)))? I'll trust the Bible over your Jew science, thanks

[Anonymous No.9880779]

9880776
You fucked it senpai
You took the bait off the hook

[Anonymous No.9880781]

>>9880779
Give me my (you) faggot, I deserve it

[Anonymous No.9880782]

>>9880776

of course they are not carbon dating and of course nobody just uses one method of dating for that. but if multiple radiometric and non radiometric methods converge we can be more certain then you can in the ramblings of some idiotic desert dwellers from times ago. At least my jews went to a school.

[Anonymous No.9880796]

>>9880720
Yesit is. If researcher says "183,5 cm" he means the subject was "183,5 cm"

[Anonymous No.9880817]

>>9880796
>the researcher means
Cool measurement of accuracy how about you fucking kill yourself

[Anonymous No.9880845]

>>9880594
Yes, we cannot perfectly estimate inaccuracy, no, that does not mean it does not exist

[Anonymous No.9880933]

>>9880817
If the researcher says "183,5 cm +- 0.5 cm" he means "i measured two times: first 183 cm +- 0 cm, then 184 cm +- 0 cm; then I averaged the result to produce "183,5 cm" and averaged the deviation to produce the "+- 0,5 cm" part."

So saying "183,5 cm +- 0,5 cm" equals saying "183 cm +- 0 cm AND 184 cm +- 0 cm"

[Anonymous No.9880939]

>>9880344
>a powerpoint slide said this so it must be true

[Anonymous No.9880942]

>>9880344
Liar.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

[Anonymous No.9880952]

>>9880344
Okay, I googled this and found this link
https://www.filthymonkeymen.com/2012/05/07/mammoths-disprove-radiocarbon-dating-and-evolution-misguided-monday/
Which linked to this paper
http://dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/usgs/p/text/p0862.pdf
And you find the dates on pages 30 to 36.

The most important thing is that the table doesn't state the dates are THE SAME MAMMOTH. They carbon dated a lot of shit in the area, wood, twigs, plants, dirt, peat, mammoths. But the two mammoth dates that are 10,000 years apart aren't stated as being the same mammoth.
In fact the location of the parts are different, one was in silt and the other in a beaver dam. The samples were collected three years apart.

Like, all I did was fucking search the word "mammoth" in the original paper they linked to and found the blatant misinterpretation of the data. This sort of shit should be illegal.

[Anonymous No.9880965]

>>9880933
>two non-physical errorless measurements produce a single measurement with known error
Every post from you is worse

[Anonymous No.9881058]

>>9880952
>>9880344

You just got pwned OP. Delete your post before you continue to embarrass yourself.

[Anonymous No.9881092]

>>9880952
>This sort of shit should be illegal.
This sort of shit will get you state funding to open a creationist exhibit in Kentucky

[Anonymous No.9881158]

>>9881092
>This sort of shit will get you state funding
damn, i should start doing this kind of thing too

[Anonymous No.9881302]

>>9880385
>you date something to 1.6 billion years. you're going to have error bars of probably hundreds of millions of years
>f you date something to 50,000 years, it's a completely different process, and your error bars might be on the order of 10,000 years
wtf how is that even work? you need "to guess" date beforehand?
this method is scam.

[Anonymous No.9881318]

>>9881302
>>9880373


Carbon-14 makes up about 1 part per trillion of the carbon atoms around us, and this proportion remains roughly constant due to continual production of carbon-14 from cosmic rays. The half life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, so if we measure the proportion of C-14 in a sample and discover it's half a part per trillion, i.e. half the original level, we know the sample is around one half life or 5,700 years old.

So by measuring the C-14 level we work out how many half lives old the sample is and therefore how old it is. The trouble is that after 40,000 years there is under 1% of the original C-14 left, and it becomes too hard to measure it accurately. This isn't a fundamental limit as more accurate measurements could go further back, but at some point you'd simply run out of C-14 atoms. With our current kit 40-50K years is about the limit.

[Anonymous No.9881344]

>>9881302
you often use the geology of where the sample originated to guesstimate beforehand. Like if there's a trilobite fossil in the same area, you know pretty darn well the general age of the layer you're in, since trilobites started from X date and went extinct at Y date.

[Anonymous No.9882239]

>>9880952
didn't leakey create one of his pre-man skeletons by taking bones found far distance apart from each other then claim they were part of the same creature?

[Anonymous No.9882242]

>>9881344
And you know when the trilobites began and ended due to the age of the rocks where trilobites were found.

[Anonymous No.9882306]

>>9882239
I dunno, that's a different problem though.
Are we arguing that mammoths should have only been alive either 22000 or 45000 years ago, instead of both? Or is the argument that carbon dating is worthless because parts of the same fossil have wildly different dates?
My impression was the second, but the source article shows that the two test specimens weren't the same mammoth. In fact it states that one was a baby mammoth while the other doesn't mention if it is baby, adolescent or adult.

[Anonymous No.9882308]

>>9880373
>This 5 foot long ruler is only graduated in 1 foot marks.
>"Oh shit! My dick is a foot long!"

Creationists BTFO.

[Anonymous No.9882310]

>>9882242
yep, it's funny how it works out like that. Layers of correlating data points.

[Anonymous No.9882313]

>>9882308
hey now, the rule is you can estimate to one level of precision greater than the smallest marked increments on the measuring instrument. So technically you could only say that your dick is .9 feet long.

[Anonymous No.9882322]

>>9882313
>smallest marked increments

1 foot increments

[Anonymous No.9882326]

>>9882322
yes, so you can estimate to one level of precision greater than individual feet: tenths of a foot.

[Anonymous No.9882536]

are you faggots actually having an argument over exact vs inexact numbers and sig figs? is this fucking remedial biology?

[Anonymous No.9882545]

>>9882536
M E N I S C U S

[Anonymous No.9882615]

>>9880692
>Kent Hovind
the man is a literal retard.
>https://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf
teal deer commentary:
>https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

[Anonymous No.9882624]

Argon Dating >>>>>>>>>>> Carbon Dating

[Anonymous No.9882631]

>>9882624
I like counting rings desu

[Anonymous No.9882643]

>>9880344

[Anonymous No.9882707]

>>9882615
>"According to our source, contrary to accepted practices in academia where doctoral dissertations are available to the public. Kent. Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry."

>Haha, they cant argue against me if i dont present an argument trololololol

[Anonymous No.9883046]

>>9882326
What if I just so happen to be using base 64?

[Anonymous No.9883516]

>>9883046
then you aren't in SI units

[Anonymous No.9883709]

>>9880933
what kind of drugs do you need to do to not understand inaccuracy and error bars

[Anonymous No.9883715]

>>9882707
No one needs to present an argument when speaking of kent hovind, this is the guy who stated the speed of light isnt a fundamental constant and thinks that it may have changed over time.

[Anonymous No.9884392]

>>9882310
Yep funny. Layers of circular arguments data proving each other.

[Anonymous No.9884413]

>>9884392
no not really