Radio-carbon dating

[Dominatus]

So an interesting question was posed in regards to the age of the earth. My opponent seems to think the earth is 6,000 years old, rather than the 4.3 billion scientists accept as the actual age. My opponent asked how we know radiocarbon dating is accurate, that it has always been constant and that no natural force could influence the rate of decay. I was unable to answer his question, as I have no idea how we know that. Maybe it was taught in school and I forgot it. Maybe I was not looking at the right websites to answer this. Whatever the answer, I was hoping someone here could help me out by providing the information I was challenged to find.

[Kryten]

The constancy of radioactive decay is based on a bunch of much more fundamental physical constants, stuff like binding energy per nucleon in specific atoms, changes in which would be pretty obvious. If decay rates were large enough for 6000 years worth to look like 4 billion, earth would've produced enough decay heat in the past to at least boil the oceans and possibly melt the surface, which again would've been pretty obvious.

[KSK]

Being pedantic, you wouldn't use radiocarbon dating over geological timescales, because it's half life is too short. Other radiometric dating techniques such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating are used though.

The Wikipedia article is a good place to start. It discusses some of the points which need to be taken into account for accurate dating, although I think the underlying assumption is that half lives are indeed constant. Various results have been reported suggesting that radioactive decay might vary seasonally - with heavy emphasis on the might, but as far as I know nobody has proved it one way or the other. And in any case, seasonal variations could probably be accounted for in your radiometric date.

Short answer - no we can't absolutely positively guarantee that decay rates don't change, but the vast bulk of the available evidence suggests they are constant.

[magnemoe]

Being pedantic, you wouldn't use radiocarbon dating over geological timescales, because it's half life is too short. Other radiometric dating techniques such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating are used though.

The Wikipedia article is a good place to start. It discusses some of the points which need to be taken into account for accurate dating, although I think the underlying assumption is that half lives are indeed constant. Various results have been reported suggesting that radioactive decay might vary seasonally - with heavy emphasis on the might, but as far as I know nobody has proved it one way or the other. And in any case, seasonal variations could probably be accounted for in your radiometric date.

Short answer - no we can't absolutely positively guarantee that decay rates don't change, but the vast bulk of the available evidence suggests they are constant.

I thing that the C14 versus C12 faction might change from time to time.

As I understand C14 is created by other radioactive elements breaking down into C14, this generate an fairly constant C14 ratio. A bone or tree consist of both C14 and C12 in that ratio, over time C14 breaks down and you can determine the age by the ratio.

However its other ways to determine age of items but they can not be used everywhere. growth rings in trees is one example, now if you have various trees incuding dead ones in an area you can go long back by comparing the rings. The C14 method give the same age as the rings.

Another way who is not year accurate but can go far back is sediment layers at river sides.

[Brotoro]

Carbon 14 is formed by cosmic ray interaction with Nitrogen in the atmosphere, so the rate of C14 formation can vary over time, and this has to be accounted for.

But we don't use C14 dating to find the age of the Earth, as KSK has already pointed out.

With regard to radioactive decay rates changing over time... We can observe the radioactive decay of elements out in space -- the light curves of Type I supernovae result from the radioactive decay of Nickel 56 into Iron 56. This gives use a way to see the radioactive decay rate at various times in the past (since these supernovae occurred at different distances away, and the light from them has been traveling differnt lengths of time to reach us)... And the radioactive decay rate has not changed with time.

[Dkmdlb]

There are lots of radiometric dating methods using different isotopes, and each is good for a certain range of dates. These different methods overlap, and we can often use more than one method to date a sample. If your discussion partner's hypothesis is true, then any event or process which changed the rate of decay on these isotopes would have to affect them all proportionately. There is no evidence of any kind for such an even or process occurring.

[KerikBalm]

Not to mention that it agrees with tree ring data, hich we have extending back several thousand years

[K^2]

I thing that the C14 versus C12 faction might change from time to time.

It does. Carbon dating has to be calibrated against known dates to be accurate. Trees and artifacts with known age are a frequent source of callibration material. As it's been pointed out, radio carbon dating isn't going to help you on geological time scales. However, if all you are trying to prove is that there are objects much, much older than 6,000 years, radio carbon dating is sufficient. To actually get the 4B+ value for age of Earth, you need to use other techniques. And, of course, the age of the known universe comes from cosmology, so that has no correlation with any geological/archaeological dating techniques.

[Rakaydos]

6000 years old?

Lets see, that's 4000 BC...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC

Where was Eden supposed to be again?

[Scotius]

Let's put it this way: There is enough evidence to radiological decay being constant, and reliable method of dating for geological and paleonthological purposes. Of course it's not a 100% accurate and foolproof, but it works and is verifiable by other means. Now, ask your interlocutor what kind of proof he does have for his 6000 years old Earth idea. With a caveat that a 3000 years old book of legends told by goat herders does not count as a proof.

[Camacha]

So an interesting question was posed in regards to the age of the earth. My opponent seems to think the earth is 6,000 years old, rather than the 4.3 billion scientists accept as the actual age.

If I am really honest I would just leave it at that. You are not going to convince anyone believing the world is 6000 years old with facts. It is a noble cause, but a foolish exercise. If you want to give it a go, I would likely start with more basic reasoning skills.

[lajoswinkler]

My opponent seems to think the earth is 6,000 years old

You can give up. Creationists are stupid people with faith. Arguments don't work there.

[maccollo]

If you try to argue that the decay rate is constant they will likely counter with examples that would seem to indicate that radiometric dating (usually carbon14) is unreliable, if they haven't done so already. Typically this sounds something like "They dated a recently living seal and it came up 1000 years old!".

This is often caused by the reservoir effect. When CO2 is absorbed into the ocean, or lakes, the carbon 14 does not get replenished. The carbon can then circle the ocean and decay for 100s of years before it eventually gets absorbed into the food chain, passing from animal to animal, until it eventually ends up in the animal of interest.

Peter Hadfield (Potholer54 on youtube) made a video on this subject several years back which explains the basics of this phenomenon, with plenty of creationism debunking for good measure:P

Edited January 24, 2015 by maccollo

[Newt]

Can you give us more context about this debate? Why are you trying to prove this? Why does the other believe in the recent planetary formation?

[Jovus]

Basically the only way that radioactive dating on geological timescales could be off is if we're incorrect in our baseline assumptions of how much of particular isotopes of uranium we started with.

I can't speak as to what goes into the assumptions of those starting conditions, but I'm willing to be they're fairly plausibly argued in the literature.

[Brotoro]

Basically the only way that radioactive dating on geological timescales could be off is if we're incorrect in our baseline assumptions of how much of particular isotopes of uranium we started with.

I can't speak as to what goes into the assumptions of those starting conditions, but I'm willing to be they're fairly plausibly argued in the literature.

They do Uranium dating on minerals such as zircon. When zircon crystals form, Uranium can replace Zirconium atoms in the crystal structure, but Lead can NOT because of the different chemical properties of the elements involved. So if you later find Lead inside the zircon, it must be the result of the radioactive decay of Uranium...it will not get in there during formation of the mineral.

[Dominatus]

Can you give us more context about this debate? Why are you trying to prove this? Why does the other believe in the recent planetary formation?

Honestly, the debate has to be concise and the word count is limited. See, as foolish as I am, I have decided to attempt to educate someone on the ifunny comment section. And it would appear as if this individual has decided the exchange is over, as it has been close to 24 hours without a response.

I also realize that it is like talking to a wall, as an article titled "The science of why we don't believe science" points out.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

[GoSlash27]

So an interesting question was posed in regards to the age of the earth. My opponent seems to think the earth is 6,000 years old, rather than the 4.3 billion scientists accept as the actual age. My opponent asked how we know radiocarbon dating is accurate, that it has always been constant and that no natural force could influence the rate of decay. I was unable to answer his question, as I have no idea how we know that. Maybe it was taught in school and I forgot it. Maybe I was not looking at the right websites to answer this. Whatever the answer, I was hoping someone here could help me out by providing the information I was challenged to find.

You may as well stop right there. Anybody who believes that is not going to be convinced otherwise, regardless of evidence or reason. They will also make the discussion very unpleasant, since anything you say will be taken as an attack on their faith.

You're really better off not debating with this person.

Best,

-Slashy

[Slam_Jones]

You may as well stop right there. Anybody who believes that is not going to be convinced otherwise, regardless of evidence or reason. They will also make the discussion very unpleasant, since anything you say will be taken as an attack on their faith.

You're really better off not debating with this person.

Best,

-Slashy

I agree with Slashy. Nothing is more stubbornly blind than faith, and trying to convince someone like that is just gonna frustrate you more than it's worth.

[magnemoe]

I agree with Slashy. Nothing is more stubbornly blind than faith, and trying to convince someone like that is just gonna frustrate you more than it's worth.

Yes, only thing you can do is finish with an fitting finish line like: You know how fossil fuel is created? And how the geologist predict where to find it? Or is Earth created with ready made fossil fuel like a computer game world

The fun thing is that at the time of Darwin Scientists thought the earth was just a million years old,this was not enough time for all the required evolution. They know the earth was old for other reasons, mostly geology, but they had not grasped the scale yet.

[Brethern]

You can give up. Creationists are stupid people with faith. Arguments don't work there.

I think the term you're looking for is young earth Creationists. Standard Creationists do in fact believe the earth is older than 6000 years. They however don't believe humans existed for more than 6000 years.