[ Young Earth ] Carbon 14 Dating

[stovebolts]

I posted this in the science forum before we had the YEC forum. I'd like to get some good dialog going on this.

I've been recapping what I know about Carbon 14 and found something odd. Just to bring us all on the same page.

Carbon 14 starts out as Nitrogen 14 and then decays back into Nitrogen 14.

In terms of decay using modern scientific assumptions, the half life of Carbon 14 is roughly 5,700 years with a total shelf life around 60,000 years through conventional testing mechanisms.

One of the assumptions in Carbon 14 dating is the assumption that the object is uncontaminated. Thus, the dating methodology is unwavering correct. However, I was recently reading how diamonds can have a small amount of Carbon 14 in them.

Now then, I was taught in school that a diamond takes millions of years to form and I believe Scientists still hold to this measure. So we should find no amount of Carbon 14 in a diamond as a result of the diamonds age, but we do.

There are two possibilities for this carbon.

1. The Diamond was contaminated.
2. The Diamond isn't really millions of years old.

So where does this Carbon 14 come from? Scientists are now speculating that it may be possible, but they are not sure, that Uranium (which decays into lead) when it decays can cause the nitrogen in the diamond to convert back to Carbon 14.

Of course, this is just a theory on their part. Meanwhile, young earth proponents use this information to say point to a young earth.

What I find odd however, is how Scientists are now accepting that what was once thought as uncontaminated, can very well be contaminated. And if something can be contaminated, then just how reliable is the dating methods that they tout to be so reliable?

Thoughts?

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings StoveBolts,

I've just posted in the C&S forum, within the The Reliability of the Whole Bible Depends on Genesis as History a thought about Carbon-14 dating.

Here's the post, replicated here for this discussion:

Here's a link to an article entitled, "Age of the earth
Subtitle: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe" found on the Creation.com site.

Within that (too long to discuss here) article is a reference to another article,

Chapter 4
What about
carbon dating?​

• How does the carbon ‘clock’ work?
• Is it reliable?
• What does carbon dating really show?
• What about other radiometric dating methods?
• Is there evidence that the Earth is young?

Chapter 4 Section: More evidence something is wrong
Carbon-14 in fossils supposedly millions of years old...
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little Carbon-14 to measure, but dating labs consistently find Carbon-14, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.


Footnotes:
21. Giem, P., 2001. Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon. Origins 51:6–30.
22. Baumgardner, J.R., Snelling, A.S., Humphreys, D.R., and Austin, S.A., 2003. Measurable Carbon-14 in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model. Proc. 5th ICC pp. 127–142.

The point that we should expect zero (0) presence of Carbon-14 in artifacts that are millions of years old includes the observation that too much Carbon-14 at the time the decay began would actually prevent life. It's an observation that interests me. Note that we are not speaking of rocks or other non-life materials, but only of those findings that contain plant or animal matter that is dated "too long ago", ie. millions of years. It is my understanding that "background levels" to be expected would include leeching actions.

 

[stovebolts]

Sparrow,

What do you mean by, " too much Carbon-14 at the time the decay began would actually prevent life."

The way I understand it from Willard Libby is that we can trust C-14 dating as being accurate to about 60-90,000 based on the half life of C-14. This calulation is based on the earth being at equilibrium because according to Libby's math, it would have taken about 30,000 years for equilibrium to occur. Considering the earth is 4.6 billion years old {cough} we are well past the 30,000 year mark and thus at equilibrium.

equilibrium is to simply say that the amount of C-14 being produced is equal to the amount of C-14 being decayed. This gives us our baseline to equate the age of something based on how much C-14 is present in a fossil (or anything organic that has died) verses how much C-14 is in something living. We have to keep in mind that he C-14 clock doesn't start until the organic matter dies because at the point of death, it stops taking in C-14 which leaves only the decay of C-14 which we measure.

 

[Sparkey]

Simply stated, if the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is too high at any point, the will be no life. This ratio establishes a cap on how much may be imagined at any given time because if there is too much C-14 the atmosphere becomes lethal.

 

[stovebolts]

Simply stated, if the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is too high at any point, the will be no life. This ratio establishes a cap on how much may be imagined at any given time because if there is too much C-14 the atmosphere becomes lethal.

First time I have ever heard that. Was somebody trying to say that maybe there was way more C14 around, which is why we find C14 in diamonds and coal? Seems that totally goes against Libby. I'm not tracking.

 

[Sparkey]

First time I have ever heard that. Was somebody trying to say that maybe there was way more C14 around, which is why we find C14 in diamonds and coal? Seems that totally goes against Libby. I'm not tracking.

Yes, I came across that thought while looking at a different subject. I'm not really familiar with the C-14 found in diamonds discussion, but just take your word for it. As far as C-14 found beyond "background levels" in rocks dated millions of years, one possible explanation would be higher than observed ratios as seen today, but even at the extreme, there needs to be a max applied. I'll be able to conduct more study in the area next week after finals.

 

[stovebolts]

I see. Well, watch those video's that I submitted and it will really bring you up to speed on C14 as well as radioactive decay. C14 is found in some diamonds and in most coal beds. In a nutshell, once something dies the clock starts ticking. Theoretically there isn't supposed to be any C14 in anything older than about "90,000" years according to geologists because according to the half life of C-14, all of it is decayed and turned back into nitrogen by that time. So you see, we shouldn't find any C14 in anything dated as millions of years old to my understanding and again, that's based on the half life of C14 as it converts back to Nitrogen 14.

Considering diamonds and coal do have nitrogen in them, some speculate that when uranium decays, it transforms the nitrogen 14 back into C14 and that's how they try to explain C14 in places it's not supposed to be found (coal and diamonds). All of this speculation falls under historical science and not observational science.

 

[Arch Angle]

no it does not Steven. C-14's activity is not historical. It is mostly "observational".

The way god made c-14 carbon 14 is pretty well understood. so when it is in a place where you though it would not be it has little to with how we think c-14 behaves. It suggest that that the c-14 is being produced in a way we don't know about. In a way that god "designed it" to behave.

Decay from neighboring radio isotopes can indeed effect atoms around it. This is totally observational in that they can do it in a lab.

Show me one piece of observational evidence that c-14 wasproduced out of "thin air". That god just puts it where it should not be based on the pieces that are aroundit? That being from "energy"to carbon-14.

You find a car at the bottom of the sea. List the possible method's it got there. God sent an asteroid hit the planet and the debris settled in the form of a car? God pushed it off a boat? he went
poof there it is" by some process that he hides from us?

 

[stovebolts]

AB517,

It is assumed that by posting in this forum you believe in a young earth / Creation account.

For the record, I believe the world is not too much older than 6,000 years. This is not a debate forum and I'm not interested in a debate if you believe otherwise. Please don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to be snooty, I'm just burned out on the debate. Now then, to address your post.

What we observe with C-14 is considered observational science. When we try to use it to date things as tens of thousands of years old then we get into historical science. We understand the half life of C-14 which is just under 6,000 years by using math that assumes the world is 4.6 billion years old and math that assumes the earth was at equalibriam 4 billion years ago. Both of these assumptions fall under historical science because frankly, we have no observational record of c-12 let alone c14 from that far back. In short, when I say that C-14 dating is only valid up to 60-90,000 years, it is tongue and cheek as I clearly believe the earth is much, much younger than that.

As far as decay from neighboring isotopes effecting atoms around them, this indeed is observed in the laboratory. It has yet to be observed in the field (coal or diamonds). You know, when Willard Libby first came up with his theory on C-14, he stated very emphatically that once something died, there was no known way for it to accumulate C-14. That assertion has since been dispelled through laboratory tests. Regardless, C-14 dating also assumes that the item being dated was not contaminated. I would counter that the laboratory has shown by way of exercise to challenge the validity of past tests and to raise speculation that the flood would have indeed caused contamination.

Show me one piece of observational evidence that c-14 wasproduced out of "thin air". That god just puts it where it should not be based on the pieces that are aroundit? That being from "energy"to carbon-14.

I'm not sure I'm tracking. We know that C-14 is produced when solar rays collide with Nitrogen 14 and convert it to the isotope C-14 and as you've rightly said, they can produce C-14 in the same manner from Uranium in the lab and I'm assuming you know that Uranium decay's into Lead, and that's how they date rocks.

You find a car at the bottom of the sea. List the possible method's it got there. God sent an asteroid hit the planet and the debris settled in the form of a car? God pushed it off a boat? he went
poof there it is" by some process that he hides from us?

I wasn't there, but I can pretty much guess it fell of a boat. Without any other evidence, it's just speculation.

 

[stovebolts]

no it does not Steven. C-14's activity is not historical. It is mostly "observational".

The way god made c-14 carbon 14 is pretty well understood. so when it is in a place where you though it would not be it has little to with how we think c-14 behaves. It suggest that that the c-14 is being produced in a way we don't know about. In a way that god "designed it" to behave.

Decay from neighboring radio isotopes can indeed effect atoms around it. This is totally observational in that they can do it in a lab.

Show me one piece of observational evidence that c-14 wasproduced out of "thin air". That god just puts it where it should not be based on the pieces that are aroundit? That being from "energy"to carbon-14.

You find a car at the bottom of the sea. List the possible method's it got there. God sent an asteroid hit the planet and the debris settled in the form of a car? God pushed it off a boat? he went
poof there it is" by some process that he hides from us?

Hi,
This is the video that sparrowhawke and I were talking about. You might find it interesting.

Cheers,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/med...ng-fossils-and-rocks/dating-fossils-and-rocks

 

[Arch Angle]

I will need some evidence of a 6000 year old Earth.

 

[stovebolts]

I will need some evidence of a 6000 year old Earth.

Just lost my last post. Grrrr...

Ok, to start with, you have to realize that we are talking about historical science when we attempt to date the earth. Dating the earth does not fall into observational science. Let me explain. We both agree that the Eiffel tower exists and we can readily make some observational facts in regard to it. For example, we can measure it and we can quantify the materials it is made of. All of that falls under observational science. But if we ask who built it and who designed it, now we are falling into historical science. Why? because neither of us were there to observe it's design or construction. As such, we have to rely on the credibility of the historians who wrote it down for us.

Neither of us were around 6,000 years ago and we can only make observations from what we see today. Do we trust the Biblical writers? If so, we can use the genealogies supplied in the biblical account from Adam to Jesus and then add 2000 years to bring us to present and we hit the 6,000 year mark. Some would dispute the genealogies stating some have been omitted. Granting their argument we still don't come to an age that exceeds 10,000 years, and that's giving them more lead way than deserved.

Some would argue that a day is like a thousand years, so each day of creation could have been a thousand years. Still others believe in a Gap theory. Both of them easiy dismissed by both modern and ancient scholars in Hebrew that make it clear that a day in creation was like a modern day. Thus, the Jews were commanded to rest on the Sabbath, which is every 7th day. Moses didn't even dispute this.

Have you watched the video's I posted earlier? It may give you some insight to how rocks are dated and the assumptions Scientists are afforded in their theories. In short, Science using the same facts of proponents of an old earth (4.6 Billion years old) can be used to support a young earth just as easily.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[stovebolts]

I will need some evidence of a 6000 year old Earth.

Here is a pretty straight forward genealogical list. I know that using it as a hard timeline can be disputed in Matthew's account, but it gives a framework at least.

Date:         Event:    				                       Scripture: 	Age of earth
4004 	Creation.  Adam was formed.		       Gen 1:1-31	        0
3874	        Seth was born when Adam was 130	       Gen 5:3		130
3769	        Enos born when Seth was 105		       Gen 5:6		235
3679	        Cainan born when Enos was 90		       Gen 5:9		325
3609	        Mahalaleel born when Cainan was 70	       Gen 5:12     	395
3544	        Jared born when Mahalaleel was 65	       Gen 5:15	        460
3382	        Enoch born when Jared was 162		       Gen 5:18	        622
3317         Methuselah born when Enoch was 65	       Gen 5:21	        687
3130   	Lamech born when Methuselah was 187	Gen 5:25	        874
2948  	Noah born when Lamech was 182		Gen 5:28	        1056
2446 	Shem born when Noah was 502		        Gen 11:10	        1558
2348 	Flood when Noah was 600			         Gen 7:6		1656
2346	        Arphaxad born when Shem was 100		Gen 11:10	        1658
2311	        Salah born when Arphad was 35		        Gen 11:12	        1693
2281	        Eber born when Salah was 30		        Gen 11:14    	1723
2246	        Peleg born when Eber was 34		         Gen 11:16  	1758
2217	        Reu born when Peleg was 30		         Gen 11:18	        1787
2185	        Serug born when Reu was 32		         Gen 11:20  	1819
2155	        Nahor born when Serug was 30		         Gen 11:22	        1849
2126         Terah born when Nahor was 29		         Gen 11:24   	1878
1996    	Abraham born when Terah was 130		Gen 11:32/12:4	2008
1921	        Abraham enters Canaan at 75		        Gen 12:4	        2083

1921         Abraham left Haran.                                   Gen 12:10,        430 Year promise made.
1491	        430 Years to the date that Abraham leaves Haran Israel Exodus occurs.  Exodus 12:40  Year:  2513

1012          479 years after the Exodus Solomon builds the temple.  1 Kings 6:1  2992
974	        Jeraboams golden calves 1 Kings 11:42		3030
584  	        Final deportation of the Jews.  390 years Ezekeil 4:4-6		3420

0               Jesus comes on the scene...

Sorry for the lousy formatting....

 

[Arch Angle]

we both use the bible as evidence. So they affectivity cancel each other out. We need to find out who is more wrong, you orme. To tell you the truth, I am not sure.

So now we need to compare our evidence that god did itthrough evolution versus god went "poof" there it is.
You can start.
Whatis your evidence for "poof" there is the earth?

 

[Sparkey]

Quick reminder: This is a thread about Carbon 14 Dating, not about "Poof" or other topics which may be (is encouraged to be) discussed in separate threads. Pretty sure there are a dozen or so to pick from.

 

[Arch Angle]

sorry sparrow, things seem to go the same places, my bad.


c-14 acts like c-14. that is not in question. I hope. This guy stance is like stating a 67 gto is a sucky racecar. Of course it is, it is a musclecar, not a race car.

And c-14 is not a standalone item. Itis used in conjunction with other things. Like, am I a nice guy because I helped that lady across the street? That event alone doesn't grant me access through the gates.

Then it comes to assumptions. How wrong are the assumption?

are the assumptions valid enough to use as relative dating? Not absolute dating but relative dating? I have not heardanybody claim "absolute".

The answer is yes.

We can use carbon 14 dating to say that one dead thing may be older or younger than another dead thing found in the same area. As we move away from an area, we need to bemore careful.

are there problems with c-14. Yes again. But we don't really use c-14 to absolute dating old thing. It is really used to say things are older or younger than other dead things. Like wrinkles on a neck to determine relative ages of people. It is not used to determine a birthday, or even a year of birth.

Also, it is not for determining a year. We really don't even use it to say it died in1012 AD. It is more used as saying "it probably is dead longer than dead 5000 years ago". Look at the percent error when they report ages. Thereis a large range.

Then you cross check it with other data set. Does it support those too?

My conclusion, this guy is pushing c-14 off as something it is not used for. he is claiming how bad it is at dating when it was never intented to date like he is claimng.

again, This guy stance is like stating a 67 gto is a sucky race car. Of course it is, it is a muscle car, not arace car.

 

[Sparkey]

Well, my curiosity is piqued here. I've read some things about C-14 from the Pro side (who support Young Earth) and I've read some things from the Con side (who don't support Young earth). The biggest puzzle to me is trying to wrap my mind around something that I was not there to witness.

In Geology class this quarter the instructor spoke about Uniformitarianism (pretty sure that's how it is spelled) and stated that some had considered the past in light of things observed today only. They made the mistake of thinking that only those processes that were happening right now could be thought of while interpreting the evidence presented from the past. Then he went on to speak of another theory or method that was advanced and I like the sound of that one. It was called "Actualism". In that context, he wasn't referring to philosophical "actualism" but defined it to include phenomena that have not currently been observed but could be applied to the evidence of yesterday. Things like asteroids or Glaciers could be invoked to explain past events even though nobody in recent history has witnessed them. We might look at the moon for instance, and surmise from our observations of the craters there that something could have stuck the moon and been the cause of the things we see.

But when I spoke of catastrophic events (I didn't even mention the flood) he was too sharp for me. Somehow he intuitively sensed that I might be "one of those" and responded to my unexpressed thought with the comment, "Too much drama..."

I dropped it, knowing that I'd be shooting my own grade in the foot if I took up too much of his precious class time... lol I did score a better than passing grade in the class, so no regrets there, but here, in the Young Earth Creation Forum, we all have agreed that there is no debate, I feel safe to explore such notions. For instance, I would like to consider things like how coal and oil is actually formed. But that will need to be a topic for another thread. The reason I mention is because it occurs to me that the "blinders" of billions of years may preclude our exploration of ideas that don't take that much time. Just trying to thunk about it some. Carbon-14 is a subject that interests me too, somehow I sense there are nuggets of gold there, so to speak.

Thanks for your contributions, and I'll be looking forward to our continued conversations.

Sparrow

 

[Arch Angle]

I would suggest read about c-14 as c-14. Easy stuff, any high school text will have the info.

leave people's opinion about it until youunderstand it. Then decide of YEC or OECmakes more sense. It is not about "wrong" and "right". Itis about what seems more probable.

Approach the professor about the flood. His response will tell you if you can talk to him. "shooting your grade" with a questionto a teacher? what does that tell you about that teacher? You can't take up class time. That is a limited amount of time, he has tomove on.

The regular teacher will say "what's is your evidence?". If you say the bible, they may state "I don't take the bible literally, what else do you have in the way of evidence."

You may say, what about all the people with flood stories.He will say "most people lived near rivers and flood plains. Transportation and fertile land reasons. I would be more surprised if they didn't have flood stories. What other "evidence"do you have."

Scientist don't make claims about events that have noevidence. He will say, I make no claims about that flood. The best they can sayis that a worldwide flood with the bible as the main piece of evidence is a worldwide flood based on a book that was written by peoples so many thousands of years ago.

He will ask you to decide as reasonably as you can. Things like "is it reasonable or unreasonable to think weather patterns are similar today as they were 20,000years ago?" Not the exact temperatures, (like this person tried to do with c-14) but how weather works? It is the same as asking if a animal with four legs 10,000 years ago walked similar to a dog of today? Both having similar skeletons.

The message is for you, find the person that talks toyou. Many teachers are talking for themselves. many bible thumpers are talking for themselves. To make themselves feel safer, better, god like. It' s the ego. us in the middle, that are not sure, just try the best we can with what we got. We focus on Christ, not a flood.

 

[stovebolts]

AB517,

Actually, I owned a 68 GTO and it rocked! 67's are very cool too!

The way I understand C-14 is that in and of it's self it falls under observational science. Fact's don't lie and fact is, we can measure the amount of C-14 wherever it's present.

Have you read any of Willard Libby's lectures on C-14 dating and all of the checks and cross checks they've done with items found within known dates? With certain items, C-14 can be extremely accurate in dating up to a few thousand years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not challenging C-14 as observational science. I'm challenging it from a historical science perspective. In other words, I'm simply bringing forth the assumptions scientists use to calculate their dates and I think it's a fair conversation.

As far as asking teachers directed questions, if they smell anything like creation the student is immediately dismissed. Just last year my son was told specifically in science class that he couldn't ask why the ocean wasn't saltier than it was because that was a "religious" question. Most science teachers dismiss Creationist much in the same way Bill Nye does.

[video=youtube;gHbYJfwFgOU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU[/video]

Here is a response to Bill Nye. BTW, he declined an official debate.

[video=youtube;r-AyDtD6sPA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA[/video]

 

[Arch Angle]

if a puzzle piece has green in it, it is unreasonable to have a puzzle with no green in it. That's how I see thisguy using C-14.

It gets down to your end game. Are you letting god show you how he did it, or are you letting you tell you how god did it. We can assume we are both trying to let god show us. so now what?

I am sorry Steven, I don't do observational vs. historical. I say we don't know it all and we can't be 100% sure, so now what do we do? I think we do the best we can.

I do "what do we know now". How do these things fit together, if at all? Is there a pattern in these observations. Can we make some reasonable predictions with this information.

c-14 is a baby piece of evidence. It is a supportive piece. It is like holding a single puzzle piece in your hand and drawling the whole puzzle picture based on that one piece. If the puzzle piece is green, you can't drawa puzzle picture with no green in it. You can, but don't push it off on me like I am the being unreasonable.

I think people see evolution as "no god", that isnot true. It is wrong to state that.
I argue with atheist religion the same as I argue with you. Push comes toshove, the evidence shows a "god". what his traits are then becomethe points to debate.

threads are starting to cross over. They always do when you past thesuperficial stuff I guess. I also apologize, I suck at this form (forum) of comunication.