[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[Sparkey]

The statement that life dosen't come from non life centers around our understanding of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is where, say that mice spring from hay, and meat creates maggots. What we found that life forms don't just pop into existence from other matter. This was all figured out before modern understandings of micro Biology, biochemistry, and chemistry.

DNA on the other hand isn't itself a life form. Its a sequence of proteins and genes. These both fall under chemical reactions. Proto-cells are theorized to have formed from Amino acids bonding chemically. All organisms are built from the networking of cells working together. So the theory has its standing based on what we know of chemistry. The theory will go under massive change as we learn more and more about amino acids and how they form. So abiogenesis is more then possible.

And with that, we come full circle...

Well sure it is! Hydrogen, an invisible, oderless gas -- when left to its own devices, produces life, evil, and all we see about us.

 

[jasoncran]

if we can figure out how it happend then things should be let alone to build themselves. yet when any test is done they have to set up the conditions that existed. so in another words an intellegence has to manipulate the materials to do be pro-life in the first place

we cant reproduce what was then so we cant honestly test it.we dont know if aliens landed and were able to cause life and left and made sure we did come to be.

an no its not. if abiogenesis is possible then why isnt it taught?

The primordial Earth was a very different place than today, with greater amounts of energy, stronger storms, etc. The oceans were a "soup" of organic compounds that formed by inorganic processes (although this soup would not taste umm ummm good). Miller's (and subsequent) experiments have not proven life originated in this way, only that conditions thought to have existed over 3 billion years ago were such that the spontaneous (inorganic) formation of organic macromolecules could have taken place. The simple inorganic molecules that Miller placed into his apparatus, produced a variety of complex molecules:

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPaleo2.html#origin

could have doesnt mean it did. speculation at the best.

 

[Barbarian]

The discovery that such complex organic molecules as amino acids and even proteins can be produced naturally without living things moved the issue along, as did the discovery that some forms of RNA are self-catalyzing.

Scientists are more and more understanding that life was produced by the Earth. God told us that, a long time ago, but sometimes we're a little stubborn about believing.

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Barbarian,

What do you think about the equal Librium conundrum? Just curious.
Thanks!

 

[Sparkey]

Has anyone thought to send some of the Horner/Schweitzer soft tissue out for radiometric dating? We should expect to find zero carbon-14 in the dinosaur blood vessels and soft tissue (given the accepted notions).

 

[MarbleShooter]

Hey Barbarian,

What do you think about the equal Librium conundrum? Just curious.
Thanks!

Hey Stove, could you shoot me a link explaining the ELC. I could only find economic and game definitions when I googled it. Thanks

 

[jasoncran]

The discovery that such complex organic molecules as amino acids and even proteins can be produced naturally without living things moved the issue along, as did the discovery that some forms of RNA are self-catalyzing.

Scientists are more and more understanding that life was produced by the Earth. God told us that, a long time ago, but sometimes we're a little stubborn about believing.

then if said thing was to be done. that would mean we wouldnt have to coddle it along.

but yet all experiments show that it must be intellegent coerced to act.

nature doesnt have intellgence barb.

we dont bow the knee to earth who died for us.

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Stove, could you shoot me a link explaining the ELC. I could only find economic and game definitions when I googled it. Thanks

It's in post 14
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=40260&page=1

 

[lordkalvan]

Hey Barbarian,

What do you think about the equal Librium conundrum? Just curious.
Thanks!

There isn't one. Known fluctuations in the production rate of 14C mean that at times 14C production will exceed loss (and 'equilibrium' will be approached) and at other times the reverse will be true (and 'equilibrium' will be retreated from). Consequently, the idea of a 'final' equilibrium point is meaningless and any attempts to establish Earth's age from such a methodology is useless (and wholly inconsistent with other quite independent dating methodologies - dendrochronology, lake varves, ice layers, coral growth, etc). I think I have mentioned this to you before.

 

[Barbarian]

but yet all experiments show that it must be intellegent coerced to act.

That's the point. We're learning that it doesn't. Amino acids and even short proteins have been found to appear naturally. Some forms of RNA are self-catalyzing.

And so on.

 

[Barbarian]

Hey Barbarian,

What do you think about the equal Librium conundrum? Just curious.
Thanks!

One of my degrees is in systems, and of course, game theory is a big part of that. It has some application in the idea of an "optimal strategy", which is another way of expressing fitness. However, the fitness concept is not fully established for pre-life chemistry.

That's still under investigation.

 

[stovebolts]

There isn't one. Known fluctuations in the production rate of 14C mean that at times 14C production will exceed loss (and 'equilibrium' will be approached) and at other times the reverse will be true (and 'equilibrium' will be retreated from). Consequently, the idea of a 'final' equilibrium point is meaningless and any attempts to establish Earth's age from such a methodology is useless (and wholly inconsistent with other quite independent dating methodologies - dendrochronology, lake varves, ice layers, coral growth, etc). I think I have mentioned this to you before.

The way I understood the video in regard to the theory behind Carbon 14 dating, the earth being at equilibrium is an axiom within the dating theory. And as you again affirm, the rate of decay is not constant in regard to Carbon 14 dating as is assumed within template dating methods. What then are we to conclude in regard to Carbon 14 dating? Is it accurate, and if so, by who's mathematical equation?

 

[lordkalvan]

The way I understood the video in regard to the theory behind Carbon 14 dating, the earth being at equilibrium is an axiom within the dating theory.

Not exactly. The age estimates derived from 14C dating depend on the half-life of 14C, a figure known to some precision. Amongst the variables that affect the age estimates, however, are the 14C in the environment from which the organic material takes it up and potential contamination from other sources.

And as you again affirm, the rate of decay is not constant in regard to Carbon 14 dating as is assumed within template dating methods.

The rate of decay is known, it is the variables that affect the amount of 14C in organic material when it dies that is important. 14C-derived age estimates are published with error bars which indicate the degree of confidence in the figures given. 500 +/-40 years, for example, would mean that there is a 2 in 3 probability that the material dates to between 460 and 540 years old. Because of this unavoidable uncertainty in the methodology, scientists seek to cross-check dates as much as they can with other, quite independent dating methodologies. This has led to the calibration of 14C dates by comparison with tree-rings, for example.

What then are we to conclude in regard to Carbon 14 dating? Is it accurate, and if so, by who's mathematical equation?

Depends on what you mean by 'accurate'. The mathematical equations that are used to derive dates from 14C-dated material are specific and invariable, so I'm not altogether sure what you mean when you ask whose mathematical equations are used. The Wiki page on radiocarbon dating has some information on these equations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Hope this helps.

ETA The error bars referred to above are usually to one standard deviation. If they were given to two standard deviations (500 +/-80 years) this would mean there would be a 95% probability the dated material was between 420 and 580 years old. Three standard deviations would increase the probability to 99% for an age of between 380 and 620 years old.

 

[Barbarian]

The way I understood the video in regard to the theory behind Carbon 14 dating, the earth being at equilibrium is an axiom within the dating theory. And as you again affirm, the rate of decay is not constant in regard to Carbon 14 dating as is assumed within template dating methods. What then are we to conclude in regard to Carbon 14 dating? Is it accurate, and if so, by who's mathematical equation?

The actual rate can be calibrated by material of known age. Here's one way to do that:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

Turns out, it doesn't vary by much. Still, it's more accurate now. But of course, C-14 doesn't do much for evolutionary theory, because the times are too short to be useful for most fossil finds.

The longer-lived isotopes do that.

 

[stovebolts]

Not exactly. The age estimates derived from 14C dating depend on the half-life of 14C, a figure known to some precision. Amongst the variables that affect the age estimates, however, are the 14C in the environment from which the organic material takes it up and potential contamination from other sources.

The rate of decay is known, it is the variables that affect the amount of 14C in organic material when it dies that is important. 14C-derived age estimates are published with error bars which indicate the degree of confidence in the figures given. 500 +/-40 years, for example, would mean that there is a 2 in 3 probability that the material dates to between 460 and 540 years old. Because of this unavoidable uncertainty in the methodology, scientists seek to cross-check dates as much as they can with other, quite independent dating methodologies. This has led to the calibration of 14C dates by comparison with tree-rings, for example.

Depends on what you mean by 'accurate'. The mathematical equations that are used to derive dates from 14C-dated material are specific and invariable, so I'm not altogether sure what you mean when you ask whose mathematical equations are used. The Wiki page on radiocarbon dating has some information on these equations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Hope this helps.

ETA The error bars referred to above are usually to one standard deviation. If they were given to two standard deviations (500 +/-80 years) this would mean there would be a 95% probability the dated material was between 420 and 580 years old. Three standard deviations would increase the probability to 99% for an age of between 380 and 620 years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibriumâ€). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

 

[lordkalvan]

AiG is being less than wholly candid with you. In the first place, the technology, methodology and understanding of C14 dating has progressed significantly since the 1950s. In the second place, AiG is attempting to mislead you into supposing that scientists are ignorant of variations in C14 'reservoirs'. This is simply not the case. At a 1976 conference on climate history, for example, Washington University's Professor Minze Stuiver showed that the history of atmospheric C14 concentrations is known to some 22,000 years into the past and that during this time the concentration did not vary by more than 10%. Furthermore, cross-checking against other, quite independent dating methodologies (tree rings, speleothems, coral growth, lake varves and ice-core layers, for example) provide confidence in C14-derived dates when properly calibrated. You may find this discussion of interest:

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/radiocarbon.htm

I leave it to you to decide whether AiG is misleading you out of ignorance or intent.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings lordkalvan, I hope things are well for you.

Maybe we're missing the essence of the question which I see as, "Can you tell me about the meaning behind the fact that the atmosphere hasn't reached equilibrium?"

The pertinent quote that I extract would be, "In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium."

Frankly, I lack the knowledge and expertise to address this question but it seems that an analogy of a barrel with both input and output spouts might serve as useful for picturing the activity. Given that the input was steady (which represents the change rate, right?) or that it is steady within a factor of 10%, and the output is known (that would be the decay rate, after the organism dies and stops taking up any more material) -- there is still something unexplained.

The unexplained part has to do with "equilibrium" of the atmosphere. "Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium)."

We are told: "The Specific Production Rate (SPR) [or the input spout] of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) [the output spout] is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3"

Given that these statement comprise material facts regarding the subject and there is no error it would seem to me that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere would be gradually increasing (not going toward equilibrium). Am I missing something? For instance, does the "decay rate" apply only to the artifact and not the atmosphere? <--- that would be my guess, but there are still some questions that arise and it seems we don't have the information needed to determine the right conclusion.

The conclusion that is being examined is based on the idea that if the atmosphere isn't at equilibrium that necessarily means that the earth is less than 30,000 years old. That's what we are being told is the "troubling" part.

Thanks again for your explanation, but I still don't have it "nailed down" sufficiently in my understanding of the problem to form an opinion and would appreciate your analysis.

 

[Sparkey]

The difference between paradigms or views include differing assumptions. Seems to me that if scientists who take an "old age" earth stance wish to objectively critique the other side, they would do well to set aside the view that a world-wide flood is impossible and out of the question.

What if we assume that a world-wide flood happened and due to this catastrophic event all biotic material was submerged sometime between 4-5k years ago? This certainly would change things, right? I found a guy who tried to do just that. Here's his website and discussion on the matter:

Creationist PHD's Take on "IT" (C-14) and Equilibrium

The Assumptions used in Carbon 14 Dating

Before we start, lets look at the specific Carbon 14 dating assumptions.

1. The rate of C-14 decay (half-life) has always been the same.
2. The C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (equilibrium) has remained constant.
3. The specimen was in equilibrium with the Biosphere when buried.
4. The specimen had not gained any carbon since it was buried.
5. Today, we can measure the correct C-14/C-12 ratio in the specimen.

Some have suggested that the rate of decay of C-14 has changed in the past, however the evidence is very strong that as far as we know, the half-live has never changed. So the first assumption is fairly strong.

The third assumption is also reasonable. If an animal or plant is living on the surface of the Earth, it will be taking in food or CO2, thus there should be a full exchange of carbon with the environment.

The fifth assumption is one that scientists are doing their best to fulfill. We should also be able to make this assumption. However, machine background has become a very important factor to consider. It will be explored later on this web page.

The fourth assumption will be discussed at the very end of this page since it becomes a very real possibility when the second assumption is questioned.

The second assumption; however, is a different situation. It is entirely possible that the C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (the equilibrium) has not always remained constant. Most of the remainder of this web page is dedicated to exploring the possibility that the ratio could have been much less in the past.

 

[lordkalvan]

Hello Sparrow. Thanks for your kind inquiry and for your interesting and thoughtful posts. I am busy for the next few days and may not be able to address them in the detail they deserve for that time. Meanwhile, best wishes and I hope you too are keeping well.

 

[Sparkey]

Hello Sparrow. Thanks for your kind inquiry and for your interesting and thoughtful posts. I am busy for the next few days and may not be able to address them in the detail they deserve for that time. Meanwhile, best wishes and I hope you too are keeping well.

You're very welcome, sir. Glad to wait for your considered reply. It makes sense to me, but I'm biased in the favor of something less than Carl Sagon's "billions and billions" of years.