[_ Old Earth _] Carbon 14 Dating

[stovebolts]

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?

 

[Barbarian]

The evidence suggests that C-14 shows up on diamonds the same way it shows up in the upper atmosphere.

Ionizing radiation can change nitrogen-14 to carbon-14 by absorbing a neutron. There are a good number of radioactive isotopes capable of producing that effect in the "pipes" in which diamonds form, such as uranium and thorium. And most diamonds contain nitrogen atoms as inclusions in the lattice of carbon crystal.

 

[stovebolts]

The evidence suggests that C-14 shows up on diamonds the same way it shows up in the upper atmosphere.

We understand how Nitrogen 14 changes into Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. To suggest that a diamond, deep within the earth is bombarded with solar rays from the sun, thus converting Nitrogen 14 into Carbon 14 is simply poor articulation on your part I'm sure and that's not what you meant. Please elaborate.

What I would state from what I've been reading, there are only assumptions on how the nitrogen 14 in diamonds gets converted to Carbon 14. If you have provable / repeatable science that shows your evidence, I would appreciate viewing it.

Ionizing radiation can change nitrogen-14 to carbon-14 by absorbing a neutron. There are a good number of radioactive isotopes capable of producing that effect in the "pipes" in which diamonds form, such as uranium and thorium. And most diamonds contain nitrogen atoms as inclusions in the lattice of carbon crystal.

Or.... the diamond isn't as old as we think they are.

Regardless, this makes my point. If we take the assumption that ionizing radiation deep within the earth is contaminating the diamonds and coal by producing carbon 14 within the diamond, then we have to admit that Carbon 14 dating is not a reliable source for dating unless you can show me otherwise.

 

[lordkalvan]

We understand how Nitrogen 14 changes into Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. To suggest that a diamond, deep within the earth is bombarded with solar rays from the sun, thus converting Nitrogen 14 into Carbon 14 is simply poor articulation on your part I'm sure and that's not what you meant. Please elaborate.

What I would state from what I've been reading, there are only assumptions on how the nitrogen 14 in diamonds gets converted to Carbon 14. If you have provable / repeatable science that shows your evidence, I would appreciate viewing it.



Or.... the diamond isn't as old as we think they are.

Regardless, this makes my point. If we take the assumption that ionizing radiation deep within the earth is contaminating the diamonds and coal by producing carbon 14 within the diamond, then we have to admit that Carbon 14 dating is not a reliable source for dating unless you can show me otherwise.

Fortunately, we can ensure our confidence in the overall reliability of C14 dating by its consilience with other, quite independent dating methodologies and also by being aware of the limitations of the technology and the importance of avoiding contamination. That diamonds might be C14 dated as younger than other evidence strongly indicates they are may be considered analogous to understanding that simply because a mercury thermometer cannot measure temperatures below a certain point, this does not mean that if such a thermometer is used to measure the temperature in a place colder than the limit of its effectiveness no such lower temperatures exist there.

 

[stovebolts]

Fortunately, we can ensure our confidence in the overall reliability of C14 dating by its consilience with other, quite independent dating methodologies and also by being aware of the limitations of the technology and the importance of avoiding contamination.

You bring up two very good points.
1. Other independent dating methodologies.
2. importance of avoiding contamination.

1. If we come into science with the bias that the earth is 4.5 billions years old, then we will ignore or justify data that is contrary to that bias. In this example, the data returned by C14 testing reveals that diamonds are not 100's of millions of years old.

2. Can you show me by scientific evidence that diamonds were indeed contaminated? If so, how can you assure that other items were not contaminated?

That diamonds might be C14 dated as younger than other evidence strongly indicates they are may be considered analogous to understanding that simply because a mercury thermometer cannot measure temperatures below a certain point, this does not mean that if such a thermometer is used to measure the temperature in a place colder than the limit of its effectiveness no such lower temperatures exist there.

Carbon 14 dating is a reliable means of accurately reporting the ratio results of C12 / C14 where your example of a mercury thermometer is limited by it's singular and static reporting means. True, both have limitations, but in very different ways. As such, I do not see the two tools as analogous in any way.

 

[Barbarian]

We understand how Nitrogen 14 changes into Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. To suggest that a diamond, deep within the earth is bombarded with solar rays from the sun, thus converting Nitrogen 14 into Carbon 14 is simply poor articulation on your part I'm sure and that's not what you meant. Please elaborate.

The ionizing radiation comes from the breakdown in radioactive isotopes present in the "pipes" where diamonds form.

What I would state from what I've been reading, there are only assumptions on how the nitrogen 14 in diamonds gets converted to Carbon 14. If you have provable / repeatable science that shows your evidence, I would appreciate viewing it.

Sure. Thorium and Uranium (both present in the pipes) emit neutrons. If one happens to strike an atom of nitrogen-14, it becomes carbon-14. This is well-known. There is nitrogen in most diamond crystals, and there is a source of neutrons. So it's not surprising that it sometimes produces C-14.

Barbarian observes:
Ionizing radiation can change nitrogen-14 to carbon-14 by absorbing a neutron. There are a good number of radioactive isotopes capable of producing that effect in the "pipes" in which diamonds form, such as uranium and thorium. And most diamonds contain nitrogen atoms as inclusions in the lattice of carbon crystal.

Or.... the diamond isn't as old as we think they are.

So far, all the evidence says it is.

Regardless, this makes my point. If we take the assumption that ionizing radiation deep within the earth is contaminating the diamonds and coal by producing carbon 14 within the diamond, then we have to admit that Carbon 14 dating is not a reliable source for dating unless you can show me otherwise.

Couple of things. First, C-14 doesn't have anything to do with testing fossils, because the half-life is too short. Beyond 50,000 years or so, it doesn't work. Second, there are entire books written about the things you have to avoid when you're looking for a usable sample. Mollusks, for example, get most of their carbon from geologic sources, and are therefore not testable with that method.

Campfire remains that have been exposed to groundwater frequently are contaminated with geologic carbon and don't give good dates. And so on.

No magic, it's just important to get a good sample.

 

[stovebolts]

Barb,

Before proposing their alternate theory about the residual 14C found in very old samples, the Rate team first discusses the possibility of contamination. Besides the cosmic rays creating 14C in the atmosphere, other ways to create 14C have been identified. Alpha particle emissions from uranium and thorium decay can convert 14N into 14C just as it is formed in the atmosphere. 13C also has the possibility of converting to 14C by interacting with a thermal neutron. However, as Baumgardner discusses the possible contamination through these processes, he concludes that "production of 14C by thermal neutrons at presently observed levels in unable, by several orders of magnitude, to account for the 14C levels we measure" (Baumgardner 2005: 616).

Baumgardner has a Ph.D. in geophysics and space science from the University of California at Los Angeles

 

[Barbarian]

Particle physicists and radiological chemists have shown that Baumgardner's work is incorrect. It's not his field of expertise.

Here's a summary of some of the errors:

Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon†explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to“intrinsic radiocarbon†raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?

These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon†but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon†is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps†theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon†will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C†[1].

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

Most damaging is the observation that only some of the samples of coal and diamond had anomalously high levels of C-14. If it was intrinsic to the samples, and not introduced by contamination, all of it should have had the same levels.

 

[lordkalvan]

You bring up two very good points.
1. Other independent dating methodologies.
2. importance of avoiding contamination.

1. If we come into science with the bias that the earth is 4.5 billions years old, then we will ignore or justify data that is contrary to that bias. In this example, the data returned by C14 testing reveals that diamonds are not 100's of millions of years old.

It's a 'bias' that is based on a great deal of accumulated evidence since 19th Century clergymen-geologists went looking for evidence of a recent creation and global flood of Noachian proportions and rather quickly came to the conclusion that the evidence contra-indicated both. Excluding the futility of carbon-dating diamonds (as futile as testing any other material whose likely age is outwith the parameters of this testing methodology), your argument seems to be based solely on discrediting the validity of any carbon-dating at all. In which case, how do you explain the accurate dating of items of known historical age and the consilience with other, quite independent dating methodologies? Are the latter all wrong for different reasons, but all just happening to be wrong in exactly the right proportion in each case as required to be consilient with each other and carbon-dating too?

2. Can you show me by scientific evidence that diamonds were indeed contaminated? If so, how can you assure that other items were not contaminated?

Barbarian has answered this point, I think. Reading around the subject of the RATE work suggests that, at best, the dates are simply 'background' readings or else the result of contamination. You may find this discussion of interest:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

Carbon 14 dating is a reliable means of accurately reporting the ratio results of C12 / C14 where your example of a mercury thermometer is limited by it's singular and static reporting means. True, both have limitations, but in very different ways. As such, I do not see the two tools as analogous in any way.

It was an analogy attempting to illustrate the futility of measuring data-points that lie outside the limits of the methodology you are using, not the equivalence of the equipment being used.

 

[stovebolts]

Particle physicists and radiological chemists have shown that Baumgardner's work is incorrect. It's not his field of expertise.

Here's a summary of some of the errors:

Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon†explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to“intrinsic radiocarbon†raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?

These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon†but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon†is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps†theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon†will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C†[1].

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

Most damaging is the observation that only some of the samples of coal and diamond had anomalously high levels of C-14. If it was intrinsic to the samples, and not introduced by contamination, all of it should have had the same levels.

What I would like to remind you of Barbarian, is we are discussing arguments surrounding possible theories.

The fact of the matter is there is no concrete evidence on the matter. Theories are based on facts, but theories are fluid as more facts are accumulated. Still, the fact remains we are arguing theories, not facts. The facts are not in dispute.

The fact is, Carbon 14 was discovered in a place where a previous theory stated they should not be found. This assumption was based on the known facts and that theory was found to be incorrect.

What the facts now reveal is there is Carbon 14 in both diamonds and coal beds. Based on common Carbon 14 dating techniques, Carbon 14 should not be present in any organic matter that is older than 60,000 years.

Scientists state that diamonds are millions of years old. Yet we find Carbon 14 in some of them. Obviously somebodies theory was wrong and now other theories are coming in trying to answer the questions left in the void.

What we can conclude, is that theories are fluid, they are not static. Theories are not facts, they are based on the known facts. As more facts are collected, theories evolve and so the debates continue.

What we see in this case, is that we have found carbon 14 where previously Scientists did not believe they would find Carbon 14.

The findings can be interpreted two different ways.
1. Diamonds and Coal are not as old as previously thought.
2. Natural contamination can occur where we previously did not believe they could.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Barbarian]

The fact is, Carbon 14 was discovered in a place where a previous theory stated they should not be found.

No. Anytime you have nitrogen exposed to ionizing radiation, the theory predicts formation of C-14. This is a demonstrated fact.

What the facts now reveal is there is Carbon 14 in both diamonds and coal beds. Based on common Carbon 14 dating techniques, Carbon 14 should not be present in any organic matter that is older than 60,000 years.

Unless it is being introduced by some mechanism. Most coal beds also have sources of ionizing radiation. The key here is that those that don't, don't show measurable amounts of C-14. Which is an important clue in itself.

Scientists state that diamonds are millions of years old. Yet we find Carbon 14 in some of them. Obviously somebodies theory was wrong and now other theories are coming in trying to answer the questions left in the void.

The evidence does show diamonds to be millions of years old. And the theory does predict the formation of C-14. It has long been known that nitrogen will form C-14 if exposed to that sort of radiation.

What we can conclude, is that theories are fluid, they are not static.

Correct. In this case, the theory predicts C-14.

What we see in this case, is that we have found carbon 14 where previously Scientists did not believe they would find Carbon 14.

I haven't see that one. It would be odd if any scientist wrote a paper denying that C-14 could be in diamonds. Do you know of one?

The findings can be interpreted two different ways.
1. Diamonds and Coal are not as old as previously thought.
2. Natural contamination can occur where we previously did not believe they could.

It has long been known that uranium, thorium,and other radioactive sources are present in the pipes of blue earth where diamonds are found.
http://www.minelinks.com/alluvial/diamondGeology42.html

 

[stovebolts]

Carbon 14 dating is a reliable means of accurately reporting the ratio results of C12 / C14 where your example of a mercury thermometer is limited by it's singular and static reporting means. True, both have limitations, but in very different ways. As such, I do not see the two tools as analogous in any way.

It was an analogy attempting to illustrate the futility of measuring data-points that lie outside the limits of the methodology you are using, not the equivalence of the equipment being used.

I did not bring up methodology.

Carbon 14 testing to my knowledge reports the ratio of C12 and C14 within it's limits. With most techniques, it is agreed that about 60,000 years is the said limit as this is based on the half life of Carbon 14.

That we find Carbon 14 within diamond samples clearly affirms scientific assumptions that fall within the given range. Carbon 14 testing can accurately display the 'facts' within a given range based on 1 trillion C12 to X C14. It provides a very concrete and specific results.

This in no way is analogous to a mercury thermometer where mercury freezes at -39C and it can no longer measure the presence of what it is measuring. No, Carbon 14 testing gives us an accurate measurement of what is present within a specific range.

With your mercury thermometer juxtaposition, you could say that it is at least -39C while knowing that it could be colder. Thus, there is "More" cold that the thermometer was unable to record. You can't say that with C14 - C12. All you can say is there is X amount of C14, and there isn't any "More".

 

[lordkalvan]

I did not bring up methodology.

I'm sorry, I should have made it clear that when I said methodology I was assuming the use of the equipment appropriate to that methodology. In this case, in the same way that a mercury thermometer cannot measure temperatures below -39C and so will simply show this value regardless of the actual figure, so C14 kit cannot measure dates older than around 60,000 years and so measuring objects older than the limits of the methodology will simply return results which are either the result of contamination or background radiation, as appears to be the case with regard to the RATE samples. Barbarian has effectively dealt with the question of naturally occurring C14 in diamonds.

Carbon 14 testing to my knowledge reports the ratio of C12 and C14 within it's limits. With most techniques, it is agreed that about 60,000 years is the said limit as this is based on the half life of Carbon 14.

That we find Carbon 14 within diamond samples clearly affirms scientific assumptions that fall within the given range. Carbon 14 testing can accurately display the 'facts' within a given range based on 1 trillion C12 to X C14. It provides a very concrete and specific results.

But in and of itself it can neither distinguish contamination, nor can it distinguish between positive results at the level of background radiation and background radiation itself. Again, this appears to be a significant consideration when looking at the RATE results.

This in no way is analogous to a mercury thermometer where mercury freezes at -39C and it can no longer measure the presence of what it is measuring. No, Carbon 14 testing gives us an accurate measurement of what is present within a specific range.

But it cannot distinguish what might be contamination, nor can it return a meaningful result where readings approximate those expected from background radiation.

With your mercury thermometer juxtaposition, you could say that it is at least -39C while knowing that it could be colder.

Yes.

Thus, there is "More" cold that the thermometer was unable to record. You can't say that with C14 - C12. All you can say is there is X amount of C14, and there isn't any "More".

No, but just like you cannot say what the temperature actually is, so you cannot be certain that the age shown has any value because the equipment is operating at the limits of its ability. X amount of C14 might be due to contamination, it might be due to background radiation, or it might be an actual artefact of the material being measured, but we cannot be certain. However, because we can calibrate C14 with other dating methodologies and because we have other, more reliable techniques for dating material older than the detection limits of C14 equipment, we can say with some degree of confidence that carbon dating diamonds will only return anomalous results.

 

[stovebolts]

LK,

No, Carbon 14 testing gives us an accurate measurement of what is present within a specific range.

But it cannot distinguish what might be contamination, nor can it return a meaningful result where readings approximate those expected from background radiation.

Just wanted to say thanks for making my point. Carbon 14 dating isn't as clean as some would have us to believe, and by that I mean free from contamination as you have stated.

Point in case. Evolutionists never expected to find C14 in coal beds, let alone in diamonds as it was once thought that Carbon 14 was only created in the atmosphere. Yet now we see that there is a theory (not fact) that it can indeed occur underground, thus contamination "can" occur where Scientists don't and didn't expect it. amazing how a theory can "evolve" as need be.



You're familiar with Mr. Willard? He writes in his lecture:

We are in the radiocarbon-dating business as soon as this has been said, for it is clear from the set of assumptions that have been given that organic matter, while it is alive, is in equilibrium with the cosmic radiation;

At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies.

Any process? You do know who Mr. Willard is right? So what is it? Are diamonds millions of years old, or are they contaminated? According to Mr. Willard, they cannot be millions of years old, or his assumptions were incorrect.

Care to discuss Mr. Willards assumptions? I believe his math was off by about 25 percent as it relates to being in equilibrium.

 

[Barbarian]

We are in the radiocarbon-dating business as soon as this has been said, for it is clear from the set of assumptions that have been given that organic matter, while it is alive, is in equilibrium with the cosmic radiation;

At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies.

There is, however, a known mechanism by which C-14 can be produced in diamonds and coal. Actually, two ways in coal, since seepage from the ground has been shown to enter coal veins. But in diamonds, the main source seems to be conversion of nitrogen inclusions in diamonds (common in most of them) by radiation from uranium and thorium (commonly found in diamond-bearing deposits).

 

[lordkalvan]

LK,



Just wanted to say thanks for making my point. Carbon 14 dating isn't as clean as some would have us to believe, and by that I mean free from contamination as you have stated.

And yet your point does not invalidate the general reliability of C14 dating methodologies.

Point in case. Evolutionists never expected to find C14 in coal beds, let alone in diamonds as it was once thought that Carbon 14 was only created in the atmosphere. Yet now we see that there is a theory (not fact) that it can indeed occur underground, thus contamination "can" occur where Scientists don't and didn't expect it. amazing how a theory can "evolve" as need be.

You seem to be complaining that scientists seek naturalistic explanations for anomalous data and, when they find such explanations, show how they account for that anomalous data.

You're familiar with Mr. Willard? He writes in his lecture....

Any process? You do know who Mr. Willard is right? So what is it? Are diamonds millions of years old, or are they contaminated? According to Mr. Willard, they cannot be millions of years old, or his assumptions were incorrect.

Care to discuss Mr. Willards assumptions? I believe his math was off by about 25 percent as it relates to being in equilibrium.

See Barbarian's reply. And I assume you are referring to Willard Libby, in which case I would point out that our understanding and knowledge of the processes that impact C14 production and presence have progressed since he made his comment you refer to.

 

[stovebolts]

We are in the radiocarbon-dating business as soon as this has been said, for it is clear from the set of assumptions that have been given that organic matter, while it is alive, is in equilibrium with the cosmic radiation;

At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies.

There is, however, a known mechanism by which C-14 can be produced in diamonds and coal. Actually, two ways in coal, since seepage from the ground has been shown to enter coal veins. But in diamonds, the main source seems to be conversion of nitrogen inclusions in diamonds (common in most of them) by radiation from uranium and thorium (commonly found in diamond-bearing deposits).

So you take the line that the diamonds and the coal has been contaminated based on a hypothisis. It is still a hypothisis. When Mr. Willard Libby wrote his theory, he asserted his assumptions as indesputable, yet we have two instances that clearly show that the father of carbon dating was either wrong, or his assumptions were wrong. The assertion on uranium and thorium that modern scientists boast is as assertive as Mr. Willards, respectfully.

I would conclude that we will interpret the raw data with the lense we see the world through. I see the world as only around 6000 years, and I can interpret the exact same data that Mr. Libby had to work with to support a young earth. You. And LK view the world as billions of years old. Should I expect any less from either of you?

 

[lordkalvan]

So you take the line that the diamonds and the coal has been contaminated based on a hypothisis. It is still a hypothisis. When Mr. Willard Libby wrote his theory, he asserted his assumptions as indesputable, yet we have two instances that clearly show that the father of carbon dating was either wrong, or his assumptions were wrong. The assertion on uranium and thorium that modern scientists boast is as assertive as Mr. Willards, respectfully.

I would conclude that we will interpret the raw data with the lense we see the world through. I see the world as only around 6000 years, and I can interpret the exact same data that Mr. Libby had to work with to support a young earth. You. And LK view the world as billions of years old. Should I expect any less from either of you?

Please show how C14 data can reasonably be interpreted as showing Earth to be only around 6 KYO. All you have done so far is to imply that because some dates are anomalous (for known causes that have been explained and that can be taken into account) then all dates that contradict your chronology must be anomalous. You might also want to reflect on why C14 dating is consistent and consilient with a range of other, quite independent dating methodologies.

 

[stovebolts]

Please show how C14 data can reasonably be interpreted as showing Earth to be only around 6 KYO. All you have done so far is to imply that because some dates are anomalous (for known causes that have been explained and that can be taken into account) then all dates that contradict your chronology must be anomalous. You might also want to reflect on why C14 dating is consistent and consilient with a range of other, quite independent dating methodologies.

Honestly LK, I don't need to argue the point with you and I don't have a need, or a desire to try and sway you in the above matter. I set out with a purpose to this OP, and I've succeeded in what I set out to do. Thank you for assisting in that effort.

 

[lordkalvan]

Honestly LK, I don't need to argue the point with you and I don't have a need, or a desire to try and sway you in the above matter. I set out with a purpose to this OP, and I've succeeded in what I set out to do. Thank you for assisting in that effort.

The choice is yours whether or not to participate in a discussion that you have started, but clearly you have done nothing to discredit the validity of C14 dating as a reliable investigative tool.