[ Young Earth ] Carbon 14 Dating

[Arch Angle]

oh right. the teacher thing.

if it is a public school the teacher has to back out of it. The teachershould do so gently. If the teacher doesnot, it is the teacher's problem, not your kids. I know, I had to do it. There are many "punks" out there,on both sides.

Look for a person that will to "to" you, not "at" you. Ihave to do the same with bible thumpers. Funny, when you find that person, the conversations goes away fromc-14 and we talk of trying to be more like "Christ".

The true goal.

 

[stovebolts]

AB517,

No offence, but I see that you use a lot of analogies but don't like to talk about the specifics. You also say you don't do observational vs historical, but the reality is that when we start talking about the creation of the earth, or as it pertains to C-14 we do indeed talk about historical and observational science.

As far as push comes to shove, even Richard Dawkins believes in a God, just not a biblical God. Reminds me of the verse that says even the demons believe in God in an odd sort of way.

BTW, with observational science, did you know that C-14 dating can also be used to support a young earth as easily, if not easier than an earth 4.6 billion years old?

 

[Arch Angle]

yeah I know Steve, it always comes down to this.

first, you list the observations you have.

then see what story matches.

It is that simple.


Analogies. Call them parables. I learned how effective they can be. Helps people. But like the parables of old, they get twisted and are then used to kill the truth too I guess.



.

 

[stovebolts]

The thing about parables is they don't have to be logically accurate to convey a particular meaning. Often the Parables of Jesus, or even those in the Old Testament if taken critically would be taken the wrong way and the wrong conclusion would be gleaned.

Now then, lets talk about C14. What axioms can you tell us about carbon 14 dating.

 

[Sparkey]

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

Please don't make the assumption that I haven't. Let's see, first look at this process was about 40 years ago? I'm not that fast to make up my mind about things might be an understatement, and I like to be comfortable in my footing before I start reaching up very high. Fear of toppling is a good thing.

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

Well, perhaps. The way that I feel about it is that if something is true or false is one subject, but that's not really what I'm seeking, to find out if something that somebody else says is true or false, no. Instead, I enjoy collecting data and looking for myself. Is that arrogant? Could be. But the data doesn't have an agenda and I don't have to sort through the muck that way. As far as Carbon-14 goes? I'm more of a knowledge whore, not discriminating where the information comes from, or the source as much as the integrity of the data itself. It would not matter if a great idea came from an unlearned person or from a highly credentialed person. If it makes sense and can hold its own weight under scrutiny? Good then. Right?

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 to move on.

No, I don't think so. For instance, I would not approach a card carrying member of the KKK and ask him about racial relations. Sure he may have an opinion, but he's not able to make the distinction between opinion and fact. Somebody who says, "We need to accept information without regard to what we observe today, and consider things that may have happened even though we personally have not seen them," from one side of his face and then from the other side reject even the idea of something he does not ascribe to? No. I don't see that discussion as profitable. On the other hand, there is another instructor (this one isn't an adjunct, but an Professor) who teaches an Oceanography class. Now that guy I could talk to. He might not agree with me, but he wouldn't "shut me down". I really have no appreciation for those who want to control conversation and use various devices to silence opposition.

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 no evidence. He will say, I make no claims about that flood. The best they can say is 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.

You seem pretty good at imagining things. That's fine to me. I don't mind listening.

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 20,000 years 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.

If I try to "imagine" what the climate was like prior to the flood, when men lived greatly increased lifespans, it may not be the same as when he is "preaching" about plate tectonics and things being the same today as yesterday. It's not a profitable discussion, in my opinion. It's okay, for me to listen and parrot back what he needs to hear for my grade. I just omit the "years" and he doesn't object. Haven't lost a single grade point for it. I do understand the principles and do get the sequences right - that's all direct evidence and unavoidable conclusion, the kind I like. What came first, the intrusion or that which was intruded into? Well, unless we imagine our poor sedimentary rock impaling itself onto plutons... no. The likely event was that the rock that was intruded into was there before the volcano formed and we can see the evidence easily. Sequence is straightforward. It's the assumptions that may be challenged, not the data.

The message is for you, find the person that talks to you. 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.

I like your closing statement. The focus is rightly on Christ. That doesn't mean that I can't for a moment focus on my choice of breakfast cereal even as we speak about C-14 and Floods and teachers and stuff.

Being as the OP is here with us, it's probably okay for us to presume upon him and broaden the spectrum of discussion beyond Carbon-14. Heck, what thread here on CF.net doesn't allow it? (Bad, Moderator, bad)... Still, I do enjoy the discussion. You've said that my instructor (and your assumption is that his is "typical" of other Science teachers you've come in contact with) would likely say that we could look at evidence and wouldn't speak about things that have no evidence.

My thought is that the conclusion that some come to is vicariously attached in their mind to the evidence. So the "plate tectonics" thing (and I'm not opposed, nor do I exclude the idea) becomes the only method that may be considered for sediment to be found on the top of Mt. Everett (or Mount Everest, for that matter). It's all "evidence," even the conclusion. That's just not the case for me. Why can we make diamonds (and I really should not ask because I know it will derail the thread) but we can not make coal? How come we can not make oil? Is it maybe because we think in terms of long time only? What if it only takes a year? Or less? (under the right conditions). I'll have to look into that as well as look into the whole C-14 clock methodology soon.

~Sparrow

 

[Arch Angle]

yes you are right. Here, everything you need to know is in this here apple.

my first claim?

1) c-14 is not used to date the age of the earth.

2) yes,the starting amounts can be questioned

if c-14 old = c-14 young. Or even if a person is not sure either way.

What next?
what is the next reasonable step?

Move evidence I think.

Other things that would cross check the c-14 claims. Maybe not pin point it, but at least offer us a reasonable conclusion as to older than 6000 or younger than 6000 years.

 

[Sparkey]

I'll watch the videos about Dating Fossils and Rocks (there's three of them) after I get back from school day. Finals week but then am out for a Spring Break! Already looking forward to next quarter...

 

[Sparkey]

yes you are right. Here, everything you need to know is in this here apple.

my first claim?

1) c-14 is not used to date the age of the earth.

2) yes,the starting amounts can be questioned

if c-14 old = c-14 young. Or even if a person is not sure either way.

What next?
what is the next reasonable step?

Move evidence I think.

Other things that would cross check the c-14 claims. Maybe not pin point it, but at least offer us a reasonable conclusion as to older than 6000 or younger than 6000 years.

Robby the Robot: Danger Will Robinson, Danger!
Will Robinson: What is it Robby?
Robby the Robot: I suspect Data Contamination
Will Robinson: Speak your warning, Robby.
Robby the Robot: When we approach the evidence in order to determine an answer to a question we are in danger of influencing ourselves with foregone conclusions.
Will Robinson: So you think it would be better to just examine the evidence and not try to force an answer? What progress can be made then?
Robby the Robot: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
Robby the Robot: We can not sacrifice our objectivity even for the sake of Progress, so called.
Robby the Robot: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
Will Robinson: What is it now?
Robby the Robot: Look, Will Robinson! That snake is about to offer you an apple!

 

[Arch Angle]

Sparrow,

I feel exactly like you do. But I am older now, I have looked, and read. Maybe that is bad I guess. I love that you are seeking your own answers,that is awesome. That is "god's way"
maybe I wasn't clear about the professor.
I said look at the person's answers. To see what type ofperson you think they might be. If theyare closed minded and rude, of course, don't talk to them. if they are"telling you" and not "discussing" with you, don't talk tothem. Find somebody else.

Fundamentalist is a personality disorder, not a beliefsystem. It applies to evolutionist also. I think

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow,

I feel exactly like you do. But I am older now, I have looked, and read. Maybe that is bad I guess. I love that you are seeking your own answers,that is awesome. That is "god's way"
maybe I wasn't clear about the professor.
I said look at the person's answers. To see what type ofperson you think they might be. If theyare closed minded and rude, of course, don't talk to them. if they are"telling you" and not "discussing" with you, don't talk tothem. Find somebody else.

Fundamentalist is a personality disorder, not a beliefsystem. It applies to evolutionist also. I think

Well, I tend to lump myself into the "fundamentalist" category and when I confided this to one of my instructors he was given a moment of pause.

His astonishment was obvious as he asked, "Why???"

My answer was that I do like to keep things simple and try to seek to understand but within that I also want to be more childlike and less "I know it all."

He smiled and considered my reply privately. Steve is one of my favorite instructors, of which I have many.

 

[Arch Angle]

Yes, be true to thy own self. It muststart there.

yep, my favorite instructors were always the ones that supported my beliefstoo. I respected the ones that talked to me even if they disagreed with me. Thewipers that "told" me how wrong I was, were wipers to me andeverybody else. Weather they agreed or disagreed with people. It is just harder to know a wiper when they agree with you. I always looked at how they treated peoplenot like them. Then I cross check thatwith how Jesus would treat "lepers". I aint perfect, but at least with Christ asthe focus, I stand a better chance.

If the guy was "surprised" that is ok. When students don't surpriseteachers that is when the teacher should retire. If hewas disrespectful, forget him, go to someone else. That is his problem, not yours. I say anyway.

 

[Knotical]

I dated a carbon once. The trouble was I couldn't, try as I might, figure out how old she was. If only there were some reliable method I might use to solve this mystery...

 

[stovebolts]

Why do I get the feeling I"m being viewed as the "bible thumping", "Literal", "Assertive" "Pushing off as"... jerk in this conversation by you AB517? Perhaps it's just me, but I've heard you talk more about negative personalities than C-14.

Is this my imagination?

I really, really wish we could just talk about C-14.

Anyway, I'm outta here anyway. Had the day off and I have a honey do list to tend to. Then we're off for a 3 day weekend.

By the way, my name isn't Steve. It would be really refreshing to find somebody who actually took the time and due diligence to read things for as they were, and not how they thought they saw them.... Don't worry, it's a character trait. Happens often actually.

 

[Sparkey]

By the way, my name isn't Steve. It would be really refreshing to find somebody who actually took the time and due diligence to read things for as they were, and not how they thought they saw them.... Don't worry, it's a character trait. Happens often actually.

I made that same mistake. Well, my lazy eye did, didn't look as I read your name and my mind just filled in the blank spot that my eye didn't read. Jason corrected me. He said (and I quote),

You called him Steve. :toofunny

I suspect that this phenomena (the lazy eye syndrome, if I may term it that) is what is at the bottom of our research and conclusion problem.

Click pic to go to YouTube and watch ...


And for your amusement... "Tripping Balls" cartoon... A dino's thought about it...

I promise, will watch the C-14 Video before I post again (srry).

 

[stovebolts]

I made that same mistake. Well, my lazy eye did, didn't look as I read your name and my mind just filled in the blank spot that my eye didn't read. Jason corrected me. He said (and I quote),

Yup, your name is in the prized Steve Thread alright lol. You think I'd get used to it. Most people given enough time figure it out on their own. But I degress, here we go talking more about character traits than C-14...

 

[Sparkey]

Mike Riddle, Dating Fossils and Rocks (Part 1 of 4) 61 Minutes

• Radio Active Decay Primer
• Carbon-14 Dating detail
• Radio-Isotope dating

Carbon - detail: 6 Protons. Varying number of neutrons. Atomic number = 6.

Atomic weight = 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 etc. All having 6 protons. Unstable atoms? Number of protons = number of number of neutrons = stable. That, in this case, is carbon 12. 6 protons and 6 neutrons.​

Carbon 14 "decays" radioactively into Nitrogen 14. What is happening here?

All types of Carbon have 6 protons. All types of Nitrogen have 7. A proton is added in order to change from 14C to 14N.​

How long? Half-life discussion. C-14 half-life = 5,730 years (approximately).

How Carbon is influenced by cosmic rays (observation of process today).

Combined with Oxygen to form CO², taken in by living things and "stored".

C-14 created from Nitrogen-14 (proton/nutron change) by cosmic rays, also constant decay = lifecycle.

What about carbon in the air that is already combined with oxygen in the form of clouds or water vapor? Is this effected by the process? Hydrocarbons? Or are we just talking about Nitrogen to Carbon here? Does the water cycle enter into it? How?

Equilibrium discussion. C-14 "starting point" where the organism dies and stops intake. Fossil discussion: Lots of C-14? Recent death. Very little C-14? Longer time needed. None present? Dead for long time (over 60,000 years, 10 Half-lives).

Keys:

• Speed of decay. Known.
• Starting amount of C-14 when organism died. Critical detail. Candle burn rate analogy. Need to know how big the candle was when it began burning.

Okay - summary of my review of Part one for the series. Good faith effort made as I depart to class....

More later, thanks Stovebolts, this does help. :nod

 

[Sparkey]

How Stuff Works article: How Carbon-14 Dating Works by Marshall Brain

Co­smic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

 

[Arch Angle]

sparrow,

speed of decay unknown? No it isknown. 1/2 life is known. I think you mean starting ratio's may be wrong. I am not sure what you mean here?

 

[Arch Angle]

no stove,

it was not directed at you. sparrow brought up a teacher. That is who I wastalking about. I don't know if you are abible thumper. Just one look at youractions would tell you if you are.

c-14 is not used to judge the age of the earth. So to use it like it is/is not ... is dishonest.

but if you say it can be used for old and young earth. We need to go elsewhere. because it most certainly can be used fordating older than 6000 years ago.

How about where, and how, atoms (like c-12) are formed? should we look at that process?

 

[Sparkey]

sparrow,

speed of decay unknown? No it isknown. 1/2 life is known. I think you mean starting ratio's may be wrong. I am not sure what you mean here?

I'll scan my notes and correct if I said "unknown".
Or you could quote and I'll correct what you point to.

Keys:
Speed of decay. Known.
Starting amount of C-14 when organism died. Critical detail. Candle burn rate analogy. Need to know how big the candle was when it began burning.

If that is what you meant, Stove, errr... I mean Steve... no, I mean AB517! Read again, please?