[ Young Earth ] Carbon 14 Dating

[Sparkey]

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

Two theories come to mind: Star-Stuff (with ultimate origin being a egg sized, condensed, "singularity") and/or Created by God through known or unknown, yet unobserved process? My guess, unless it can be duplicated in the lab, it is still unknown. I draw a distinction line between what can be conceived of and what may be replicated. You might not agree with my simple test (can we do it? If yes, we may be able to explain it, if no... let's keep looking) but that it, for what it's worth.

Discussion of the creation of Carbon 12 would be a side-track here, but maybe Stovebolts has something to say? I'm still interested in the Nitrogen to Carbon conversion and if stable (seven (7) protons and (7) neutrons) Nitrogen can be changed, what protects other elements? I've a bit of understanding about atomic theory and how the "shells" of the electron orbits are "stable" at various combinations (the "K" shell, and the "L" shell etc.) but have a lot of catch-up work to do before I can say anything about it. That's why I liked and linked the "How Stuff Works" article, because Marshall Brain spoke about the hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons) as a byproduct of the Nitrogen to Carbon transform.

 

[Arch Angle]

lol,

yes,
known, thank you... sorry.
to much computer today.

 

[Arch Angle]

Two theories come to mind: Star-Stuff (with ultimate origin being a egg sized, condensed, "singularity") and/or Created by God through known or unknown, yet unobserved process? My guess, unless it can be duplicated in the lab, it is still unknown. I draw a distinction line between what can be conceived of and what may be replicated. You might not agree with my simple test (can we do it? If yes, we may be able to explain it, if no... let's keep looking) but that it, for what it's worth.

Discussion of the creation of Carbon 12 would be a side-track here, but maybe Stovebolts has something to say? I'm still interested in the Nitrogen to Carbon conversion and if stable (seven (7) protons and (7) neutrons) Nitrogen can be changed, what protects other elements? I've a bit of understanding about atomic theory and how the "shells" of the electron orbits are "stable" at various combinations (the "K" shell, and the "L" shell etc.) but have a lot of catch-up work to do before I can say anything about it. That's why I liked and linked the "How Stuff Works" article, because Marshall Brain spoke about the hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons) as a byproduct of the Nitrogen to Carbon transform.

Yes, atoms can be changed anywhere, at any time. Well, I mean, within reason. But the basic claim that atoms can be altered by events around them is true.

The question is what is around to change them? Cosmic radiation or earth sources. Then we can talk about the probability ofthose types of events.

how probable is "poof there it is 6000" years ago. Based only on what we do know today.

 

[Sparkey]

Just seems to me that in order to be able to make a statement on probability one must take the possible permutations into account. On the subject of a coin-toss, I might speak. On this particular subject I must only scratch my head at those who seem to declare that they have such enlarged capacity.

 

[Arch Angle]

your right,

Using what we know about radioisotopes increases the chances of the conclusions being limiting to a number "reasonable" possibilities far better than a coin flip. And others conclusions, while people can claim them, just don't match the data set as well. And the probability is less than a coin flip (50/50). Which, most of the time, we don't don't try make such strong held cocnlusions on 50-50 chance.

lol, not that I haven't done that before. and looked real stupid.

 

[stovebolts]

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

That is a good starting point.

Based on equilibrium, we shouldn't find any C14 in anything older than 60,000 years as C-14 only has 10 half lives, and a half life is 5,730 years based on current observation.

What I would now like to talk about is equilibrium. Have you watched the second video?
1. According to Willard Libby, how long did it take the earth to get to a state of Equilibrium?
2. Did Willard Libby's math add up?
3. What assumptions did Willard Libby take in his math?
4. Are we truly at equilibrium?

 

[stovebolts]

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

According to the rules of C14 dating, C-14 can be used to date anything organic not older than 60,000 years based on it's half life of 5,730 years. Some are now stating that with special equipment C-14 is accurate up to 90,000 years.

The only thing dishonest about that statement is the assumptions in regard to equilibrium.

 

[Arch Angle]

err, I have always heard them say "we assume this ... because of that" . also in science, we beg to be proven wrong, it means we learnt something.

I am assuming you have a science or engineering degree. So let's cut to the case.

Going tit for tat on pieces of evidence is meaningless at this point for me and you. You and I both know 100% "proof" either way does not exists. This c-14 angle is but one wrinkle in 6000 yr Young earth or older than 6000yr earth.

yes, you say the starting amounts of c-14 are way off. You want to claim 20%? 50%? I am ok with that. Either way it points to older earth for me and not for you..

So now what do we do?

I say we cross check with other pieces of data.?
What do you think?

can we start here?

By what evidence do you have that earth size amounts of atoms were formed 6000 years ago?

 

[stovebolts]

How about we talk about equilibrium first? What can you tell me about that?

 

[Arch Angle]

c-14 is not used to date the earth. It is only used to date thing as long as there is other pieces of data around it. You are claiming it is used in a manor it is not.

I am only interested in your understanding that the way it behaves is notbeing twisted. I am ok with questioningthe starting amounts.

but since you need to press the issue:

I already conceded that c-14 has such a high error rate that it can supportboth young and old earth. you are right, you can twist C-14 data to show young or old earth.

should I say it again ... you are right.

so now what?

cross check? is that reasonable?

we are addressing atom formation, with c-14. what else do you have in the way of atom formation? In the interest of honesty, lets cross checkthe data people have on atom formation.

what evidence do you have that earth size amounts of atoms were formed 6000years ago? Right here on earth?

 

[Sparkey]

Have you watched the second video?

Sorry, I've been side-tracked with my hobby of looking into difficult scripture recently. I plan on presenting notes from the 2nd today. It should allow a nice interlude.

~Sparrow

 

[stovebolts]

c-14 is not used to date the earth. It is only used to date thing as long as there is other pieces of data around it. You are claiming it is used in a manor it is not.

The way I understand C-14 dating, is that it is used to date organic objects. The observational science used is a mathematical calculation based on the ratio of C12 and C14. When fossils are dated over 60,000 years, they are not dated with C-14 dating. Is this your understanding as well?

I am only interested in your understanding that the way it behaves is not being twisted. I am ok with questioning the starting amounts.

Again, the way I understand the behavior of C14 is that it starts out as N14 and decay's back into N14. This falls under observational science and can be observed in nature today.

As far as this decay and how it is calculated in determining a specific date, it is based on the ratio of C12 and C14. Currently we can observe this ratio is about one trillion C12 to one C14.

The question then becomes this. Has the C12 to C14 ratio always been the same?
If the assumption is true, then C14 dating is a reliable dating method up to 60,000 years. If the assumption is false, then C14 dating isn't a reliable method of dating.

Keep in mind that the ratio of C12 to C14 is assumed to be at equilibrium. That is to say the amount of C14 being produced is the same that is becoming extinct. You may be surprised to know that we are not at equilibrium and currently the earth produces about 25% more C14 than that which is decaying and becoming extinct. Furthermore, there are variables that can effect the production of C14 which include solar rays, magnetic field (which is decaying), CO2 amounts and of course the Genesis Flood.

speaking of the Genesis flood, did you know that coal deposits have about 100 times the amount of C12 that which is present in our current biosphere? This indicates that pre-flood the ratio of C12 to C14 was much higher, which in effect would cause current ratio's to date things much older than they really are.

Here is an example. At a ratio of 1 trillion to one, something might give a date as 23,000 years old. If that ratio is modified to 8 trillion to one, the object dates less than 6,000 years. Again, coal deposits show 100 times the amount of C12 than what we find in our current biosphere.

I already conceded that c-14 has such a high error rate that it can support both young and old earth. you are right, you can twist C-14 data to show young or old earth.

should I say it again ... you are right.

so now what?

I don't understand what you mean by C14 has such a high error rate. It falls under Observational science. We can verify the amount of C12 to C14. We shouldn't have any errors in the physical ratio calculations. As far as twisting data to fit a young or old earth, you will see that I am not trying to twist anything. I am simply discussing observational science and how it relates to C14 dating methodology in a historical context.

As far as being right, I'm not as concerned with being right as I am as having an open discussion on C14 dating.

cross check? is that reasonable?

we are addressing atom formation, with c-14. what else do you have in the way of atom formation? In the interest of honesty, lets cross checkthe data people have on atom formation.

Not sure where you're going with this, but go ahead. Let's hear what you have to say.

what evidence do you have that earth size amounts of atoms were formed 6000 years ago? Right here on earth?

This question falls under historical science. As such it depends on the reliably of one's sources. I have already provided a genealogical list from Adam to present and have added in a few thousand years buffer to counter anyone's argument that generations were skipped. According to the genealogical records of the Bible, the earth is under 10,000 years.

 

[Arch Angle]

omg, I am sorry bolts. I thought you have a science background and were using c-14 to show a young earth. That's why I got confused. anybody that knows anything knows it is not used to date the earth.

I'll let lord kelvin handle the hows of c-14.

when did god do it.

you claim god did it less than 10,000

I claim god did it longer than 10,000

notice, we both say god did it.

ok

you use the bible and a list of name to show how long ago god did it.

I stack up, for starters, how atoms are formed, to show how long ago god did it.

we are in your house, so I politely withdraw. let's talk of Christ, a point we both cherish.

in another thread.

 

[stovebolts]

AB517,

If you look at my opening statment, it wrestles with the idea that C14 is found within diamonds and coal. This brings up the question, "How did it get there" and from there it questions the assumptions that C-14 dating uses.

The point being made is that C-14 is not a reliable method of dating based on their assumptions. As such, can we trust C14 dating for items beyond 4,000 years?

 

[Arch Angle]

The video is not as innocent as you bolts.

ok, just the 4000 year old stance it is. That is all I am addressing. Nothing else.

You dig down a site and carbon date all the items, or material, you find. Like the wholly mammoth site, or a cave site, or whatever.

You use c-14 ratio's to draw a reference line. Not to date the items. do you understand that? A reference line

You then use everything else you know to get the best date you can. The wholly mammoth, for example. You know it is so deep. You have an idea that the layers form so fast. So you get an idea of how long ago it was. The layers are used as the primary dating. or artifacts, like, the pot, vegetation, or the fire pit. NOT c-14.

Then if you dig 50 miles away, you can use the c-14 curve from the first site to help you. again, it is a reference of older or younger, not "a date".

**** important****
If the carbon-14 amounts varied wildly as you go down, then that c-14 curve cannot be used. The problem with you position is that the curves are not changing that much.

Then cross check that with co2 concentrations over the last 10,000. (I am only looking at can't be used past 4000) Also we cross the c-14 changes at every site around the world and see if the curves are changes to such an extent that they can (or cannot)be used. they are not. The c-14 curves are looking ok.

do see that when you draw the reference line, the starting amounts become unimportant? It like stating there is 15 min to go, the fact that the game started at 2pm is not important.

again, I have to tell you, they do not use c-14 by itself. But to answer your question, yes, I feel they have enough data (many c-14 curves) to say c-14 can be used to date older than 4000 years.

again, again, again, you can say it 10- 15 thousand years old, you say older than 4000 years ago. but only when you say " Based on all this other information ...".

this guy is pushing it off c-14 as something it does not do. he is not only dishonest, he is deceitful. Too bad he don't look like a snake, it would be easier that way to spot the apple. but that devil is far smarter than me and you bolts.

 

[stovebolts]

First off I'd appreciate it if you stopped speaking of behaviors. I'm not interested in calling people snakes, bible thumpers, fundementalists etc. Like I said earlier, I'm more into simply talking about the science so if you can oblige, I'd be happy to continue.

We can date the flood to about 5,000 years ago. What we do know is that C-14 is accurate to dating known objects associated with known dates. This tells us that the C-14 to C12 ratio has been fairly consistent, even if it's 25% off equilibrium for the past 4 thousand years.

Tell ya what. What is the oldest known object that can be verified through history with C-14? I mean, is there an event in history that we have a reliable date on that the C-14 dating method comes back and affirms that date? The answer is yes. But again, what is the oldest known object that we can validate this claim?