[_ Old Earth _] Carbon 14

[stovebolts]

Ok, so let me see if I can get this all straight.

Carbon 14 dating is only good for organic matter. In other words, you can't date rocks with the Carbon 14 tests.

Carbon 12 is the isotope that Carbon 14 compared against for the rate of decay.

When organic matter dies, Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 are at known rates. About a trillion to one.

According to the guy who thought of Carbon 14, it would have taken 30,000 years for these rates to have hit equal Librium. His calculations are about 25% off.

The half life of Carbon 14 is just over 5,000 years.

At 60,000 years, there should be no Carbon 14 left in the organic matter.

Based on the facts of Science, if Carbon 14 is completely gone after 60,000 years, then why are they finding Carbon 14 in fossils that have previously been dated in the 100's of thousands of years? And why are they finding Carbon 14 in Coal, or Oil that Scientists say is millions of years old.

This isn't adding up for me...

 

[lordkalvan]

As you have pointed out, you can't carbon-date rocks, so carbon-dating fossils will inevitably produce anomalous results, most likely due to contamination of the sample.

14C in fossil fuels is produced by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series, contained in fossil fuels in widely varying amounts; this phenomenon is well-understood by scientists.

 

[Sinthesis]

At 60,000 years, there should be no Carbon 14 left in the organic matter.

Where do you get this?

 

[Classik]

Impurity?:dunno
contamination?
purity?:bigsneeze

 

[lordkalvan]

Where do you get this?

Not by applying Zeno's dichotomy paradox, obviously.....

 

[Sinthesis]

I like this forum because it makes me look stuff up. Unfortunately I only ever seem to understand half of the truth.

 

[jasoncran]

I like this forum because it makes me look stuff up. Unfortunately I only ever seem to understand half of the truth.

lol.
a icr geologist says that.

 

[stovebolts]

Where do you get this?

I got it from Here. Start with the first one as it's a series of 4.

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

 

[stovebolts]

As you have pointed out, you can't carbon-date rocks, so carbon-dating fossils will inevitably produce anomalous results, most likely due to contamination of the sample.

14C in fossil fuels is produced by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series, contained in fossil fuels in widely varying amounts; this phenomenon is well-understood by scientists.

Wow, you actually admit that Carbon 14 dating isn't accurate because it can be contaminated. How about rocks? Can they also become contaminated? I think that answer is also yes.

I'll have to look up this uranium-thorium series and see what that's about, but is that for all fossil fuels? I'm especially interested in the coal beds that are supposedly millions of years old, yet still has carbon 14 which earlier stated only has a shelf life of 60,000 years after the organic matter dies.

But I'm also interested in some bones that have been dated as older than 60,000 years and still have Carbon 14 in them.

And when we're done talking about that, I want to learn more about equal Librium as it pertains to C14 and C12 and the 30,000 years it would have taken to equal out, yet we're deficient about 25%.. and then after that I'd like to talk about the trillion to one ratio.

 

[lordkalvan]

Wow, you actually admit that Carbon 14 dating isn't accurate because it can be contaminated.

Well, yes, it can be contaminated, but no, this doesn't mean - as you seem to be trying to imply - that 14C dating is thereby rendered invalid. The possibilities of contamination are why carbon-dating labs take such strict measures to prevent it, why they regularly calibrate (and have externally verified the accuracy of) their testing equipment, why good technique (and an appropriate paper-trail) is so important for fieldworkers who recover material to be carbon-dated, and why slipshod technique can result in anomalous results, i.e. the misdating of tested material. Which is one of the reasons why frequently more than one sample is tested from each dated item.

How about rocks? Can they also become contaminated? I think that answer is also yes.

Some things are more susceptible to contamination than others. Teeth are less susceptible to contamination from surrounding soil than bones, for example. The same can be true of rocks. However, as the possibilities of contamination are well-understood, as cross-checking with alternative dating methods is recommended where appropriate in the case of doubtful material and as the vast majority of radiometrically dated material shows consistent and accurate dates when correlated with other dating methodologies and with the known consequences of physical laws, the methodology is about as sound as you can get this side of certainty.

I'll have to look up this uranium-thorium series and see what that's about, but is that for all fossil fuels? I'm especially interested in the coal beds that are supposedly millions of years old, yet still has carbon 14 which earlier stated only has a shelf life of 60,000 years after the organic matter dies.

All fossil fuels can be subject to carbon-14 contamination as discussed; it depends on their individual circumstances. Furthermore, as our best understanding indicates that fossil fuels take much longer than a few tens of thousands of years to form, I would again point out that carbon-14 dating them is largely an exercise in futility that can only produce anomalous results - as is the case when attempting to carbon-date fossils. By the way, the 60,000 years you refer to is a limit imposed by the accuracy and sensitivity of equipment and not by the decay life of carbon-14; at about 10 half-lives the effects of background 14C atoms introduced by the environment, during sample preparation or in the testing instrumentation.

But I'm also interested in some bones that have been dated as older than 60,000 years and still have Carbon 14 in them.

Can you reference these bones so we can look at the claim in some detail?

And when we're done talking about that, I want to learn more about equal Librium as it pertains to C14 and C12 and the 30,000 years it would have taken to equal out, yet we're deficient about 25%...

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).

...and then after that I'd like to talk about the trillion to one ratio.

Sure, whenever you want.