[_ Old Earth _] How would the noachian flood affect dating methods?

[jwu]

Heidi posted this:

Sorry but since scientists throw out the flood, then it's impossible to date anything before the flood since they refuse to take into consideration how millions of gallons of water affects the carbon on every object it floods. ;-) So the very oldest strata could just have easily been 3-6,000 years ago. ;-)

I'd like to discuss this in detail. How would the noachian flood affect radiometric dating methods? What is the mechanism?

 

[Heidi]

Heidi posted this:

Sorry but since scientists throw out the flood, then it's impossible to date anything before the flood since they refuse to take into consideration how millions of gallons of water affects the carbon on every object it floods. ;-) So the very oldest strata could just have easily been 3-6,000 years ago. ;-)

I'd like to discuss this in detail. How would the noachian flood affect radiometric dating methods? What is the mechanism?

I recently saw a documentary describing what millions of gallons of water can do do a human skull. It can shrink it to unrecognizable proportions. So jumping to the conclusions that skulls and bones that don't look quite human are fictitious beasts that can be documented by no one in history as is ludicrous and unscientific as it is imaginary.

You also can't compare any flood with a gobal flood. The time that objects are under water, the manner in which they were flooded, the amount of water in which they were submerged, and the manner in which they landed all affect dating methods.

In addition, there's no way to prove that the bones pieced together to form a fictitious animal called a "homo-sapiens" all came from one animal. When the flood is thrown out, then once again, those bones could just have easily been from many animals that washed up from the Flood. So evolution is simply a fairy tale that come from wishful thinking and a bizarre one at that. :

But the whole point is, by excluding the Flood, scientists are deliberately making deductions with incomplete information. Their conclusions are therefore, also inconclusive. Carbon dating requires accurate information about the state of the objects that are dated. Without accurate information, dating is also inaccurate.;-)

 

[Dunzo]

I recently saw a documentary describing what millions of gallons of water can do do a human skull. It can shrink it to unrecognizable proportions. So jumping to the conclusions that skulls and bones that don't look quite human are fictitious beasts that can be documented by no one in history as is ludicrous and unscientific as it is imaginary.

How many times have we been through this Heidi? I've shown your hypothesis to be ludicrous time and time again, why keep bringing it up? You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favours.

You also can't compare any flood with a gobal flood. The time that objects are under water, the manner in which they were flooded, the amount of water in which they were submerged, and the manner in which they landed all affect dating methods.

Citation?

a fictitious animal called a "homo-sapiens"

You're not serious!

 

[jwu]

I'll ignore any off topic stuff for now.

You also can't compare any flood with a gobal flood. The time that objects are under water, the manner in which they were flooded, the amount of water in which they were submerged, and the manner in which they landed all affect dating methods.

And how exactly would this affect the dating methods? All you said is that it would affect them - i'm looking for some more specific things.

What exactly would happen to the samples which would put the dating off? Are the isotopes used affected in some way? Which way? Why in that way and not another way? Specifics please!

 

[Heidi]

I'll ignore any off topic stuff for now.

You also can't compare any flood with a gobal flood. The time that objects are under water, the manner in which they were flooded, the amount of water in which they were submerged, and the manner in which they landed all affect dating methods.

And how exactly would this affect the dating methods? All you said is that it would affect them - i'm looking for some more specific things.

What exactly would happen to the samples which would put the dating off? Are the isotopes used affected in some way? Which way? Why in that way and not another way? Specifics please!

Do you know what erosion is? It's when water eats away at objects. A body lying in water for over a month looks totally different than one lying in water for a few days. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

Carbon dating doesn't rely on the appearance of an object, Heidi...

 

[Heidi]

Carbon dating doesn't rely on the appearance of an object, Heidi...

I'm not talking about the appearance of objects! I'm talking about what's left of them! You again need to know what erosion is. In order to deny God, evolutionary scientists have already gone to an absurd degree when finding skulls and bones by making up imaginary creatures instead of making rational conclusions about what happened to those skulls and bones. Now trying to deny what erosion does is making even more irrational statements to support an irrational theory. :crazyeyes:

Carbon is not released from objects under water. The amount of sunlight an object receives is paramount to the amount of carbon that is released. So again, until scientists know how millions of gallons of water affects the carbon on objects submerged for over a month, their calculations are as imaginary as their fictitious beasts are.

 

[Dunzo]

Carbon dating doesn't rely on the appearance of an object, Heidi...

I'm not talking about the appearance of objects! I'm talking about what's left of them! You again need to know what erosion is.

You can assume that everybody here knows what erosion is. It's not the most difficult concept to grasp.

In order to deny God,

The goal of the evolutionary scientist is not to deny God. You're making this up and it really is making you look silly.

evolutionary scientists have already gone to an absurd degree when finding skulls and bones by making up imaginary creatures instead of making rational conclusions about what happened to those skulls and bones.

Since when is a worldwide flood rational? It defies not only logic but also basic physics.

Now trying to deny what erosion does is making even more irrational statements to support an irrational theory. :crazyeyes:

Who's trying to deny what erosion does? Strawman.

Carbon is not released from objects under water. The amount of sunlight an object receives is paramount to the amount of carbon that is released. So again, until scientists know how millions of gallons of water affects the carbon on objects submerged for over a month, their calculations are as imaginary as their fictitious beasts are.

I've never heard that before (although I've not done much research into dating methods). Citation?

 

[Heidi]

Carbon dating doesn't rely on the appearance of an object, Heidi...

I'm not talking about the appearance of objects! I'm talking about what's left of them! You again need to know what erosion is.

You can assume that everybody here knows what erosion is. It's not the most difficult concept to grasp.

In order to deny God,

The goal of the evolutionary scientist is not to deny God. You're making this up and it really is making you look silly.

[quote:13bd7]evolutionary scientists have already gone to an absurd degree when finding skulls and bones by making up imaginary creatures instead of making rational conclusions about what happened to those skulls and bones.

Since when is a worldwide flood rational? It defies not only logic but also basic physics.

Now trying to deny what erosion does is making even more irrational statements to support an irrational theory. :crazyeyes:

Who's trying to deny what erosion does? Strawman.

Carbon is not released from objects under water. The amount of sunlight an object receives is paramount to the amount of carbon that is released. So again, until scientists know how millions of gallons of water affects the carbon on objects submerged for over a month, their calculations are as imaginary as their fictitious beasts are.

I've never heard that before (although I've not done much research into dating methods). Citation?[/quote:13bd7]

How Carbon-14 is Made
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.


For more information on cosmic rays and half-life, as well as the process of radioactive decay, see How Nuclear Radiation Works.

Carbon-14 in Living Things
The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well.

I was not able to download the picture of the sun from which cosmic rays have their source. Carbon 14 dating relies as much on photosynthesis as do the lives of plants, animals and humans. So the absence of rays from the sun greatly affects the amount of carbon inherent in an object and its rate of decay in addition to the affects that absorption of water affects their amount of carbon and rate of decay. That's an elementary principle of carbon 14 dating.

 

[Dunzo]

I found your source myself (http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-141.htm), but didn't see anything regarding water. Surely if it's such an elementary principle it would've been included?

 

[John]

Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.

1. Variable C14/C12 ratio invalidates C14 dating.
2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C14 dates.
3. Living snails were C14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
4. A freshly killed seal was C14 dated at 1300 years old.
5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33K years old.
6. Ancient coal and oil are C14 dated as only 50,000 years old.

source http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Index ... D:_Geology

 

[Heidi]

I found your source myself (http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-141.htm), but didn't see anything regarding water. Surely if it's such an elementary principle it would've been included?

Again, since scientists throw out the Flood, then no, they're not going to mention water because they exclude that possibility. Any elementary school student understands that living objects have to be exposed to sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. :roll:

 

[Jayls5]

I've come to the conclusion that Heidi has to be a parody of a creationists, has to be.


There is no way someone could produce such an incoherent rambling of arguments while having such accurate grammar and sentence structure. That, and magically, her ability to write accurately is accompanied by the inability to understand what other people write only when it refutes her hilariously terrible arguments.

She has to be a troll to make fun of creationists. If not... then wow. lol

 

[Heidi]

I've come to the conclusion that Heidi has to be a parody of a creationists, has to be.


There is no way someone could produce such an incoherent rambling of arguments while having such accurate grammar and sentence structure. That, and magically, her ability to write accurately is accompanied by the inability to understand what other people write only when it refutes her hilariously terrible arguments.

She has to be a troll to make fun of creationists. If not... then wow. lol

Again, that no more disproves my posts than any name-calling does. All it shows is the desperation that results from an inability to defend one's position. So sorry, but name-calling thus returns to the one who initiated it since it doesn't change the truth any more than it can take the contradictions of evolutionary scientists away. But since non-creationists can't prove their theories then I can see why all they have left is to resort to name-calling. That alone defeats their own arguments. ;-)

 

[jwu]

So the absence of rays from the sun greatly affects the amount of carbon inherent in an object and its rate of decay in addition to the affects that absorption of water affects their amount of carbon and rate of decay. That's an elementary principle of carbon 14 dating.

It takes a very long absence of cosmic rays (which don't come from the sun, btw) to have a significant impact on the ratio of C12/C14; the effect of a few years would be negligible.

Moreover, we're talking about things which supposedly already were dead and buried by the time when this event occured, so any such change in ratio of C12/C14 of the atmosphere wouldn't affect them at all.

These are off topic but i'll adress them anyway, as the cases 3 to 6 are a perfect example of outright lies and deception on part of some creationists.

1. Variable C14/C12 ratio invalidates C14 dating.
2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C14 dates.

Specifics please?

So the interesting ones:

3. Living snails were C14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
4. A freshly killed seal was C14 dated at 1300 years old.

Did the authors of the creationwiki page also tell you that C14 is ineligible to be used on creatures which obtain their carbon from a marine source? It can only be used on those which get their carbon from the atmosphere. Presenting a clear misapplication and known limitation of the technique as a failure of the method is outright deception.

5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33K years old.
6. Ancient coal and oil are C14 dated as only 50,000 years old.

These are nice as well. What reading do you get from C14 free samples, depending on the accuracy of the measurements? Exactly these! If the instrument can only detect C14 until after six or seven half lives have passed, then you get that 33k reading. It actually means "at least 33k years", not "exactly 33k years".

it's the exact same with the 50k reading - just a slightly better instrument which could have dated things up to 50k years. A reading of 50k means "at least 50k" there.

So again, presenting the typical reading for "the object is too old to be dated with this method" as a failure of the method is an outright lie. I'm not saying that you are lying, but that you were lied to and you swallowed these lies.

 

[Heidi]

So the absence of rays from the sun greatly affects the amount of carbon inherent in an object and its rate of decay in addition to the affects that absorption of water affects their amount of carbon and rate of decay. That's an elementary principle of carbon 14 dating.

It takes a very long absence of cosmic rays (which don't come from the sun, btw) to have a significant impact on the ratio of C12/C14; the effect of a few years would be negligible.

Moreover, we're talking about things which supposedly already were dead and buried by the time when this event occured, so any such change in ratio of C12/C14 of the atmosphere wouldn't affect them at all.

These are off topic but i'll adress them anyway, as the cases 3 to 6 are a perfect example of outright lies and deception on part of some creationists.
[quote:199a5]1. Variable C14/C12 ratio invalidates C14 dating.
2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C14 dates.

Specifics please?

So the interesting ones:

3. Living snails were C14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
4. A freshly killed seal was C14 dated at 1300 years old.

Did the authors of the creationwiki page also tell you that C14 is ineligible to be used on creatures which obtain their carbon from a marine source? It can only be used on those which get their carbon from the atmosphere. Presenting a clear misapplication and known limitation of the technique as a failure of the method is outright deception.

5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33K years old.
6. Ancient coal and oil are C14 dated as only 50,000 years old.

These are nice as well. What reading do you get from C14 free samples, depending on the accuracy of the measurements? Exactly these! If the instrument can only detect C14 until after six or seven half lives have passed, then you get that 33k reading. It actually means "at least 33k years", not "exactly 33k years".

it's the exact same with the 50k reading - just a slightly better instrument which could have dated things up to 50k years. A reading of 50k means "at least 50k" there.

So again, presenting the typical reading for "the object is too old to be dated with this method" as a failure of the method is an outright lie. I'm not saying that you are lying, but that you were lied to and you swallowed these lies.[/quote:199a5]

Sorry, but at the website where I got my info, there was a picture of the sun from which the cosmic rays were descending to the objects from which carbon is eventually extracted. So it appears that there is even disagreement in the "scientific" world about where cosmic rays come from. : Poor scientists, in their eagerness to deny God, their imaginations are working overtime. :roll: I wonder how they resolve their disputes. What do you think? :o

 

[Dunzo]

Howstuffworks.com isn't exactly the pinnacle of the scientific community, Heidi. There is no disagreement that I can see, your source was just dumbed down for the layman.

 

[Jayls5]

Sorry, but at the website where I got my info, there was a picture of the sun from which the cosmic rays were descending to the objects from which carbon is eventually extracted. So it appears that there is even disagreement in the "scientific" world about where cosmic rays come from. : Poor scientists, in their eagerness to deny God, their imaginations are working overtime. :roll: I wonder how they resolve their disputes. What do you think? :o

Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah.

Science is wrong even though I reap the rewards of it blah blah blah

Fairy tale.

Blah blah.

Believe in God.

The mantra of Heidi.