[_ Old Earth _] Raidocarbon gives the wrong dates.

[John]

Sun energy particle --> hits nitrogen nucleus ---> neutrons are released which react with N-14 to form C14.

C-14 + O = C14,O2.

Plants take in the C14,O2 animals eat the plants which in turn equals a uniform dispersion of radioactive carbon throughout the biosphere results.

The current ratio of Radioactive C14 to normal C12 is 1 atom of C14 to per trillion atoms of C12

When the organism dies the radioactive carbon decays and the ratio of C14 to C12 decreases with a half life of 5730 years. so if something with a C14 to C12 ratio of 1:2 trillion instead of the ration of 1:1 trillion, it is assumed to be 5730 years old.

A ratio of 1:4 trillion would be interpreted as 11,460 years old, 1:8 trillion would be 17,190 years old etc.

Highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer methods have improved the ability to measure the amount of C14 so that 0.001% of modern amounts can be measured.

If the C14 generation level was always constant, this would correspond to an organism about 100,000 years old. The decay rate of C14 is such that after 250,000 years, starting with modern concentrations, every molecule of C14 should be gone.

Over the last 20 years, samples from every carbon containing substance (up too 300 *million* years old) has been shown to contain measurable levels of C14, averaging 0.3% modern of C14 levels. This is 300 times above the detection limit and has never been explained as contamination.

The presence of this radiocarbon is strong evidance for a recent worldwide flood.

The level of C14 is significantly lower than expected for creatures alive 5000 years ago because because of the much greater amount of vegetation alive on the planet before the flood.

This resulted in much less C14 in all organisms.

During this flood enormous quantities of plants and animals were buried and massive amounts of carbon dioxide precipitated out of the oceans as calcium carbonate.

The assumption that there has always been the same amount of vegetation on earth leads to the belief in a uniform C14 to C12 ratio. This is simply a wrong assumption that causes vastly overstated ages when dating those organisms which were alive before or immediately following the flood.


The real challenge to evolution believers is to explain why there is ANY radiocarbon left in coal, wood,gas, bones, and shells which are supposedly millions or years old. absolutely no C14 should remain...yet it does.

 

[Jayls5]

Before anyone even begins to address this, source please.

 

[Deep Thought]

Oh, I thought John had written this all by himself. :

 

[Snidey]

Oh, I thought John had written this all by himself. :

It would be sad to have to actually do research to produce such drivel.

 

[Barbarian]

Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos. (In comparison, my little hormone vials, here in my above-ground lab, have a background count of about 25 counts per minute for 3.5 milliliters.)

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Another one in the dumpster.

 

[John]

Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive...... blah blah

Denial.

The observable undeniable fact is that radiocarbon dating is worthless for anything out side the garbage.

 

[John]

Before anyone even begins to address this, source please.

I'll give you a hint,
its big and it rests on my shoulders.
its not my neck
it starts with h (but its not hair)
it contains an IQ of 140
I've been told its handsome looking

Give up?

 

[Jayls5]

Before anyone even begins to address this, source please.

I'll give you a hint,
its big and it rests on my shoulders.
its not my neck
it starts with h (but its not hair)
it contains an IQ of 140
I've been told its handsome looking

Give up?

For example, you write, "Over the last 20 years, samples from every carbon containing substance (up too 300 *million* years old) has been shown to contain measurable levels of C14, averaging 0.3% modern of C14 levels. This is 300 times above the detection limit and has never been explained as contamination."

Sorry. You weren't born with an innate knowledge about this stuff. You can give a source now for all of the claims of significant data.

 

[Snidey]

Before anyone even begins to address this, source please.

I'll give you a hint,
its big and it rests on my shoulders.
its not my neck
it starts with h (but its not hair)
it contains an IQ of 140
I've been told its handsome looking

Give up?

I actually loled at this post, but probably not for the intended reason. Some of those claims clearly need citation. Also, nice thinly veiled IQ brag. Mine's higher though, thus everything I think is superior to everything you think. CHECK MATE.

 

[Jayls5]

Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive...... blah blah

Denial.

The observable undeniable fact is that radiocarbon dating is worthless for anything out side the garbage.

The opinion of an expert is more credible than... wait... what are your credentials again?

 

[John]

Before anyone even begins to address this, source please.

I'll give you a hint,
its big and it rests on my shoulders.
its not my neck
it starts with h (but its not hair)
it contains an IQ of 140
I've been told its handsome looking

Give up?

I actually loled at this post, but probably not for the intended reason. Some of those claims clearly need citation. Also, nice thinly veiled IQ brag. Mine's higher though, thus everything I think is superior to everything you think. CHECK MATE.

I killed a king with a pawn before. :

 

[John]

For example, you write, "Over the last 20 years, samples from every carbon containing substance (up too 300 *million* years old) has been shown to contain measurable levels of C14, averaging 0.3% modern of C14 levels. This is 300 times above the detection limit and has never been explained as contamination."

Sorry. You weren't born with an innate knowledge about this stuff. You can give a source now for all of the claims of significant data.

Source lost, this is stuff i just remember.

 

[John]

Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive...... blah blah

Denial.

The observable undeniable fact is that radiocarbon dating is worthless for anything out side the garbage.

The opinion of an expert is more credible than... wait... what are your credentials again?

Why do you always target my "credentials" rather then the argument at hand. :smt011

 

[Jayls5]

Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive...... blah blah

Denial.

The observable undeniable fact is that radiocarbon dating is worthless for anything out side the garbage.

The opinion of an expert is more credible than... wait... what are your credentials again?

Why do you always target my "credentials" rather then the argument at hand. :smt011

Well, you haven't cited a source, so why wouldn't I want to find out if you were credible on this subject? :-?

 

[John]

Well to be honest this is just stuff I've gathered over the times, i could Google hunt it but i don't feel its a good use of my time. the facts are there buddy.

 

[Barbarian]

In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series.Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below)

Yep. Not surprisingly, we find measurable amounts of C-14 in fossil deposits only where there are radioactive elements capable of producing it. Rather compelling evidence. What have you to counter it?

blah blah

Denial.

The usual, um?

The observable undeniable fact is that radiocarbon dating is worthless for anything out side the garbage.

Let's take a look...
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html#figpe5
Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (less than 45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laiminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan). Ä with 1-p bars = Lake Suigetsu, Ä, ~ and O correspond to U-series based 14C calibration on corals."

How about that? They lied to you, again. Does it make you angry? Angry enough to think for yourself?

 

[John]

Yep. Not surprisingly, we find measurable amounts of C-14 in fossil deposits only where there are radioactive elements capable of producing it. Rather compelling evidence. What have you to counter it?

Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels

Nope it fits best with my original post. your just trying to scapegoat it as usual

The usual, um?

Yeah your good at it.

lets's take a look...
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html#figpe5
Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (less than 45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laiminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan). Ä with 1-p bars = Lake Suigetsu, Ä, ~ and O correspond to U-series based 14C calibration on corals."

How about that? They lied to you, again. Does it make you angry? Angry enough to think for yourself?

if i could understand that babble.

 

[Bryce]

How about a few examples of radio-carbon dating being correct?

I've seen many examples of it being in-correct, not even past the 40,000 [30k?] year limit
They carbon dated a seal that was dead for 30 years, when the carbon dated the seal it showed to be 4,600 years old. They even did a freshly killed seal that showed to of died 1,300 years ago, same goes for penguins and mollusks.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

 

[Jayls5]

Well to be honest this is just stuff I've gathered over the times, i could Google hunt it but i don't feel its a good use of my time. the facts are there buddy.

Ok, so you won't tell us your credentials on this subject, nor will you cite your source. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[John]

Well to be honest this is just stuff I've gathered over the times, i could Google hunt it but i don't feel its a good use of my time. the facts are there buddy.

Ok, so you won't tell us your credentials on this subject, nor will you cite your source. Thanks for clearing that up.

so debate the OP.