HI Uncle: I will do my best to answer your questions:
"So are you saying that we dont know how much C14 we started with in a piece of coal but we do know how much we started with in a human bone?"
Coal is an amalgamation of substances, such as vegatable decay, etc. that took millions of years to form. It is not like a more recent bone specimen that still has much of its original form intact. Coal can, as anything else, be contaminated with C-14 from other factors not related to its age. It is more difficult to say how much C-14 was present when a piece of coal began to form.
Your site quotation: "Problem: Dating methods (currently Carbon-14) are cited as definitely proving that man has been on the earth for at least 30,000 years. This age for man conflicts with Biblical chronology which dates the beginning of man's existence on the earth about six thousand years ago."
The Bible is not a book of science, and exhibits several problems when people attempt to place scientific interpretation on its texts. It is at best a history of the Jews and early Christians. I would not consider using the Bible to determine the age of the human species.
The site continued, "Solution: In order to critically appraise the claim that C-14 "definitely proves" the age of man to be at least 30,000 years, a description of C-14 dating is required:"
Okay so far.
Continued, "The C-14 method of dating is used to determine the age of vegetables and animal remains. The procedure rests on the fact that cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere leads to the formation of a radioactive isotope of carbon with an atomic weight of fourteen, instead of the normal weight of twelve (C-14 instead of the normal C-12). Atmospheric carbon contains a small amount of radio-active C-14 which decays at a fixed known rate, but is continuously replaced by the formation of more C-14. The rate of breakdown is calculated in terms of the "half-life" which for carbon is 5,568 (plus or minus 30) years. After this amount of time, only half the original amount of C-14 will be left; after about 11,400 years, a quarter. Plants, by means of photosynthesis, and animals, by respiration and feeding on plants and one another, incorporate atmospheric carbon into their tissues, a process that is assumed to cease when the tissues die. As the C-14 disintegrates in the dead tissues and is not replaced, the ratio of non-radioactive carbon-12 to C-14 will slowly change, and its value at any time will depend on the time that has elapsed since the tissues died. Thus the age of the tissues can in principle be determined by comparing the ratio of non-radioactive carbon to C-14 in the tissue and in the atmosphere.1"
Okay so far.
Continued: "The C-14 dating method is only reliable if the general assumption of the uniformity of nature2 is valid. Uniformity of nature is the belief that present causes solely have operated in the past. Within this general assumption are two particular assumptions:
That fossilized creatures when living had as much C-14 as similar things have today.3 That the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant (i.e., that the rate of decay has not changed in the interval from when the creatures lived to the present day)."
Yikes! Here is where thier credibility starts to sink. The initial assumptions are okay to a point, but reflects weakness. No one I know of preseumes that nature has always operated the same for hundreds of thousands to millions and billions of years. Much has changed and evolved. Species come and go, and planetary conditions change as well. But, the last part of their claim gives them away.
radioactive isotopes are inherantly unstable and hence they decay and transmute to other elements, and eventually become stable atoms of non-radioactive elements. C-12 is a stable element that does not decay. Human bodies maintain a nearly constant ratio of C-12 to C-14. Extra C-14 taken in passes out through bowel movement, hair, skin, and nail shedding, etc. C-14 is always decaying.
The reason that we maintain a constant ratio is that we replace C-14 by ingestion through food and air. When a human dies, C-14 is not longer replaced, and the level of C-14 start to decline because it can only do one thing, decay. C-14 decays at a known and constant rate. The claim that C-14 may not always have decayed at the same rate is wrong. If a radioactive element changes its decay rate, it must have then become another element. C-14 does not go through the same transmutations as say, Uranium and other isotopes.
Continued, "There are a number of technical problems involved in C-14 dating: It requires relatively small effects to change the level of C-14. For example the burning of coal and oil which contain virtually no C-14 has, during the past century, lowered the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere by an amount equivalent to 400 years. The explosion of hydrogen bombs between 1955 and 1961 increased the amount of C-14 by an amount equivalent to 1500 years."
But, the human body passes C-14 and maintains over time a relatively stable ratio between C-14 and C-12. So what if the atmosphere has fluctuations in C-14. Also, the impact of -400 years and +1500 years results in a net change of +1100 years, meaning, that objects will appear younger than they are if the levels of C-14 ingested have changed ratios to C-12. That is, more C-14 in the Atmosphere mean that living organisms ingest more and over time the ratio of C-14 increases to C-12. So, a human specimen that was measured at 50,000 years is now actually 51,100 years old (50,000 + 1,100 years). What is gained in their logic? This still refutes the claim by Bible Thumpers that the first humans appeared only 6,027 years ago!
Continued, "The fossils are often contaminated by carbon from their surroundings - carbonates, humic acid, etc. Materials recovered from wet earth inevitably have been invaded by water containing carbonates, humic acid and even pitch. All these must be extracted from the sample with acid, alkali and organic solvents, and even after this some degree of contamination is possible."
C-14 Contamination of human bones means that more C-14 will be present. So, a human dated at 50,000 years may be older IF the contamination can be identified and removed. So what!
Continued, "Chemical and/or biological changes may have been going on in the fossil over the centuries changing its composition. The amount of C-14 in a fossil (for example, 6,000 years old) is a very small part of the total carbon, and contamination can have a big effect."
I am not sure what biological changes are going on in ancient dead bone fragments and fossils, but let's address this anyway. Okay, lets say that a fossil have lost 99% of its C-14, such that it is about 60,000 years old. But, some time before living humans discover the fossil, a bag full of C-14 comes rolling down the hill and lands right on the fossil. (Keep in mind that fossils are usually not exposed to contamination as they are often buried in rock etc., but we will let that slide.) And now enter humans who start measuring C-14 and date the fossil at 30,000 years. Keep this majopr point in mind, C-14 contamination ALWAYS results in dating a specimen at more recent ages. Removal of contamination ALWAYS results in causing the specimen to date at older ages.
The BIG question no one seems to ask is: Can any function of nature cause a premature reduction of C-14 in a dead specimen? This would necessitate either an increased decay rate of C-14 which is not going to happen. Or, it means that some phenomenon of nature goes into bone remains and targets C-14 and somehow removes C-14. I know of no scientific basis for this happening, or scientist who is going to make such allegations.
Continued, "It is instructive to notice that ever since the radioactive methods of dating were introduced, almost 50 years ago, their supporters have manifested great confidence in them. Yet most of the ages determined by the uranium methods prior to 1940 and by the C-14 method prior to 1960 have been discarded because it was concluded that the methods then in use were unsatisfactory."
Well, shucks Sherlock, everyone familiar with C-14 knows about the recalibration adjustments needed prior to 1960 to account for increased atmospheric C-14. I acknowledged this in prior posts, but I also stated that the differential is not significant. For scientists, the difference is important for accuracy, but we are talking a 1500 year difference in calibration against specimens dated at 30,000, or 40,000, or 50,000 years! for God's sake. That is about a 3% to 5% error rate, hardly worth mentioning when the religious claims that humans lived only 6,027 years ago.
Continued, "Even if it be shown that there is a high degree of correlation between independent dating methods this does not in itself prove the age of man on the earth."
Whoa! Stop the presses a minute! Think about what they just said above and see if you can tell if they are reaching on this one. Of course we cannot PROVE the age of humans as to a specific date, such as January 1, 50,009 BC. C-14 DOES provide an accurate determination of how old a SPECIFIC human fragment is. And the FACT that this fragment is dated between say, 40,000 and 50,000 years to account for errors in contamination, etc. still far exceeds the 6,027 date that religious people place on humans. Also, when cross verification does show that a specimen of a human fragment is about the age of 50,000 years, this does show a high degree of confidence that the dating is accurate. BUT. there is never any intention by scientists to say that PROVES how old the human race is! Evolution is going cause some level of uncertainity in exactly when Homo Sapiens arrived. What is ACCURATE though, is the specific specimen being dated. And that does PROVE that a specific human DID live long before fundamentalists say.
Continued, "The appearance of age may be due to the following factors: God's creation was in equilibrium, hence the appearance of age.4"
Now we are staring to use plausibilities and talk about God's magic hand. When we move from science to magic, then all bets are off and we can justify anything without evidence. Okay, so now God magically makes everything appear to be hundreds of thousands to millions and billions of years older than they really are so he can have this all-important equalibrium, and fool scientists in the 21st Century. WOW!
Continued, "Conditions have not been uniform on the earth. The record in Genesis 1:6 states that on the second day the waters were divided into two parts, water below the heaven and water above the heaven. The accumulation of water "above the heaven" would form an outer band round the atmosphere. But this does not exist today, therefore it cannot be assumed that the cosmic ray intensity has been constant. Nor can it be assumed that there has been a stable equilibrium condition between atmospheric 14CO2 (Carbon-14 dioxide) and the reservoirs, primarily the oceans."
OH GOD!!! Now the Bible is brought in as the science authority to bolster an already weak argument. I did a Flood Series on H20 sometime back, and even in my clumsy way was able to use basic math and engineering to show that the Flood was not global and could not have happened, unless of course God's magic hand messed everything up. And others with more expertise in geology and earth science have done a far better job than I at refuting the global flood claims by religious people today.
Continued, "Genesis 7:12; 8:2 state that in the great Noahic flood the heavens were opened for 40 days and presumably the above-the-heaven water returned to the earth. (Vast quantities of water are now stored as ice in the frozen polar regions.)"
I won't get into this as I did before. But, even if we melted all the ice on earth, this would not significantly elevate the water levels on earth. The polar cap at the north pole, if melted, would have little effect because it is a displacement issue. The South pole cap and mountains throughout the world would add to water levels, but there is just not enough water for there to have been a global flood.
Continued. "The blanket of water vapour around the earth prior to the flood would be expected to reduce the ionising power of the sun's rays and the amount of C-14 in living things would be less than now.5"
The flood did not happen, get used to it. And what of the reduction in C-14 if indeed there were a water canopy? There are other methods that can be used to date human remains besides C-14. But, let's say that such a canopy existed, it did not last long acording to fundamentalists because God created the earth and all living things in 6 days. So, let them factor that minute change into their wild theory.
Continued, "If C-14 in living things was less than it is now, then the geologists' assumption of the uniformity of nature and hence the age postulated for fossils on the basis of these dating methods will be erroneous - the original amount of C-14 being smaller than they calculate.6"
Okay, let's reduce the effects of the water canopy for 6 days since creation until Adam, and then since Adam until Noah. What effect would this have? I doubt that it would make much difference. But, this is all ridiculus because this fantasy about the Flood is not worth factoring into science. We may as well try to factor in the effects of the Roman God Jupiter and his mucking around with the human race.
Continued, "The rate of decay of C-14 may also have been different under conditions before the Noahic flood."
Wrong! and this goes to show the pure mental gymnastics fundamentalists will go through to try and grasp at straws. C-14 decays at a given and precise rate. Notice they say 'may have been different' because they have no facts or evidence to show otherwise, or they would use them.
Continued, "This assumption was noted at a conference of radiocarbon experts: "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions . . . one of the main assumptions of C-14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies." Science Digest, (Dec. 10, 1965), p. 1490. Return"
IN geological terms, 50,000 years is very short and the levels of C-14 would not be significantly different 50,000 years ago from what they are today. The above quote is correct, but its use is misleading because the inplication is that C-14 levels is making major fluctuations during and since humans appeared on earth. If you talk to the scientists who attended that above mentioned conference, they are talking about C-14 changes over much longer periods, and the degree of accuracy affecting C-14 dating today. But, the margins of error, even if we are most conservative, would still yield results of humans being far older than a mere 6,027 years that the WTS and other fundys claim. AND that is the point.,
Continued, "The record in Genesis presents Adam as a fully developed man when newly made. Similarly the birds, animals and plants were created full grown. This implies that the soil in which the plants were to grow was already formed. Similarly the ocean would contain the salt and other chemicals to support its marine life. In other words, there must have been an equilibrium among the innumerable and complex interrelationships between the plant and animal kingdoms, the organic and inorganic realms. This can only mean that the world when created had the appearance of age. Obviously the apparent age of the world would not be the same as the real or actual age of the world."
Again, God's magic hand used to bolster a scientific debate.
Continued, "Science Digest of Dec. 1960 reported that if the C-14 level in the atmosphere has not remained steady, " . . . it would most certainly ruin some of our carefully developed methods of dating things from the past . . . If the level of C-14 was less in the past, due to a greater magnetic shielding from cosmic rays, then our estimates of the time that has elapsed since the life of the organism will be too long." p. 19."
IN scientific terms a change of 10% or 20% is serious. But, if for example, a specimen dated at 50,000 years was really 40,000 years because of reduced C-14 in an earlier age, then this is a 20% change. But in terms of a 6,027 years of human existence that fundies like to claim, this serious "error" according to science make no difference. This quote is used by fundies in a misleadsing way because they do not truthfully examine the real meaning of what the Journal's writer implies.
It is all Simply Amazing
