Carbon Dating

by Wolfgirl 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    response to cellmould,

    Sorry about the delay,

    Cellmould said:

    "You are trying to open a can of worms...If the C14/C12 ratio were many orders of magnitude (factors of 10) smaller in the past, what made it increase? What we do know is that this ratio has been relatively stable...we know that it has not experienced sudden increases because we measure samples in different strata and see a linear (not exponential) continuum of ratios. "

    Answer:

    If the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was much less in the past it would cause all current Carbon 14 "dates" to show an age way older than the actual age. C14 is produced by the action of cosmic rays on atmospheric nitrogen. If, as the Bible seems to imply there was much more water vapor in the atmosphere in the past before the flood, this would have a shielding effect, and would cause much less carbon 14 production in the past. After the flood C14 production would increase.

    Cellmould said:

    "I repeat Crazy's question: Do you believe the earth to be only 6,000 years old?"

    Answer: I do not know the age of the Earth, as there is no way to directly and positively date the Earth (measuring current isotope ratios only proves current isotpe ratios!, it doesn't prove dates) I do believe the bible chronology which shows that the majority of strata was laid down by the flood, 4500 to 10,000 years ago. I believe that the sedimentry rock layers from the cambrian and up were laid down during and after the biblical flood. I believe that the layers were formed rapidy during "flood stages" and not slowly over long "geologic ages"

    cellmould said:

    "It is a safe assumption to say that the C14/C12 atmospheric ratio has been relatively constant over the years."

    Answer: Its only a safe assumption only if you first disregard the biblical account of the Earths condition before and after the flood. Also I have read some results which show Carbon 14 production is increasing relative to C12. This gives a relatively young date for the start of C14 production.

    Cellmould said:

    "Let's say that there was a flood about 4,000 to 8,000 years ago. Almost all life on earth was destroyed (Although we do know better than to believe that). Would this event have caused the isotope ratio to plummet, making animals that died 3,000 years ago appear to be millions of years old? "

    Answer:

    If almost all life on earth was destroyed in a flood 4,000 to 8,000 years ago, we woulld expect to find billions of fossils layed down in many layers of sediment all over the earth . . . oops that is exactly what we find! Would this have caused the isotope ratio to plummet? No this in itself would not cause the isotope ratio to plummet . . . but the amount of C14 in these dead remains could be very small due to less C14 in the past, as well as potentially an even greater factor which would be the increase amount of C12 in the pre-flood atmosphere due to the sub-tropical climate of the pre-flood earth. You use the phrase "millions of years" in relation to carbon dating?????? C14 dating in theory is only good to date events in the resent past (max 100k years). therefore it is impossible for C14 dating to even give hypothetical dates in the "millions of years"

    Cellmould said

    "Just think about that. It doesn't make sense at all. With the loss of vegetation and animal mass on earth, carbon 14 production would have slowed down considerably, but...here is the clincher...C14 decays VERY SLOWLY. If you do the math, you will see that while Carbon 14 production might decrease, but it does not instantly disappear from the atmosphere. It would still take millions of years of decreased production for it to decay to such small levels.

    Carbon 14 is produced by the action of cosmic rays on atmospheric nitrogen, vegetation and animals do not produce C14. Once again C14 dating cannot even give "dates" in the "millions" of years.

    Cellmould said:

    "Geological events would also not be responsible for shifting isotope ratios. The difference in mass between C14 and C12 is so tiny that the two are chemically equivalent. (In terms of reactivity) If anything, geological events could only homogenize isotope ratios, by causing a mixture of matter with different isotope ratios. But in no way could a geological event cause isotope ratios to be shifted.

    Answer: Atmospheric changes could cause ratios to change if the rate of production of C14 changes. Also a geologic event on the scale of the biblical flood would change the amount of C12 produced by life.

    Cellmould said:

    "The major point is this...atmospheric C14/C12 ratios are very stable right now. Had there been any major perturbation in recent history, we would not be any where near equilibrium right now. At the very least, we would be seeing the levels oscillate significantly.

    Answer: Some studies show an increasing rate of C14 relative to C12.

    Cellmould said:

    "It doesn't require faith to believe that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. You can simply read a book or two and become intellectually convinced of the soundness of that conclusion."

    It does require faith to believe that the dinosaurs lived "millions" of years ago since there is no way to directly "date" dinosaur bones. On the contrary most dinosaur bones still have a large amont of bone left. If they were "millions" of years old shouldn't they be completely fossilized? Also blood cells have been found in these "millions of years old" bones. And while we are on the subject of C14 "dating" -if these bones are really millions of years old there should be no detectible C14 in the bones at all . . . but there is C14 there , and in quantities that give dates in the "thousands of years" range like what you would expect from a biblical chronology! Toward the turn of the century you could simply have read a book or two and have became "intellectually" convinced of the soundness that the earth was 100,000 years old. The same intellectual books "proved" that the earth was 2 billion years ago in the 1950's. Today the books show 4.6 billion years, but stay tuned......

    Cellmould said:

    "I know from experience that the only thing of which the Bible convices you is the need to have faith. That doesn't cut it for me. "

    Answer: it takes faith to believe in the Bible, but it also takes a lot of faith to believe that we came from reptiles millions of years ago.

  • rem
    rem

    Hooberus,

    If almost all life on earth was destroyed in a flood 4,000 to 8,000 years ago, we woulld expect to find billions of fossils layed down in many layers of sediment all over the earth . . . oops that is exactly what we find!

    Unfortunately this is where your argument falls flat on it's face. The amount and diversity of fossils in the earth is much greater than the amount of animal life the Earth could ever have supported at one time or in a relatively short amount of time. If there were a catastrophic event such as the 'Flood' a few thousand years ago, then all of the fossils would look the same age, whether they be dated by Carbon dating techniques or Potassium Argone techniques. In reality, the fossils register at different ages, and these ages fit quite nicely with the strata the fossil if found in. (Deeper fossils show greater age). Also, you would have to deal with fossil distribution problems... there is no fossil evidence that 99.999% of all animal life was destroyed a few thousand years ago and repopulated from the Middle East. Animals (and humans) have been living continuously in Australia for thousands and thousands of years without any interruption. There is no evidence of immigration of new species a few thousand years ago after an extinction event. None.

    You also don't seem to realize that Carbon dating is calibrated with other, idependent dating methods, such as tree ring (dendrochronolgy) and Ice Core dating. The Ice Core dating is interesting because ancient air bubbles are actually trapped within the ice, giving us a snapshot of the chemical composition of the atmosphere at the time. These Ice Core strata are further independently calibrated by known ancient volcano eruptions that left chemical signatures in the atmosphere at the time.

    Thus your argument:

    Atmospheric changes could cause ratios to change if the rate of production of C14 changes. Also a geologic event on the scale of the biblical flood would change the amount of C12 produced by life.

    is invalid. We know exactly what the atmosphere was like thousands of years ago.

    Also blood cells have been found in these "millions of years old" bones. And while we are on the subject of C14 "dating" -if these bones are really millions of years old there should be no detectible C14 in the bones at all . . . but there is C14 there , and in quantities that give dates in the "thousands of years" range like what you would expect from a biblical chronology!

    Interesting... I was not aware of any detectable C14 in dinosaur bones (other than contamination). Could you provide more information please? I'm also interested in the dinosaur blood.

    Thanks,

    rem

  • Introspection
    Introspection

    Damn, here I thought it's a thread on how to meet other singles who are carbon based life forms...

  • cellomould
    cellomould

    Rem,

    thanks for following up...I thought for some reason no one had replied to this thread.

    The easiest 'flood' argument to unravel is the 'water canopy' argument. To sustain a significant amount more of water vapor, our atmosphere would need to have been under considerable pressure. This can also be demonstrated by calculating the potential energy (or weight) of a thick cloud of water vapor, of the height estimated by flood proponents.

    Evidence is non-existent that the atmospheric pressure on earth was several times higher in the past. Neither does it make any sense. By the way, water vapor is quite dense. It likes to occupy the lower atmosphere. Clouds are caused because as water vapor rises and cools, it condenses. Even under increased pressure (which still doesn't make any sense), other gases would be lighter and thus occupy the upper atmosphere.

    And as for my C14 argument...I didn't mean to say that animals 'produced' C14. Neither, of course, do they 'produce' C12. At least, not in that they add it to the atmosphere. That was a mistake on my part. Wrong terminology...but I think the point is still quite valid.

    Animals and vegetation (as well as other organisms) are responsible for absorbing whatever carbon is in the atmosphere and distributing it throughout over the earth's surface...it later becomes sediment. Without life, precious little C14 is deposited.

    cellmould

    Edited by - cellomould on 30 September 2002 14:2:48

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Rem,

    Sorry about the delay, i have been busy. I will post before weeks end the Dinosaur blood information, as well as a response to the "too many fossils" argument.

  • rem
    rem

    I don't expect a reply.

    rem

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Sorry, about the delay, my appologies I will post shortly.

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Hooberus indicated the following to Crazy151Drinker:

    The "solid rock" that contains the remains of the dinosaurs was once muddy sediment (hense the phrase "sedimentary rock"). The Biblical flood explains these masses of sediment. Not all geologists believe that the rock layers are billions of years old. A good easy to understand reference is a book called "The Young Earth" by John Morris Ph.d Geology avalable from The Institute for Creation Research.

    Interesting. I might almost buy it except for a few minor details.

    Sedimentary rock can be created from cobbles, sand, silt and clay textured materials as well as CaCO3.

    Shale is formed from clay. Clay particles (which are the smallest textured particles) are deposited in a very random order - kinda like a house of cards. They are not deposited "flat" with one on top of the other. Through the process of flocculation, clay textured grains "flatten" to one tenth their original deposition height (Go to New Orleans and they will tell you all about how their city is sinking). Under diagenesis processes (extreme heat and temperatures with great depth) the flattened clay particles will turn into shale bedrock. In order to have clay deposited, you need calm or slow moving waters such as what we would classify as old rivers (ie. the mouth are of the Mississippi is a classic example). There is no way a huge flood with rapid currents created in a short 40 day period and quick dry up would allow for clay particles to settle and then suddenly form shale.

    Interestingly clay deposits in lakes (lacustrine) form what we call varves. The summer and winter varve are very distinct. There are areas of Ontario that have lacustrine clay. Geoscientists have counted the vavrves in the lacustrine clay back to well past 10,000 years ago. Its much the same as counting rings on a tree to determine its age.

    Faster flowing water will not allow clay to deposit but will allow sand up to cobble/stone size textured particles to deposit. Thus, in the mountain areas with faster flowing (younger) rivers, you will observe cobbles, stones and sand deposited in places that are dependant on the speed of the river's water. Under diagenesis processes, tremendous heat and pressure is placed on the sediment which is located under some depth of material. This allows for a "cementing" agent to be created. Usually a liquid silica material or liquid calcium material is the cement. The cementing fluid moves through all the pore spaces between the sands, cobbles and/or stones particles and then solidifies. The end result is a sandstone, or a conglomerate type of bedrock. If one actually looks closely at a sandstone bedrock one can actually observe the ripples that one would see in a river bed or in the ocean.

    Now limestone bedrock is a little different. Limestone consists of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3). What on earth creates this? The majority of the time - reefs do. Reefs as you might know usually form in warm waters close too land. A reef is made of calcium carbonate and biological plants, fish and other animals becoming fossilized in the reef. Carbon Dioxide, water, a little energy from the sun and a few other ingredients generates the reef. You need very clean water (ie no sediment depositions) in order for a reef to grow and survive. You don't need fluid or wind generated deposits for the reef to form nor a "great flood" as some here are trying to tell you. Under diagensis processes the reefs become limestone bedrock. If a lot magnesium is in the rock instead of calcium, we call the rock dolostone. Limestone is one of the major building blocks in the world as it is a main resource to create cement for buildings and roads. There is also one place that I am aware of that is deep in the Ocean where CaCO3 is forming that is not a reef location.

    Old mammals, dinosaurs, reptiles, fish, amphibians plants etc. are found in all types of sedimentary bedrock types.

    Now after sedimentary rocks form they may undergo more extreme heat and temperature with depth and other processes. Under this process (metamophism), these minerals will begin to separate out in the bedrock or create new ones within the rocks and change its form. For example, limestone becomes marble with extreme heat and temperature. Shale becomes slate and sandstones can become gneiss (bands of minerals in rock). Conglomerates will become "metaconglomerates". Metaconglomerates are my favourite type of bedrock. Why? Because the extreme forces of heat and temperature and weight cause large round stones, cobbles and boulders to flatten and the finer sized minerals (such as biotites and other micas) separate and wrap around them. Usually metamorphic rocks such as those in Ontario (in the Canadian Shield region) are in the order of "billions" of years old.

    As for dating. We may use carbon dating for recent material, Potassium 33 to Radon Gas for some older materials and for really old rocks we can use Uranium 235 or 238 which has a half life close to a billion years and changes to many different elements until it finally stablizes to lead (Pb). These elements are just but a few of the half lifes that are used. All dating has an error factor. That is what a lot of people tend to really go after geoscientists on when they are trying to prove the world is only a few thousand years old. Problem is that the errors are small compared to the ages the element describes in a geological timeframe. For example plus or minus error of a few million years on an age of 4.3 billion years means the earth is still really old.

    I guess the age of the earth and sedimentary petrology in history is just like when scientists were explaining the world was round and Church men were saying no it is flat cause God says so. Of course anyone going up in the Space Shuttle today will tell you about how flat the earth really is .... won't they?

    Same here with the dating and erosion/deposition processes.

    Of course this part of geoscience is relatively new compared to how old all this religious stuff is. We have really only known a lot about half lifes for the last 60 to 80 years. Of course we needed to understand all of it to make a few nuclear bombs along the way. I think a lot of geoscientists (good geoscientists) can easily explain the process.

    There are lots of other deposition processes such as turbidites (which are major erosion events along the contential shelfs), wind and rain erosion events on the sides of mountains or in deserts create eolian/aeolian deposits such as sand dunes and on and on I could go.

    hawk

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    The following link will take you to an arcticle printed in the CRS Quarterly. The Creation Research Society has over 1,000 members all with advanced degrees in Science.

    Dinosaur Blood

    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_2/Trex.htm

    Edited by - hooberus on 22 October 2002 19:38:22

  • IronGland
    IronGland

    Advanced Degrees. Probably from Jerry Falwell's 'University'. lol

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit