Post by voltage on Oct 11, 2006 9:43:41 GMT -5
Lets do some bible first:
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Now test me on this, through logic we can say that if this sentence is true that God existed before the creation, since it says God created creation thus being the cause of it. We can assume God existed before creation.
This is my presupposition, axiom if you like. Its what my interpretation of facts is based on. The reason why evolutionists and me dont get along isnt because we have different facts, but different interpretations.
Now we get to the real topic, carbon 14 dating. The famous yet infamous tool of archeaologists, evolutionists, creationists, paleontologists, and other scientists world wide. Many people are under the impression that carbon dating is a rock hard reliable way of dating fossils and rocks, giving us this hard fact evoluionary timeline. Unfortunatly, its not as reliable as we all thought.
*Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.*
The conlcusion of this is that carbon dating is not a solid method, in fact it is given up to so many variables that its a wonder why we still use it. Millions and billions of years are so unpredictable, so forget your evolutionary timeline. Its not fact, and its not solid speculation.
**There are very many different dating methods available. Some, like carbon dating, are based on radioactive decay. Others rely on other effects. Some of the problems in using any scientific dating method are:
(1) In nearly all cases, the method is based on a specific substance or type of substance, and can only be used on objects that contain a reasonable amount of that substance. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the object must contain carbon
that originated from a living creature.
(2) Each dating method has a particular age period for which it is most useful, and a typical error associated with the measurement. Radiocarbon dating is based on an isotope of carbon that decays with a half-life of 5730 years. That means
that it is only really useful for objects less than about 50,000 years old. And even the best radiocarbon dates have an uncertainty of (realistically) about 50 years -- more for older objects.
(3) The "age" that the method provides is not always the age that you want to know. For example, if you are wanting to date a wood carving, radiocarbon dating would tell you not when the carving was done, but when the tree that provided the wood died (or more precisely, when that particular piece of wood became "dead wood" and stopped exchanging carbon with its surroundings).
To translate from there to the particular problem you raise: A lot depends on the particular type of sample that you have. To get a precise date you need quite a large sample, amounting to several hundred grams of carbon. Worse, the method is
destructive, so you will not get your sample back. Normally the difference between 60 years ago and 10 years ago would amount to hardly enough difference in radiocarbon to distinguish. But there is an historical accident that might help
your cause: atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950s and 1960s raised atmospheric radiocarbon levels quite significantly, so there would be an abnormally large difference in radiocarbon levels between an object whose living material died in
the early 40s, and one whose living material died in the late 60s.**
Here we have anothe interpretation of carbon dating, this time with a whole nother list of varibales. Something in the 40's is aged differently than something in the 60's. Think about it! If you had no idea that the object was in recorded history, you would date something far older than the actual difference!
***Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way. But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion. What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead. This is common practice. They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science? They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column). So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. Their assumptions dictate their conclusions. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts? Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory. ***
Heres the first of many topics, all are open for discussion. I used sources from a creationist, a proffesor in earth sciences, and a regular joe. Feel free to check my resources.
*link
Dr. Don Batton, editor, 1969–72: B.Sc.Agr. (First Class Honours)—University of Sydney (Australia) 1973–76: Ph.D.—University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science. Thesis: Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)
**link
John Christie, Faculty, School of Chemistry, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia, his area of expertise is Earth Sciences.
***link
A Regular Joe
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Now test me on this, through logic we can say that if this sentence is true that God existed before the creation, since it says God created creation thus being the cause of it. We can assume God existed before creation.
This is my presupposition, axiom if you like. Its what my interpretation of facts is based on. The reason why evolutionists and me dont get along isnt because we have different facts, but different interpretations.
Now we get to the real topic, carbon 14 dating. The famous yet infamous tool of archeaologists, evolutionists, creationists, paleontologists, and other scientists world wide. Many people are under the impression that carbon dating is a rock hard reliable way of dating fossils and rocks, giving us this hard fact evoluionary timeline. Unfortunatly, its not as reliable as we all thought.
*Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.*
The conlcusion of this is that carbon dating is not a solid method, in fact it is given up to so many variables that its a wonder why we still use it. Millions and billions of years are so unpredictable, so forget your evolutionary timeline. Its not fact, and its not solid speculation.
**There are very many different dating methods available. Some, like carbon dating, are based on radioactive decay. Others rely on other effects. Some of the problems in using any scientific dating method are:
(1) In nearly all cases, the method is based on a specific substance or type of substance, and can only be used on objects that contain a reasonable amount of that substance. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the object must contain carbon
that originated from a living creature.
(2) Each dating method has a particular age period for which it is most useful, and a typical error associated with the measurement. Radiocarbon dating is based on an isotope of carbon that decays with a half-life of 5730 years. That means
that it is only really useful for objects less than about 50,000 years old. And even the best radiocarbon dates have an uncertainty of (realistically) about 50 years -- more for older objects.
(3) The "age" that the method provides is not always the age that you want to know. For example, if you are wanting to date a wood carving, radiocarbon dating would tell you not when the carving was done, but when the tree that provided the wood died (or more precisely, when that particular piece of wood became "dead wood" and stopped exchanging carbon with its surroundings).
To translate from there to the particular problem you raise: A lot depends on the particular type of sample that you have. To get a precise date you need quite a large sample, amounting to several hundred grams of carbon. Worse, the method is
destructive, so you will not get your sample back. Normally the difference between 60 years ago and 10 years ago would amount to hardly enough difference in radiocarbon to distinguish. But there is an historical accident that might help
your cause: atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950s and 1960s raised atmospheric radiocarbon levels quite significantly, so there would be an abnormally large difference in radiocarbon levels between an object whose living material died in
the early 40s, and one whose living material died in the late 60s.**
Here we have anothe interpretation of carbon dating, this time with a whole nother list of varibales. Something in the 40's is aged differently than something in the 60's. Think about it! If you had no idea that the object was in recorded history, you would date something far older than the actual difference!
***Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way. But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion. What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead. This is common practice. They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science? They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column). So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. Their assumptions dictate their conclusions. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts? Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory. ***
Heres the first of many topics, all are open for discussion. I used sources from a creationist, a proffesor in earth sciences, and a regular joe. Feel free to check my resources.
*link
Dr. Don Batton, editor, 1969–72: B.Sc.Agr. (First Class Honours)—University of Sydney (Australia) 1973–76: Ph.D.—University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science. Thesis: Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)
**link
John Christie, Faculty, School of Chemistry, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia, his area of expertise is Earth Sciences.
***link
A Regular Joe