Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years

Alright, as a Creation Scientist, this is a rather complex explanation, so sorry if I lose some of you...
When solar radiation strikes the earth's atmospher, it converts the stable carbon-12 (found in CO2) into radioactive Carbon-14. Now, Carbon-14 accumulates on all living organisms (dont worry, it's not enough to harm you, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway). So, when an animal dies, the Carbon-14 loses two subatomic particles and is released back into the atmosphere as normal, regular Carbon-12. The half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, which means that, every 5730 years, half the remaining C-14 in the animal body is left. So, every 5730 years the amount of C-14 reduces from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 etc. So, the scientists carbon-date a dead animal carcas by measuring how much C-14 is still in the animal and, therefore, how long it's been dead.The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase. Therefore, we cannot accurately Carbon-date ANYTHING because that would be assuming that the magnetic field was ALWAYS at the same strength it is today. For an example of wacky carbon dating rates:
The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old! Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago! Trust me, if somebody comes up to you and says, "carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old" they DO NOT know what they're talking about.As the magnetic field shrinks, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere increases, so C-14 dating doesnt work like scientists think...

quote:

---

Alright, as a Creation Scientist, this is a rather complex explanation, so sorry if I lose some of you...

---

LOL....

quote:

---

The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years.

---

"Dr." Barnes... 1973... based upon a paper from 1883 by Horace Lamb... and using 25-- yes, 25-- measurements to represent the whole planet... yeah, very imressive!The magnetic field is not decaying at anywhere near this rate, and even seems to gain strength now and then. Magnetic field decay? Nope... Account SuspendedDon't like the links? How about this one? APOD: 2002 November 25 - The Earth's Magnetic Field Doesn't look all that decayed to me. Actually, I like it because it illustrates why 25 measurements for a whole planet is a pretty idiotic number.

quote:

---

There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism.

---

Wrong again. The rock spreading out from the mid-ocean ridges doesn't show stronger and weaker magnetic fields. It quite blatantly records flipped magnetic poles.

quote:

---

So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate.

---

You are right about one thing. A decay rate the likes of what you suggest could be measured and quite easily. Why hasn't it been measured by anyone not pushing a Biblical agenda? You couldn't miss a field decay rate like you propose.

quote:

---

So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase.

---

You, in fact are assuming something contrary to the evidence-- that the magnetic field and thus the c-14 has declined at a steady rate. The magnetic field has both increased and decreased over time, and so has c-14 production. But we know about this fluctuation and can compensate for it, as well as cross check with other methods of dating.

quote:

---

The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old! Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago!

---

Sources?Ever hear of contamination? It happens all the time. That is why serious scientists take multiple samples and cross reference them, rather than take one wierd date and chirp that the method doesn't work. Tell me, if you had twenty samples giving dates within 5% of each other and one or two samples giving dates 20% or more off, would you conclude that the 20 dates are wrong or the two wierd dates?

quote:

---

Trust me, if somebody comes up to you and says, "carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old" they DO NOT know what they're talking about.

---

I think you just demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. C-14 dating only works up to about 40 or 50 thousand year ages. So the most anyone could claim based on C-14 is that the Earth is at least 40-50k years old, not millions.

quote:

---

As the magnetic field shrinks, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere increases, so C-14 dating doesnt work like scientists think...

---

And of the tens of thousands of scientists working in relevant fields, only a couple of creationists have noticed? LOL...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth...

---

Could this explain why those weird things happen in the Bermuda triangle? You know, all those crazy spinning compus reports? And the green fog, all that stuff......stuff those evil God-hating scientists keep telling us can be understood through "natural" explainations, in clear violation of "truth?"

First, the evidence says that the earth's magnetic field has modestly fluctuated over the past tens of thousands of years, thereby causing fluctuations in the levels of atmopheric C14, but nothing anywhere near the hundreds of percent you claim. C14 dating is corrected for these fluctuations, which never have an impact greater than about 10% anyway.Second, though there has not been a reversal of the earth's magnetic field in the time period covered by C14 dating (the last 50,000 years or so), reversals of the earth's magnetic field are copiously recorded in the sea floor produced at mid-oceanic ridges. I can't remember the exact figure, but I think I'm at least in the right order of magnitude if I say that magnetic field reversals occur on average every half million years or so.Third, C14 dating has been calibrated very precisely using tree ring data back about 11,000 years. For example, see How tree rings are used as a radiocarbon record at the Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory.--Percy

You're a troll, trying to make the creationist camp look even worse, right?
14C is generated from, and decays back to, nitrogen 14. When you're headed backwards out of the starting gate, you're not going to win many races......

At it again, Booboo. Please get your facts right first.Carbon dating is a tool. It ised on assum,ptions which scxientists know are not quite corrrect, and so they have calibrated it using dendrochronology (tree ring dating) and varve-dating, performed in many parts of the world. The result is that they know what corrections to apply to carbon dates.
For instance, the release of large quantities of old carbon-12 into the atmosphere by industry has made carbon dating all but useless for the last 150 years. Everything tests older than it should.
Similarly, because of changes in the proportion of C14 in the past, dates older than 3500BC are too 'young' - the objects are actually older. But the calibration means the scientists know how much older, and can make a correction to get a reliable date.
Meassuring the amount of C14 by mass-spectrometry, rather than by Geiger-counter, has made C14 dating much more accurate and sensitive, and it can be used pretty reliably back to 60,000 years ago.NB. If you want to criticise dating methods, there is still varve dating, pottery luminescence dating, tree-ring dating, various forms of uranium, actinium, etc dating, coral reef studies, and several others. They are all remarkably consistent, where their ranges overlap, - another fact you will have to explain. But please study first. Your criticisms were probably answered 50 years ago.Mike.

First of all, C-14 has not reached the point of equilibrium yet. The assumption that still remains unsettled is that the C-14 in the atmosphere prior to the Biblical flood have been different. The water canopy at the outer layer of the atmosphere--which would account for where the flood-water came from AND explains why tropical plants were found frozen in the Arctic circles--would have kept the radiation out of the atmosphere before the flood. Therefore, C-14 abundance in the atmosphere would have been increasing immediately following the flood and the collapse of the water canopy.
Remember that there IS water found in space, and when water becomes subjected to colder temperatures as in the atmosphere, it becomes magnetic. So scientifically, IT IS scientifically possible that there would've been a canopy (that would explain why the Bible says there was an 'expanse' that seperated the upper waters from the lower waters, and also would explain why C-14 has it's inconsistencies). Also, tree-ring dating is not exactly accurate either. For instance, the rings in the trees are caused by annual percipitaion--when a year sees much drought, the rings are closer together because water was less abundant. Also, when rain is fluctuating, there is often observed to be more than one ring formed in the same year. (I found a freshly-cut tree along my campsite, and counted the rings. Although the forest was planted thirty-some years earlier, there were about 45 rings in the tree). C-14 would naturally be more abundant in trees anyway, because trees absorb C02, and thus intaking C-14 as well.

Not that I don't believe you, but this is the first time I've heard of cold water being magnetic. Do you have a citation for this? I'd like to know more. That's not quite the point. The point is that since ages derived from radiocarbon dating, denderochronology, coral reef analysis, and other dating systems line up so well with each other, it's not enough for creationists to point out how each of these dating methods could be inaccurate individually. A mechanism must be proposed that explains why they're inaccurrate to the same identical degree.(Edited to fix spelling. - Crashfrog)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-28-2003]

quote:

---

First of all, C-14 has not reached the point of equilibrium yet.

---

Meaning it fluctuates a bit? No kidding! Scientists know this and can compensate for it.

quote:

---

The assumption that still remains unsettled is that the C-14 in the atmosphere prior to the Biblical flood have been different.

---

You are assuming a biblical flood. There is no evidence for such a thing-- none. And as there is no evidence for it, why exactly should anyone worry about c-14 levels before and after it? Why worry about the effect of an event which we have no reason to believe ever happened?

quote:

---

The water canopy at the outer layer of the atmosphere

---

Which, again, is assumed and has no evidence to back it up.

quote:

---

which would account for where the flood-water came from

---

Right. We need a source for all that water which caused the flood that LEFT NO EVIDENCE.

quote:

---

explains why tropical plants were found frozen in the Arctic circles

---

Does it now?1) Where tropical plants found in the artic? Or perhaps just some very distant relatives of tropical plants?2) I'd think that the better explanation would be something for which we have ample evidence-- like continental drift.

quote:

---

would have kept the radiation out of the atmosphere before the flood.

---

So the water canopy was in orbit then? Otherwise that radiation would not be kept out of the atmosphere, but would be trapped as heat inside the atmosphere.

quote:

---

Therefore, C-14 abundance in the atmosphere would have been increasing immediately following the flood and the collapse of the water canopy.

---

There is evidence for neither the flood nor the canopy-- two things we have no reason to insert into the equation.

quote:

---

Remember that there IS water found in space, and when water becomes subjected to colder temperatures as in the atmosphere, it becomes magnetic.

---

Sorry... what?

quote:

---

So scientifically, IT IS scientifically possible that there would've been a canopy

---

You aren't making much sense here, bud.

quote:

---

that would explain why the Bible says there was an 'expanse' that seperated the upper waters from the lower waters, and also would explain why C-14 has it's inconsistencies

---

Does the Bible explain the effects of nine kilmeters of water hanging above the earth?

quote:

---

For instance, the rings in the trees are caused by annual percipitaion--when a year sees much drought, the rings are closer together because water was less abundant.

---

It isn't the proximity of the rings that matter.Maybe you should read up. Dendrochronology

quote:

---

Also, when rain is fluctuating, there is often observed to be more than one ring formed in the same year.

---

There are false and missing rings. Did you think no one had noticed? These can be sorted out with large sample sizes and cross-checking. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/skeletonplot/absentfalse.htmBTW, false rings add apparent age while absent rings subtract apparent age. Why did you not mention the absent rings?

quote:

---

I found a freshly-cut tree along my campsite, and counted the rings. Although the forest was planted thirty-some years earlier, there were about 45 rings in the tree

---

And you are trained to do this? And, as before, real scientists use many samples and statistical methods to sort these things out.

quote:

---

C-14 would naturally be more abundant in trees anyway, because trees absorb C02, and thus intaking C-14 as well.

---

It doesn't really matter.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 04-28-2003]

There is a little particle of truth to this. When you cool water below about 5 degrees C and pressurize it to above about 300,000 pounds per square inch pressure, you can form a solid known as ice-VIII ("ice-eight") which is weakly antiferromagnetic. Whether that means that the Earth's magnetic field will hold it up, I don't know; I do know that pressures of 300,000 psi are going to be very hard to come by in Earth orbit. Ordinary liquid water can be levitated by magnetic fields a few hundred thousand times as strong as the Earth's magnetic field, but it seems to me that a scenario with such a strong field might make it tricky for antedeluvian people, animals, and especially lakes and oceans, to stay in the places they want to be.
See http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/index.html for a deeper treatment.As to calibration of the 14C clock - go to Science | AAAS
and register - it's free. Use their search function to find the paper by Kitigawa and van der Plicht in volume 279, pages 1187-1190, from 1998. Read it, for free, and find out about the 45,000 layers they counted in Japanese lake bottom sediments, and the 250 14C dates they got on leaves and insect parts out of those layets. Read about how these correlate with tree rings from Germany, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, uranium dates of coral in Indonesia and the Bahamas......
Then get back to me on the "inaccuracy" of carbon-14 dating.

By the way, BBC: have you been reading Walt Brown's stuff?

The production rate of C14 varies so that there is no definite equilibrium point. And humans have released significant amounts of old carbon into the atmosphere in the last couple of hundred years.

quote:

---

The production rate of C14 varies so that there is no definite equilibrium point.

---

So?How much does it vary by over time? What difference in the dates does it make? Are some actually older than measured? Did you not read about calibration methods to correct for this?And did you miss reading about the recognition of the problem in the last 150 years? What difference does that make to the argument?

I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. My point is the claim that C14 is not currently in equilibrium means little, because the production rate varies and because human activity is affecting the level.
Perhaps you are unaware that some authors (such as Richard Milton) use this argument to "prove" that the Earth is young ?

The affect of human activity is, as you noted, a concern for the last century or two. So that isn't going to "prove a young earth".Meanwhile you haven't noted the calibration that has been done against a bunch of different things.Also even if you threw C14 dating out completely that doesn't "prove a young earth" either. So that is a silly statment for R. Milton to be making.Clearly, a "young earth" is no longer an viable idea. There are just too many different ways to prove that it isn't. Casting any doubt on the accuracy of any one doesn't cut it. And any doubts I've seen cast are based on very flimsey logic indeed.