Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

quote:

---

You are not taking into account the bacteria that are consuming C-14 into their being. Its known that some anaerobic bacteria can assimulate the C-14 in the leaf into their being.

---

The study on Lake Suigetsu does not use anaerobic bacteria to date the varves, the study uses leaves. It doesn't matter which part of the leaf is eaten because C14 is spread evenly throughout the leaf. Half a leaf will date the same as a whole leaf, as will 1/4 of a leaf, 1/8 of a leaf, etc. No bacteria goes eats only the C14, they eat C14 and C12 in the same ratios as are found in the leaf.Do you actually know how carbon dating works? It is becoming apparent that you don't.

PaulK,This article specifically factually addressed C-14 has been consumed by anaerobic bacteria in a controlled study.

Loudmouth, Were talking about bacteria taking C-14 out of the leaf before it converts to C-12. When you date your leaf you have less C-14 in respect to when the leaf consumed C-14. This would affect the ratio of C-14 to C-12.

quote:

---

Loudmouth, Were talking about bacteria taking C-14 out of the leaf before it converts to C-12. When you date your leaf you have less C-14 in respect to when the leaf consumed C-14. This would affect the ratio of C-14 to C-12.

---

No bacteria, including the one in the kerogen study, takes out all of the C14 and leaves the C12 behind. None. No known natural process, other than man made centrifugation, is able to differentially remove C14 from C12. Therefore, the bacteria, if they were totally made up of carbon from these leaves, would date to the same age as those leaves.In fact, this is how the scientists in the kerogen study were able to determine that the bacteria's sole source of carbon was the kerogen. Because the bacteria had the same C14/C12 ratios as the kerogen. If those bacteria were getting their carbon from other sources then they would be in disequilibrium with the kerogen.If you think I am wrong, then could you please show me a study where bacteria are able to sort C14 from C12 and only ingest one of them?Added by edit:Just thought of a holiday analogy. Let's pretend that a fruitcake is the leaf and you are the bacteria. Now, pretend that the bits of fruit-like candies in the fruitcake is C14 and the bread is C12. Now, if you eat half of the cake, does the ratio of fruit-like candy to the amount of bread change? Nope. Still the same because the candy is spread evenly throughout the loaf. The same for C14 and C12 in the leaf. The C14 is spread evenly through all of the carbon containing molecules and so the ration of C14/C12 stays the same no matter how much is ingested by anaerobic bacteria.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-16-2004 05:23 PM

Loudmouth,If these bacteria consumed both C-14 and C-12 there would be less of the original C-14 therefore your ratio is bogus. Your whole basis was based on the leaf C-14 and C-12 being bound. When the bacteria dies its C-14 / C-12 can be dissolved as the bacteria decomposes. The C-14 / C-12 as a carbonate could bubble up out of solution. Which would explain the lower varves dating slightly progressively older, from a young earth perspective.

That's not really how math works, Craig. If you take away C-14 and C-12 in the same ratio, as the bacteria do, then the original ratio is preserved.

quote:

---

This article specifically factually addressed C-14 has been consumed by anaerobic bacteria in a controlled study.

---

That's completely wrong. What it SAID is the bacteria had no or almost no C14 in them because there was none in the kerogen they were eating. There's no support there for your idea. And there's not likely to be - anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry would know that it was wildly unlikely that a bacterioum would somehow prefer one isotope of carbon over another.

quote:

---

If these bacteria consumed both C-14 and C-12 there would be less of the original C-14 therefore your ratio is bogus.

---

There would also be less of the original C12, hence the ratio between the two is the same. Did you read my fruitcake analogy above? If you eat half of a fruit cake, does the ratio of bread to candy change or remain the same?Let's take M&M's. Let's pretend that it is a Christmas bag with only green and red M&M's. Now, if you eat half of the bag, do all of the red ones disappear and only the green ones are left behind? Of course not. You end up with half a bag of M&M's that have the same exact ratio of red to green as when you started.The bacteria eat the leaves in the same way, consuming C14 and C12 in the same exact ratios that are found in the leaf. Not only does C14 bubble away, but so does C12 in the same ratios as found in the leaf. The leaf gets smaller, that's it.

quote:

---

Your whole basis was based on the leaf C-14 and C-12 being bound.

---

It is bound, in the form of cellulose.

quote:

---

When the bacteria dies its C-14 / C-12 can be dissolved as the bacteria decomposes. The C-14 / C-12 as a carbonate could bubble up out of solution.

---

We are not dating the bacteria, we are dating the leaves. Also, who cares how much of the leaf that the bacteria eats. What is left of the leaf is what is dated, not what the bacteria consumes.

quote:

---

Which would explain the lower varves dating slightly progressively older, from a young earth perspective.

---

It does nothing of the kind. All that has been explained is your incomplete knowledge of chemistry.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-16-2004 06:12 PM

Ignoring that there are other things wrong: Are you saying that your mechanism here causes the varve count and the messed up carbon content to match up to within a few percent in more than one place around the world just as they would IF the varve count and the carbon ratio's were correct. That the comparitively random creation of the varves and the rather uncontrolled moving around of carbon causes the varve count and C-14 dates to fall roughly on a straight line by pure chance?and the questions I didn't answer? By the way This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-16-2004 08:12 PM

PaulK, The scientists know the bacteria are consuming the kerogen, because they designed their experiment so that kerogen was the only source of carbon available for the bacteria to eat.http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=87Eating Kerogen
By: Leslie Mullen
A team of researchers discovered that microorganisms in Kentucky's New Albany Shale are eating kerogen.When microorganisms die in ponds of water or in the ocean, they slowly sink to the bottom, forming a thick black sludge. Over time, this sludge becomes buried and compacted by more organisms and layers of mud. If oxygen is left out of the mixture, the organic matter can’t decay and it eventually fossilizes into the material called kerogen.Scientists have long believed that kerogen was a carbon ‘sink’ – a place where carbon was trapped and could not be recycled. But recently, a team of researchers led by Steven Petsch of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) discovered that microorganisms in Kentucky's New Albany Shale are eating kerogen.The scientists cultured the bacteria from the 370-million-year-old black shale. The New Albany Shale formed during the Devonian (417 to 354 million years ago), when Kentucky was covered by shallow tropical seas. Kerogen is plentiful in the Kentucky shales because the ancient waters were very fertile, with lots of microorganisms like algae and planktonic bacteria at the surface, while the ocean bottom was stagnant, with limited dissolved oxygen.The scientists know the bacteria are consuming the kerogen, because they designed their experiment so that kerogen was the only source of carbon available for the bacteria to eat.

Loudmouth,Loudmouth: The bacteria eat the leaves in the same way, consuming C14 and C12 in the same exact ratios that are found in the leaf. Not only does C14 bubble away, but so does C12 in the same ratios as found in the leaf. The leaf gets smaller, that's it.Craig: We at least agree C-14 & C12 is bubbling away increasing the concentration in the above varve layers. It does appear that C-14 and C-12 are a bit different. C-14 is an extremely unstable isotope, while C-12 is not.Since we agree that C-14 & C-12 concentrations are increase in solution in the varves above. I'm suspecting that its being re-absorbed by hydrogen bonds onto the leaf surface at a different ratio. As these bacteria draw on the carbon, it causes a different ratio to appear. I doubt there is anyway to test for hydrogen bonded carbon. Instead of carbon assimulated within the kerogens.The water in the varves would supply the hydrogen to bond to the kerogen particles surfaces. I'm suspecting they are not bonding at the same ratio they were absorbed while living. Do you have evidence that they would bond at the same ratio?Your the chemists, do you have documentation that C-14 and C-12 bond the same way in the production of oil in respect to hydrogen bonds, and or other chemical bonds?

take a glass container and fill it with water, put in some powdered clay and some diatoms. shake, and let settle. you will have diatoms on the bottom before the clay even begins to settle. it has to do with the different rates that they settle out in water. with this FACT your continued posting of multiple varves from mixed up material is not just discredited it is destroyed, blown away, knocked out of the water.if you do not understand this, there is not much hope of you understanding the rest of the problem that you have.now let's posit two scenario's:(1) the material around the shores is regularly picked up mixed and flushed out into the lake, and(2) this same kind of event happens only rarely.in condition (1) the mixup\flush happens so often that the material being so mixed\flushed is always recently deposited: it is from the same year. now when it gets out into the lake what happens? the diatoms and organic samples settle to the bottom, mixing with other diatoms deposited in the ordinary annual manner while the clay stays in suspension, slowely settling just as fast as normal for the annual clay layer formation, so that it doesn't become the dominant material until the diatoms die off for the winter. RESULT: no effect on the annual layers, or rather the result would be indestinguishable from normal annual settling of diatoms and clay. No extra varves, no mixed up organic samples. Needless to say, this would have absolutely negligable effect on the annual varve counting results, failing to even increase the amount of error possible.in condition (2) the mixup\flush happens so rarely that the material being so mixed\flushed has accumulated over a period of time: it is from many years. now when it gets out into the lake what happens? the diatoms and organic samples settle to the bottom, mixing with other diatoms deposited in the ordinary annual manner while the clay stays in suspension, slowely settling just as fast as normal for the annual clay layer formation, so that it doesn't become the dominant material until the diatoms die off for the winter. RESULT: no effect on the annual layers, or rather the result would be indestinguishable from normal annual settling of diatoms and clay. No extra varves, BUT mixed up organic samples: there would be samples that date older than the varve layer count. This would have absolutely negligable effect on the annual varve counting results, but the erroneous organic samples would increase the amount of error in the calibration of C₁₄. This would show up in the data in other words: it doesn't.Notice that neither case can cause extra varves to form, you just get more scatter in the C₁₄ data, and this is NOT observed.and that is not all.for there is still the problem of the correlations that the C₁₄ correlates with the varves, with the tree rings in California and in Europe, with the ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland, with the calcite layers in Devil's Hole and the Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes) ... and the FACT that not only do all these systems agree on years even though they come from different corners of the world and rely on totally different methods ... they also agree on the climate changes that occured and which are reflected in things like thicker layers for longer warmer summers in things that grow (like trees), thicker layers for longer colder winters in things that freeze (like snow) ... but it doesn't stop there: seasonal variations in C₁₄ levels were predicted ... and those variations have been found, the predictions have been confirmed.you need to explain ALL these conditions, rather than focus on just one making suppositions that are, at best, inadequate.enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12-16-2004 09:36 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No chemist required; high school chemistry is probably enough, one course of college chemistry is defintely enough. C-14 and C-12 differ only in the nucleus. The nucleus is not involved in any chemical bonding or mechanical interaction or electronic interaction; the nucleus is too well shielded by electrons. C-14 is very slightly heavier than C-12, so a whole bunch of high speed centrifuges, stacked one after the other, might be able to change the C-14 to C-12 ratio of a sample. Here's a picture of a facility that does that for uranium: The centrifuge plant is the dark rectangular buildings. Here's a few of the many, many, many centrifuges: This sort of thing does not occur in nature; for all chemical and mechanical and electronic interactions C-14 is insignificantly different from C-12, and the effect of such interactions on the C-14/C-12 ratio is well understood. Isotope:"Although isotopes exhibit nearly identical electronic and chemical behavior, their nuclear behavior varies dramatically."Making stuff up without any understanding whatsoever leads to errors.

Yup, everybody knows that and agrees.However, you seem tho think that the bacteria ate only C-14. That's false. They ate C-14 and C-12 in the ratio found in the kerogen. The scientists mesured the C-14/C-12 ratio in the bacteria, and it was the same as the C-14/C-12 ratio in the kerogen. Just as expected by mainstream science, and just the type of behavior that makes carbon dating valid.

in the winter the lake is covered with ice.that makes disruption of the lake during the winter very difficult.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}