|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From:
Principles of Isotope Geology Gunter Faure 1977, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. I suspect there is a more recent edition out, but the above is the one I have. From Chapter 20 - Carbon, p. 379:
quote: and
quote: Of course, the book goes on into a greater detail discussion of this. I didn't dig around, to find out what influence on Carbon dating these fractionations have. I am confident it is not a fatal influence. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
kettle refers to the shape of the lake in profile -- like a kettle cut in half (the more common known lake profile is like a flattened wok).
it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the way it was formed. it could be in a rocky substrate, in which case ice could have little effect. Lake Suigetsu is at "(3535'N, 13553'E) near the coast of the Sea of Japan" from the pdf article. latitude 35o35' would be about 3.5 of the 4 degrees between horizontal lines and longitude 135o53'would be about where the 136o longitude line crosses the coast below Fukui (not the big lake NE of Kyoto). see also
Earth View
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Razd, I agree with you in respect to the clays settling continually, likely more in the winter. My problem is not with the last 5,000 or so years as much as with how the kettle lake formed in respect to additional varves. The microbiological factors of C14 to C12 being a carbon source for anaerobic bacteria has been documented in the natural. It would appear the dissolved concentration of C-14 & C-12 would decrease the lower in the core sample due to C-14 & C-12
carbonates bubbling upward slowly. It would be interesting if this slightly rising concentration between each varve would of affected the core samples with Carbonate fractionate residues converting c12 to c13 and the possiblility of leaving C14 unaffected to contaminate the c-14 to c-12 ratio's. If so this would give a proportional line of error, no matter if you look at it from a old earth senerio or an young earth senerio. It would be interesting to see if Moose geology book has more information in respect to C14 being able to fractionate or if its just c12 fractionating into c13. When they dated the core samples was the leachate dated too? or was it simply discarded? Has it been determined if the leachate still contains C14, C12 & c13 in solution, and if it does what is the ratio. This would be extremely interesting what the ratio of C-14 to C-12 if any existed within the leachate of the core's sampled. This message has been edited by Craig, 12-17-2004 12:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
craig writes: . My problem is not with the last 5,000 or so years as much as with how the kettle lake formed in respect to additional varves. And you also need to explain how a different method of suddenly causing the varves can (1) look exactly like the annual varves in thickness, composition, types of organic samples, types of pollen, etcetera, etcetera, (2) have imbedded in them organic samples that just happen to test to the correct C14 age without needing a sudden totally discontinuous change in the behavior of radioactive decay and (3) makes exactly the same changes to tree rings around the world and ice layers at opposite ends of the earth.
It would be interesting if this slightly rising concentration between each varve would of affected the core samples with Carbonate fractionate residues converting c12 to c13 and the possiblility of leaving C14 unaffected to contaminate the c-14 to c-12 ratio's. If so this would give a proportional line of error, no matter if you look at it from a old earth senerio or an young earth senerio. It would be interesting to see if Moose geology book has more information in respect to C14 being able to fractionate or if its just c12 fractionating into c13. no, that just does not happen. read about it -- learn. you might try: Radiometric Dating ... he discusses several methods of radiometric dating, including the other two methods mentioned in the OT ... that also corroborate the C14 dates. I repeat: other methods CONFIRM the dating of both the varves and the radio carbon methods, and they also CORRELATE for climate and other events. There is no way that bubbling carbonate in the bottom of a lake in japan can change the ice layers in antarctica and greenland or the calcite deposits in a cave in the US. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Craig, referring to my message 121 writes: It would be interesting to see if Moose geology book has more information in respect to C14 being able to fractionate or if its just c12 fractionating into c13. The chemical processes lightly touched on in message 121 DO NOT change one isotope of Carbon into another. Quoting myself from 121:
quote: What this is saying, as I understand it, is that when C03 disolved in water comes in contact with atmospheric CO2, there is an exchange of C between the two phases. In this exchange, the 12C tends to slightly preferentially go into the atmospheric CO2, and the 13C tends to slightly preferentially go into the disolved carbonate (CO3). This would cause in any precipitated CO3 (I presume as CaCO3) to be higher in 13C. I don't know how this process might effect 14C in the sediments. It would seem that it would also be slightly enriched. BUT the Carbon dating is NOT being done on the carbonate (per someone upthread), but rather on organic carbon from plant debris. Moose ps: Doing all these sub and superscripts sure is a pain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
You claimed:
quote:As I pointed out that was clearly false. The article specifically stated that there was virtually no C14 in the kerogen - and as a result virtually none in the bacteria either. Having shown that you now say:
quote: But that is not at issue and does not help your case at all because it provides absolutely NO evidence that it could upset the ratio of C14 to C12. You know it would have been far better to admit that you were wrong than to suddenly try to switch the subject. It's tactics like that that get creationists their - deserved - reputation for dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
PaulK,
PaulK: As I pointed out that was clearly false. The article specifically stated that there was virtually no C14 in the kerogen - and as a result virtually none in the bacteria either. Craig: They cultured the bacteria from the New Albany Shale that that was so old that that the C14 was completely decayed. They then fed these New Albany Shale cultured bacteria new kerogen that was these bacteria's only carbon source. The reason they fed these cultured bacteria only kerogen as its carbon source was because there was no C14 in the bacteria they cultured. http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=87 But because the New Albany Shale is so old, the C-14 has completely decayed. The kerogen in the shale no longer contains any C-14. "We grew bacteria collected from this rock and measured the C-14 content of their cells," says Petsch. "These measurements showed that these living bacteria contain very little to no C-14. 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 Inactive Member |
quote: C14 and C12 are different, but not different enough for the bacteria to preferentially eat one isotope and not the other. The very fact that C14 is unstable gives us the ability to date the leaves. The instability of C14 is the very reason that carbon dating works.
quote: Bzzz, wrong. The leaf and insect samples are treated to remove loosely bound debris from the samples. Also, the most likely form of carbon being released by anaerobic bacteria is methane which has very little to no reactivity through hydrogen bonds. Methane and other gases released by the bacteria would not react with the leaves in any way that would affect carbon dating.
quote: We are not talking about kerogen, we are talking about leaves. Also, the very study you cite does not claim that the bacteria were able to change the carbon date of the kerogen, so your claim is empty anyway.
quote: Do you have any evidence that waste products from bacteria bind to the leaves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
minnemooseus, If C12 is bubbling out of solution more readily than is C13 which tends to go into solution. If C14 tends to go into solution as C13 is as a carbonate, then C12 is bubbling out of solution at a greater rate. I do like your senerio that CO2 is a gas containing C12, and C13 tendancy to be dissolved as calcium carbonate CaCO3. If C14 tends to form calcium carbonate then you have the means of disrupting the C14 to C12 ratio by calcium carbonate bonds to the leafs outer surface (kerogen).
This message has been edited by Craig, 12-17-2004 11:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I don't know how this process might effect 14C in the sediments.
Fractionation such as your reference talks about depends almost completely on the mass of the isotope in question - just the mass, nothg else. So a process that enriches a sediment in 13C will enrich it a little more in 14C, because it's even heavier. This phenomenon has been measured many times with oxygen, where 16O, 17O, and 18O are all stable. And sulfur, with four stable isotopes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Craig, you seem to be just stringing words together here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Coragyps,
Your premise too supports the ratio of C14 to C12 is subject to laws in respect to the atomic weight of C14 being greater than C12. I agree your premise supports C14 disrupting the C14 to C12 ratio, in favor of an young earth. I however think the ratio might be more disrupted by Mooses senerio. If C14 tends to form carbonates, and C12 tends to form CarbonDioxide. Then this could disrupt the C14 to C12 ratio, by simple carbonate bonds to the surface of the leafs and other organics being dated. I agree both your senerios appear to be supporting the young earth senerio. It might be that both of your senerios work in tandum. Its refreshing to see it doesn't support an old earth senerio. If all was suggesting C12 increases that would of supported an old earth senerio, its interesting that the evidence is supporting the young earth senerio. This message has been edited by Craig, 12-17-2004 12:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Could you please support the hypothesis that carbonate binds to leaves within the varves in a way that prevents removal before the sample is dated?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
You're just confusing yourself. There's no mention of new kerogen and the points you yourself make contradict that.
So again I have to point out that the fact that the bacteria ate the kerogen is not being disputed - and it isn't relevant. On the other hand your suggestion that bacteria selectively ate C14 from the kerogen is an outright falsehood - the fact is that there was virtually no C14 in the kerogen in the first place. The only honest thing for you to do is to admit that you misread the article and what it actually says does not help you. Handwaving wildly in the hope that nobody will notice your error is typical creationist behaviour but rather less than honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Craig, if the sediment were enriched in C14 it would appear YOUNGER, not older. How would the sediment being older than the C14 dates show help a young Earth ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024