Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

I'm beginning to have deja vu. Remember this thread?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Since when do cellose bacterially digest readily in an anaerobic condition. I've already explained that diatoms, clays would of been sorting as the flood waters washed off the earth. A world flood of diatoms, clays to be sorted by anaerobic colloidal processes upwards in agreement with your C14 spike around 31,000 years ago.This C14 spike to me can only be explained by all the organics that were digestable from the world flood causing C14 spikes that can not be explained by rearrangements of the world carbon reservoirs. To a creationists your 31,000 years C14 spikes correlates quite well to the world flood happening 5,500 years, because your climatic correlations can not explain these C14 spikes. You have proof of excess C14 which by normal biological processes would of affect all the ratio's upward(this is your fuzzy line). The methane lake study confirms that the reaction rates are not equal for different isotopes thus the excess C14 would affect the C12/C14 ratio not equally.http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm14C is present in gaseous form (CO2) and gradually diffuses in the earth systemFigure PE-6.The sharp 14C peak we observed at ca. 31,000 BP is roughly 300 per mil in D14C after removing the long-term trend. The 10Be increases by a factor of 2 in ice cores during a period of ca. 2,000 years. This factor of 2 increase corresponds to a 14C increase by a factor 1.3 or 300 per mil, which is exactly what we observe in our data. These sharp enhancements in 10Be and 14C at the same time are too large to be explained by rearrangements of the carbon reservoirs on the earth.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Hello Bret, Charley, Craig, Tim, Tom, Golfer, whateverYet another registration is still against forum guildlines.Have anything to say for yourself?

wow amazing, didn't i just say this? are you just repeating stuff just to repeat it?
after reading it again it looks more like the author is saying jesus cares nothing about time, time for jesus is meaningless, but this still doesn't talk about the earth at all it talks about jesus being eternal, your nonsense is just chopping up the bible to fit your beliefs, peter says nothing about the earth, this almost looks blasphemous if i was a christian, since i'm not, it just looks like a baseless and rather useless claim

"Our" ¹⁴C spike?There's no ¹⁴C spike in the varves. You've misread your link, here's that link again: Read it more carefully. They're not talking about a ¹⁴C spike, but a D¹⁴C spike. That part of the article is about correlating varve chronology with other dating methods and seeking explanations for differences. D¹⁴C is the difference between the radiocarbon age (the age measured by a straight analysis of the levels of ¹⁴C in a sample) and the actual age (after applying corrections), and they correspond to ¹⁴C plateaus in the varve layers, not spikes.If you look at this graph again:You'll notice that the actual data points lie below the ideal line. The difference between the two is D¹⁴C. Notice that the plateaus mentioned in the articles (10,000 BP, 10,400 BP, 12,600-12,100, etc.) are so subtle they aren't even apparent to the naked eye. Only when they graph the difference between the ideal and the actual data does it become apparent:As the article says in the conclusion, the explanations for the spike in D¹⁴C at 31,000 BP is due to increases in ¹⁰Be levels, though the causes of this increase are speculative at this time.--Percy

I have to admit that the articles I have seen do not really tell us much about the texture and density of the material of the lake Suigetsu bed.
I have no evidence that the cores are clay-like. It was just the impression that I got.
Maybe Razd has some information on it. This seems to be his pet subject. I am not going to comment on this as I know absolutely nothing about coring techniques. This discussion has moved out of my field.I would like to restate my previous point that it is very nice to have a discussion with someone who actually does the necessary research to back up their point. You haven't disappointed me in this thread so far.

10Be presence is explained due to "precipitation". The phenomenom appears a world phenomenom due to chonologies of D14C agreeing with the Mona Lake excursion. The creationists water canopy satisfies the precipitation of 10Be is evidence in the natural of the world flood being a world catastrophy. The D14C spikes are just to great to be explained by beryllium. H. Kitagawa, J. van der Plicht explanations by their own admission is hypothetical.http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm10Be is a solid attached to aerosol particles and is deposited with precipitation. However, all of these explanations remain hypothetical.The sharp D14C increase from Lake Suigetsu corresponds chronologically to the Mona Lake excursion.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Hi Johnfolton,I think you've lost track of the point you need to make. You need to show that there are significant problems with the data from this graph:As can be seen, the deviations from the ideal line are small. The occasional plateaus of ¹⁴C levels in the varve samples mentioned in the article are on the order of a couple hundred years out of thousands. So when you say this: All you're doing is making a claim unsupported by any evidence that the vapor canopy accounts for one tiny anomaly, leaving the entire rest of the graph unexplained. The vapor canopy possibility along with the 6000 year old earth is shown completely wrong by the broad lines of the graph showing correlations across thousands and thousands of years.--Percy

whatever else you think you are doing, this has nothing to do with dealing with the facts. I trust you realize that as (1) this "spike" is the delta between the theoretical level (the 45^o line representing no change in atmospheric 14C levels) and (b) that the real level is below the theoretical,... that this represents a relatively lower 14C level compared to surrounding values, but one still in line with the overall trend of correlation.And this: ... is just more unsubstantiated blather, fantasy thinking, if not delusional, having no bearing on the argument.Nor does it deal with the problems noted with all your fantasy scenarios. It was not a methane lake study, it was a marine coast study. Please try to keep your grasp on reality strong enough to at least use the proper information in your wild leaps of fantasy.Seeing as no 14C was discussed in the study it does nothing of the kind. If there is no 14C involved in the carbon being used to generate the methane then it can do nothing to preferentially affect 14C compared to 12C -- and the methane in the study did not mention any measurable levels of 14C even though they used it -- injected\added it -- to mark the consumption of methane by the microbes in question.As background 14C would have biased that study, one can readily conclude that the levels of 14C in the methane involve was unmeasurable -- that it was from another old marine carbon resevoir depleted of 14C by years of radioactive decay (and an absence of radioactivity induced 14C - the other poisoned well of your fantasy world).There is also no record of methane bubbles in Lake Suigetsu -- or on top of the Sierra Nevadas where the Bristlecone Pines live(d). LOL. This, of course has no bearing on the levels of 14C in dead organic matter -- neither CO₂ nor CH₄ (methane) can significantly affect the proportion of 14C to 12C in dead organic specimens that have the carbon atoms bonded to other atoms, a point you have still to address in any kind of detail.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I am very sceptical that radiometric dating technique could prove or disprove much since all C14 dating depends on the assumption that datable specimens have not been contaminated or that there has been no addition or loss of c14 through factors other than by decay. This assumption needs a lot of faith because while genetisists are quick to point out the potential of modern contamination of archaic DNA it seems to me that there would be an even higher rate of contamination of c14 in the "ground". It also seems that the higher rate of the sun and earth's internal heat and volcanic activity in the past would would hugely disrupt any equilibrium?Soon after Libby’s discovery, “radio carbon dating swept the scientific world with a fervor of religious fanaticism, as a new and ”absolute’ chronology was established (Lee, 1981 p.9 Anthropological journal of Canada 19 (3). These early physicists were supposedly measuring anything with a hint of carbon including dinosaurs as seen mostly in the Radio carbon Journal.“it should be noted that most dinosaur bones actually retain much of the original calcium and phosphatic minerals they possessed in life. As such, the phrase "turned to stone"--often used to describe fossil bone--is misleading.” (Scientific American 1996) We're Sorry - Scientific AmericanA google search reveals about five species of dinosaurs have representative fossils containing soft tissues as well, which by the way is always discovered accidentally since not many modern scientists in their right mind would ever believe soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years.To me dating dinosaur bones with C14 better fits Occam's Razor than via dating the bones based on rocks that where dated by indexed bones or even directly by surrounding rocks that undoubtedly contain percolation from above or even below.Its true that c14 could never be used on a completly mineralized fossil but I should also point out that a specimen need not be mineralized to be considered a fossil by most definitions.
define:fossil - Google Search Edited by Peleg, : spellingEdited by Peleg, : No reason given.

Hello Peleg, thanks for joining us. There is a lot to learn here. Enjoy the ride.There are some helpful thing in the links in my signiture you might want to have a look.As a first suggestion you might try reading over a thread before you post to it. It is nice of you to offer your opinion on the topic but it would be better if you informed yourself a bit more before you do.A good place to start is the "correlations" thread : Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)When one is attempting to throw doubt on any dating techniques you will be asked to explain the correlations that are found. Have a peek in that thread.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

Peleg writes: Please consider reviewing the point made in several threads that radiocarbon dating, due to its half-life of some 5,700 years, is not generally considered valid beyond 50,000 years due to the minute amount of C14 available to measure after so much decay of the parent material. According to scientific consensus, non-avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.If you are coming from a different slant and insist that all dinosaurs along with unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, and human giants over 10 feet in height - died in the last 6000 years and should be datable through radiocarbon techniques - please provide supporting evidence in the appropriate venue.ABE - welcome to EVC. Sorry, didn't see it was your first post. Edited by anglagard, : A bit more civilityEdited by anglagard, : speling, gramar, and clarety

Thank you Sir!I just glanced at your suggested thread and the posts already look authoritative.Before I delve more into the thread I want to ask you if I could use some of my own opinions as long they are backed up with popular scientific journals?Thank you again!

Ok but the best scientist don't always go with the general consensus and I would say that there are at least a hundred good examples were the general scientific consensus was dead wrong and often deadly.There are a lot references of dinosaur soft-tissue being found and to me it suggests that the general consensus is once again wrongEdited by Peleg, : No reason given.

don't know about you, but I get the feeling this ain't bootcamp: That quote just made me think of that, that's all.As to those opinions--this is the science section of the forums. So long as you can back up your arguments with evidence (and I wouldn't try using the creationist sites--you can, but you'll be torn apart by the refutation of those sites).I'm not sure what qualifies as a popular scientific journal. Personally, PopSci is overrated--a gadget magazine now. How popular is SciAm, or Nature?
Live Science: The Most Interesting Articles, Mysteries & Discoveries tends to be good--if you're looking for stuff in laymen's terms.oh, and hello, and welcome--and try not to get burned by the fire. There are already too many kids getting burned making their smores--and we don't need any more injuries

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences