Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Nighttrain, Thanks bud, thats the famous creationists. He likely Snelling is in agreement with Ned's belief about Varves carbon being status quo because it supports his fossil carbon was status quo too. If the ratio isn't status quo in dating marine fossils due to carbonates of C-14 this should raise a flag.Meaning in varves they date the organics not the leachate.Right? I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with Ned and Snellings beliefs on this one.It might be there is something to varve dating to say the last 6,000 years a tighter correlation perhaps supportive to Snellings and Ned's beliefs.It does raise another flag that sandwich dating is not in agreement with the scientific evidence.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-14-2005 08:13 PM

Golfer, we need the reference to the material.
He likely Snelling is in agreement with Ned's belief about Varves carbon being status quo because it supports his fossil carbon was status quo too. If the ratio isn't status quo in dating marine fossils due to carbonates of C-14 this should raise a flagNed: This is more gibberish. You have been asked to explain such stuff before. You have, as yet not responded to any such requests. At this point EVERYTHING you have posted is unsupported crap.---------------------------------------------Heres a link to people that agree that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 is not kosher in marine environments. I thought you knew this stuff. Sorry I hope this brings you up to speed. CD011.4: C-14 age of a seal

Theodoric, Ned wants to correlate the C-14 dating methods to varves that have been correlated to annual varves. While it does appear to be a tight correlation for 6,000 years in the correlation thread. However were talking about correlating to a marine leachate environment in respect to varves. This should raise flags.Its one thing to correlate to tree ring dating based on annual tree rings however it could be argued that tree rings average 2 annual rings per year(spring and fall). If they determined this to be the case they liekly would have to recalibrate the C-14 method. Its not all cut in granite, glaciers, limestone contamination of marine environments, and even possible contamination by leachates.
-----------------------------------------------
Heres a link to Snellings mineralized fossil.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.aspIf you dredge a lake of all its leachate and date the organics thousands of years later you could say the varve layers were contaminated with C-14 carbonates. You might even find an iron pourous rock that was actually contaminated with C12 to C14 before the leachate was removed.Snellings mineralized fossils even if contaminated show C-14 existed sandwiched between million year old sediments. C-14 should not be sandwiched between million year old layers. This likely is the bigger issue, though Its not uncommon to date coal or oil thousands of years old by the C14 method. Here is another link in agreement that dating methods of evolutionists are bogus in respect to the fossils age. I realize they are deriving a date, but simply not in agreement with C-14 dating of coal and oil fields. They date only thousands of years old not millions of years. Dating fossils by indirect dating is only science moving backwards.--------------------------------------------------When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.Loading...

Ned, Heres a better link. If coal is dating thousands of years old not millions of years old then indirect dating is science going in the wrong direction. You do realize Libby proved C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere? You do realize Katheline Hunt only thinks C-14 produced in the earth. If you don't agree that coal dating is accurate what proof (scientific evidence) pray tell supports your position?How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.NetThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-15-2005 12:50 AM

Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
by Kathleen Hunt
Copyright © 2002
[posted: May 22, 2002]Other Links:
Creation Science Prophecy: Carbon 14 Dating
A creationist source that makes an argument about anomalous 14C in coal deposits.
The Problem:Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years. Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago. Since the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, any that was present in the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products. The presence of 14C in coal therefore is an anomaly that requires explanation.The Solution:Talk.origins' Kathleen Hunt wrote an e-mail to a noted expert on AMS and 14C dating. The results of her correspondence are reproduced below:Hey, I really lucked out with my first email to an AMS researcher. Got a very informative reply right away.The short version: the 14C in coal ---"is probably"---- produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). -----"Research is ongoing"---- at this very moment.(The fungi/bacteria ------"hypothesis"---- [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] -----"may also be plausible"-----, but ------"would probably"----- only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, -----"but"---- it is ----"not clear"----- that they could contribute to 14C levels. ---"But"----- "they may"---- (contribute to 13C.)Carbon-14 in Coal DepositsNote: Katheline Hunts language is inconclusive not conclusive. Sorry bud, what Katheline thinks is not scientific evidence. .This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-15-2005 12:45 PM

Coragyps: Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!Golfer: They think, Kathelines faith based statement (I now understand) still is not scientific evidence.They can not say they know because they don't have the evidence.Without this evidence you can not sandwich date fossils or infer African Michondrial Eve is 200,000 years is a scientific fact.

0Ned, Thats a faith based statement. It not scientific evidence. Just saying its so is not scientific evidence. The problem is C-14 is found in coal and oil beneath sediments dating millions of years old by a multitude of other reliable dating methods.Scientists can not yet prove scientifically thorium in the natural is capable of produce C-14 in the earth. Without scientific evidence to support the evolutionist belief it is so, its only a statement of faith.Its all the evolutionist has, is the belief this be so. Yes you can date the earth to be old, but that does not mean it has anything to do to in respect to the fossils age.Fossils are formed by catastrophy a burial event by something we all agree appears old. The only problem is the evolutionists make this leap of faith that the fossils that got buried too are old.It might well be that the earth in its beginning was created to appear old. I don't believe creationists have a problem that God created the earth to appear old from its beginnings.The problem: Science as yet can not prove thorium or neutrino's are capable of providing the energy necessary to produce C-14 within the earth.This has nothing to do about the earth appearance of age but that fossils are being dated by the appearance of age in spite of the scientific evidence in respect to the fossils age to the contrary.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-15-2005 07:09 PM

Jazzns, I don't think the creationists have a problem with the multitude of dating methods. The issue is not the multitude of dating methods agreeing but that Evolutionists are using that what appears old to date the fossils in spite of the scientific evidence to the contrary.

edge, I'm in agreement with Ned that nucleur energies and such is a pretty exacting science. The fact that Ned can not find them explaining these energies and such being capable of producing C-14 via thorium decay is the issue.It appears leaching is a bigger issue. That C-14 is being diluted explaining how coal dates 30,000 to 50,000 years. This dilution factor explains coal not dating 5,000 years actually indirectly supports the Creationists.
------------------------------------
Postdepositional contamination, which is the most serious problem, may be caused by percolating groundwater, incorporation of older or younger carbon, and contamination in the field or laboratory. Shortened a link. use PEEK to learn how it'sdoneThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-15-2005 08:01 PM

Ned, The issue appears to be that age of African Eve being 200,000 years and the oldest primate being millions of years because of indirect dating.Directly dating Coal and Oil for C-14 is but an extension of tree ring dating (direct dating). That coal and oil has any C-14 after dilution supports all life is not older than the oldest tree ring correlation.

edge, Leaching is considered a problem and might explain why some coals have no C14. Perhaps there was a world flood that leached out C-14 like perhaps as my link suggested leachate is the problem.Thorium decays slowly, C-14 is unstable yet decays quickly.Perhaps this is the problem why its not a match, because they are both decaying and its C-14 thats the more unstable. Katheline Hunt article written in 2002 says Dr. Gove and his colleagues are researching into this.If you check it out C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere. This is all thats been proven, perhaps Dr. Gove is still researching its been almost 4 years and nothing new from Katheline. Sorry but them are the facts.

Razd, I don't have a problem with some of the facts correlating. OEC talk about the GAP so the issue is not the age of the earth but the age of the fossil. I already agreed the earth could of been created with the appearance of age so direct dating of the earth should correlate.Your varves might actually be accurate for the tighter 6,000 year correlations and leachate contamination explaining lower varves perhaps the result of the creationists flood. I don't subscribe to calibrating C-14 dating to those lower varves because of the marine leachate contamination but otherwise seems in agreement with the creationists model. The tighter correlation part.You might be on slippery ground in respect to ice varves, but too me the bigger issue is the age of the fossil. I suspect YEC would have a beef, but not necessarily the OEC. I'll probably pass cause too me the issue is the age of the fossil not the age of the earth.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-15-2005 11:44 PM

Jazzns, Perhaps Snelling believes the earth was created to appear old, not that it is old. His mineralized fossil did have C-14 which is the whole point. If we drained Lake Suitsu and found a porous iron mineralized rock and a mineralized wood fossil. Do you really believe the pourous rock in this kind of senerio could not be dated by C-14.

Coragyps, I did not say I disagree'd with all of the correlations like those agreeing with tree rings. I don't agree that coal, oil is 30,000 years but 5,000 years. Why? Because C-14 is present meaning coal is not millions of years old.Everyone asks for scientific evidence, no one is producing the scientific evidence for Katheline Hunts belief. Its just an evolutionists word salad, without the evidence.I'm going to be gone now for Christmas. Wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Ned, I think you got it wrong, in marine environments the ratio changes not because of C-14 but the other carbons in solution.Merry Christmas