Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Carbon 14 in fossils?
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 40 (221395)
07-02-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by d_yankee
07-01-2005 6:24 PM


Re: part of article
My point exactly. LOL!!!
Indeed, you have a point. However, it lacks merit. The real answer in using radiocarbon dating for any features older than 50ky is "more than 50ky"; which of course, includes 4.6 Ga.
Think of it this way: you have one meter stick and try to measure the width of the Atlantic Ocean. Well, the answer is, of course, NOT 1 meter, but more than one meter.
Consequently when we see an age of something like 40ky, or 50ky, or 60ky; we are really seeing something that is OLDER than that. You will notice, for instance, that all of the objects dated by RATE that tend to cluster at 40-60ky. This is very suspicious to me, suggesting that they have attempted to date diamonds (for instance) that are beyond the 'meter stick' of radiocarbon dating.
Now, the question is 'why is there any 14C at all in these objects?' The most simple answer is that it is generated by low level, natural radiation acting on nitrogen, one of the more common elements in the earth's crust, atmosphere and biosphere. It is interesting that some materials do, for all practical purposes, contain NO 14C. What is the difference? My bet is on the possibility that they had no N and no uranium to begin with and, hence, generated no 14C.
My whole point is that we are looking for a DATE. Not for an amount of 14C in a material. Always look at the generated date and you will get a clue as to what is going on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by d_yankee, posted 07-01-2005 6:24 PM d_yankee has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 40 (221662)
07-04-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by extremophile
07-04-2005 8:51 AM


I have a question.....
Obviously dating with C we would only get results pointing to the age limit that YECs want...
Actually, it's a bit older than YECs would like. But their only concern is to disparage the tool of carbon-dating and, by inference, all radiometric methods. And carbon is the easiest one to attack because it is so susceptible to contamination and minor changes in the environment. The point is that it gives us another tool to use in deciphering recent geological history.
But this sort of trouble with contamination occurs with other elements, giving older ages to recent things?
Anything can happen with almost any analytical method. I'm outside my expertise here, but there are other issues that need to be considered with other methods. That is why we don't let YECs carry out these studies without supervision. Extreme care is necessary and proper application of techniques is paramount. For instance, doing a K/Ar date on a mid-ocean ridge basalt, whole-rock sample, is very tricky. First of all, they are very low in K in the first place, and second, because they have pyroxene, which is a notorious bad actor when it comes to argon retention. On top of the you have various geological conditions that might affect the date such as dueteric alteration, zenoliths, etc. etc. However, Steve Austin has no problem going out and grabbing a rock at random and tossing it in a bag for K/Ar analysis, and then, lo-and-behold, the method doesn't work! Therefore, by YEC reasoning, all radiometric techniques and results are not only suspect, but clearly in erroneous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by extremophile, posted 07-04-2005 8:51 AM extremophile has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 40 (221745)
07-04-2005 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JonF
07-04-2005 8:15 PM


IMHO that's a fairly small group, not all YECs. Most YECs don't get beyond "Creationist X got the wrong result for formation Y therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old".
Wodmorappe tried the line you wrote, but he's fairly sophisticated for a creationist; his quote-mines and claims sound pretty good to the less-educated YECs who want to believe. But Henke called him on it at How Can Woodmorappe Sell Us a Bill of Goods if He
Doesn't Know the Costs?. I haven't seen that particular argument raised by anyone else.
Not lately. It used to be fairly common, but I think that they've been called on it a few times and been accused of bearing false witness in accusing geos of tossing out data. Joe Meert has taken on a few people with this issue about a year ago. It seems that they really can't make much headway when asked for specific instances. Could this be a case of learned behavior?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 07-04-2005 8:15 PM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024