Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8103 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-30-2014 9:08 AM
196 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Happy Birthday: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,538 Year: 19,379/28,606 Month: 2,650/2,305 Week: 292/563 Day: 56/46 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
dennis780
Member (Idle past 1157 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 211 of 221 (565921)
06-22-2010 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Coyote
06-22-2010 1:00 AM


Re: dating game
quote:
Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model. It was on this basis that Snelling [37-41] analyzed the 14C content of fossilized wood conventionally regarded as 14C ‘dead’ because it was derived from Tertiary, Mesozoic, and upper Paleozoic strata having conventional radioisotope ages of 40 to 250 million years. All samples were analyzed using AMS technology by a reputable commercial laboratory with some duplicate samples also tested by a specialist laboratory in a major research institute. Measurable 14C was obtained in all cases.

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

Maybe I should just find scientific research, and post that alone, since you refuse to buy what I'm saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2010 1:00 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2010 8:10 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 213 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-22-2010 5:45 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15748
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 212 of 221 (565958)
06-22-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by dennis780
06-22-2010 2:10 AM


Re: dating game
Hi again dennis780

Maybe I should just find scientific research, and post that alone, since you refuse to buy what I'm saying.

That would be a good idea, so why don't you start?

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

That is not scientific research. It's bogus. You can put 14N (Nitrogen) and 13C next to uranium and generate 14C, so all Snelling does is look for samples that are contaminated by uranium radiation and voila: bogus 14C readings.

Professional scientists rule out these possibilities or account for them in the data they present.

Measurable 14C was obtained in all cases.

You will note this is a PRATT (one of many that involve 14C - see the PRATT List for more).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html

quote:
Snelling, Andrew, 1999. Dating Dilemma: Fossil wood in 'ancient' sandstone. Creation Ex Nihilo 21(3): 39-41. http://www.answersingenesis.org/...cs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

Response:

1. It is doubtful that the sample was even wood. Snelling was not even sure what the sample was. Nor could the staff at Geochron tell what the sample was (Walker 2000). It may not even have retained any of its original carbon. Using carbon dating was pointless from the start since it would inevitably give meaningless results.

2. The sample was porous, making it likely that it would have absorbed organic carbon from the groundwater. It was probably this contaminating carbon that produced the date. Another possibility is that some 14C was created in situ by natural radioactivity in the surrounding rocks (Hunt 2002).

3. Furthermore, 33,720 years is still significantly older than the age which many creationists, Snelling included, ascribe to the earth, and there are no plausible sources of error to make the age younger than 33,000 years.


This is typical of creationists attempts to misuse 14C dating, which they know how to do because they know how it is supposed to be used to get accurate results.

They know they can fool gullible people with their falsehoods: are you one?

Try this: if 14C is so unreliable how come there are correlations like this:

Where the 14C age is correlated with tree ring counts showing actual annual growth from multiple dendrochronologies.

This shows the effect of changes in 14C production in the atmosphere at different times in the past, which you can see means that ages are actually older than what is measured by 14C without correction.

This is how 14C is calibrated to improve the accuracy of the dates derived by this method. Curiously a lot of scientific effort has gone into producing accurate calibration curves.

This is another sample:

Where the 14C age is correlated with the annual diatom & clay varve deposition in Lake Suigetsu in Japan (blue circles), and with the above tree ring correlation (in green). Note that (1) there is other data than tree rings and lake varves, (2) that this other data also lies along the same general curve, and (3) that this covers the time period where 14C dating is valid, showing that this method is accurate for that whole period.

Then there is this correlation curve of C-14 dates with actual dates known from a number of sources, some of them from marine samples that have been corrected for the marine resevoir effect (more on this later):

Notice how the other correlations have the same pattern at ~30kyr as the lake varves. Notice that there is no line drawn between data points here -- instead what appears to be a line is the sheer number of known data points available for making this calibration.

Notice that there are variations about the mean for this curve, and that this is the amount of uncertainty that is involved with C-14 dating.

Finally, see if you can explain this correlation:

Here you see the correlation of 14C with the annual varves in Lake Suigetsu AND with the changes in deposition rate of sediments.

Note that these are from scientific research published in scientific journals and peer reviewed by scientists.

For more see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.

The earth is old.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : added another graphic of the 14C calibration data


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 2:10 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 213 of 221 (566061)
06-22-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by dennis780
06-22-2010 2:10 AM


Re: dating game
dennis780 writes:

quote:
Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model.

Even with my limited knowledge, I feel that I'm qualified to say this:

If something has been FOSSILIZED then you're not going to be able to get any usable C-14 readings from it, because if it's FOSSILIZED, then it's a FUCKING ROCK.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 2:10 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 06-22-2010 5:55 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5142
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 214 of 221 (566063)
06-22-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ZenMonkey
06-22-2010 5:45 PM


Re: dating game
If something has been FOSSILIZED then you're not going to be able to get any usable C-14 readings from it, because if it's FOSSILIZED, then it's a FUCKING ROCK.

I think "fossil" is loosely defined as a remanant of life found in the dirt. This can include fossils that are still almost entirely organic. I am pretty sure that charcoal from ancient human settlements found in the ground are considered fossils, and they are used to date the settlement.

However, the use of "fossilized wood" does tend to indicate permineralization where the organic material has been replaced by dissolved minerals from the surrounding water table.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-22-2010 5:45 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-22-2010 7:12 PM Taq has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 215 of 221 (566069)
06-22-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by dennis780
06-22-2010 12:50 AM


Re: dating game
When Zircons (or other gems, such as monazite) form, they exclude lead, but can have considerable levels of Uranium. As the Uranium decays, lead is produced. Sounds logical. Except you still do not know the levels of Uranium to begin with.

And the initial level of uranium is not part of the equation. I.e., it's irrelevant.

Pb-Pb and U-Pb isochrons aren't used all that often. The majority of all dates performed in the last decade or so, and probably before that, are concordia-discordia dates.

Address the consilience between different dating methods, proving their reliability, at Age Correlations and An Old Earth (ver 2 no 1).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 12:50 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 216 of 221 (566072)
06-22-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Taq
06-22-2010 5:55 PM


Re: dating game
Taz writes:

I think "fossil" is loosely defined as a remanant of life found in the dirt. This can include fossils that are still almost entirely organic. I am pretty sure that charcoal from ancient human settlements found in the ground are considered fossils, and they are used to date the settlement.

I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions. If it's legitimate to use it to indicate any preserved material, then I stand corrected.

Regardless, it appears that in the paper dennis cited, the creationists were specifically looking at carbon-dating of inorganic substances and then complaining that they weren't getting accurate readings. If they were doing better "science" than that, I again stand corrected.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 06-22-2010 5:55 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2010 8:07 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2010 9:46 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 06-22-2010 11:08 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4652
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 217 of 221 (566074)
06-22-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by ZenMonkey
06-22-2010 7:12 PM


Re: dating game
Regardless, it appears that in the paper dennis cited, the creationists were specifically looking at carbon-dating of inorganic substances and then complaining that they weren't getting accurate readings. If they were doing better "science" than that, I again stand corrected.

They weren't.

They were misapplying the method. Those of us who use Carbon 14 dating know it is useless at the far end of the range as the quantities of C14 are impossibly small.

You can breath on a sample and throw the readings way off. And machine error and contamination start to be significant factors. When your signal starts to disappear into the background it is not of much use.

But creationists, knowing this, misapply the method and claim results that are inappropriate, then use those results to support their a priori beliefs in a young earth.

Creation "science" at it's finest.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-22-2010 7:12 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15748
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 218 of 221 (566077)
06-22-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by ZenMonkey
06-22-2010 7:12 PM


fossils and frauds
Hi ZenMonkey,

I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions. If it's legitimate to use it to indicate any preserved material, then I stand corrected.

I would say that this is the common layman's understanding of fossil is that the bones etc are replaced by minerals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

quote:
Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago.[1] Hence, fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch to the oldest from the Archaean Eon several billion years old. The observations that certain fossils were associated with certain rock strata led early geologists to recognize a geological timescale in the 19th century. The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed geologists to determine the numerical or "absolute" age of the various strata and thereby the included fossils.

So if it's a fossil, then it already is older than your common YEC earth claim ... and the time scale was worked out by geoologists (many of whom were clergy) well before Darwin.

quote:
Types of preservation
Permineralization
Permineralization occurs after burial ... and the minerals precipitate from the groundwater, thus occupying the empty spaces. ...
Casts and molds
... the original remains of the organism have been completely dissolved ... If this hole is later filled with other minerals, it is a cast. ...
Replacement and recrystallization
Replacement occurs when the shell, bone or other tissue is replaced with another mineral. In some cases mineral replacement of the original shell occurs so gradually and at such fine scales that microstructural features are preserved despite the total loss of original material. ...
Compression fossils
Compression fossils, such as those of fossil ferns, are the result of chemical reduction of the complex organic molecules composing the organism's tissues. In this case the fossil consists of original material, albeit in a geochemically altered state.
Bioimmuration
Bioimmuration is a type of preservation in which a skeletal organism overgrows or otherwise subsumes another organism, preserving the latter, or an impression of it, ...
Trace fossils
Trace fossils are the remains of trackways, burrows, bioerosion, eggs and eggshells, nests, droppings and other types of impressions. Fossilized droppings, called coprolites, can give insight into the feeding behavior of animals and can therefore be of great importance.

There's obviously some overlap in the various types, so there are a spectrum of objects that are called fossils in science. Some take longer to form than others.

The footprints at Laetoli are trace fossils.

I have some replacement/cast fossils of Brachiopods from a beach in Oregon.

Any time you have some mineral deposition or replacement going on, there is the possibility of water carrying recent carbon into such fossils.

Coyote can correct me, but it is my understanding that fossils per se are not dated, rather artifacts that are of known organic materials are dated with 14C (if not too old) and otherwise rocks above and below the fossils are dated to provide a window for the age of the fossil.

When it comes to 14C dating, there are a number of well known (by scientists) factors that can affect the results, and these are usually published along with the effect in question. A good resource for this is:

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

quote:
[A Conventional Radiocarbon Age or CRA, does not take into account specific differences between the activity of different carbon reservoirs. ... Implicit in the Conventional Radiocarbon Age BP is the fact that it is not adjusted for this correction. In this page, we consider natural reservoir variations and variations brought about by human interaction].
...
One of the most commonly referenced reservoir effects concerns the ocean. The average difference between a radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample such as a tree, and a shell from the marine environment is about 400 radiocarbon years (see Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993). This apparent age of oceanic water is caused both by the delay in exchange rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by the mixing of surface waters with upwelled deep waters which are very old (Mangerud 1972). ...
...
Spurious radiocarbon dates caused by volcanic emanations of radiocarbon-depleted CO2 probably also come under the category of reservoir corrections. Plants which grow in the vicinity of active volcanic fumeroles will yield a radiocarbon age which is too old. Bruns et al. (1980) measured the radioactivity of modern plants growing near hot springs heated by volcanic rocks in western Germany and demonstrated a deficiency in radiocarbon of up to 1500 years through comparison with modern atmospheric radiocarbon levels. ... One modern plant growing near the emanations had an apparent age of 1390 yr. ...

Of course, when this information is published, unscrupulous creationists then (mis)use this information without telling their gullible readers the reasons for these dates. An example of this creationist fraud is a seals from the antarctic area

quote:
PRATT Claim CD011.4:
A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.
Source:
Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?
Response:
1. This claim derives from Wakefield (1971):
Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. ...

This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast. ...

There is also another common creationist claim regarding a freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound:

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html
(Notice that they claim to be experts, but there are no names provided, no information of the basis for their "expertise"... can you say hoax? fraud? deceit?)

quote:
Archaeologists are Concerned
The unreliability of carbon 14 date testing is a great concern to honest archaeologists. They get particularly concerned when C14 testing shows obviously inaccurate results and they are left in uncertainty about the reliability of the dates that they have previously never questioned.
...
A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.

See Message 13 of Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes for the data that shows that the expected uncorrected 14C age of seals from this reservoir effect area would be from 1215 BP to 1476 BP.

The correction dates for different areas of the ocean are published:

http://intcal.qub.ac.uk/marine/

So all an unscrupulous creationist need do the find uncorrected dates that appear to be erroneous, is look up locations where there is a large reservoir effect and go there and take samples, ... but don't tell anyone that the dates are uncorrected ...

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-22-2010 7:12 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5142
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 219 of 221 (566086)
06-22-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by ZenMonkey
06-22-2010 7:12 PM


Re: dating game
I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions.

Can you get DNA from rock?

"Nonetheless, recently developed DNA capture methods, already applied to Neanderthal and fossil human mitochondrial DNA, may soon make large-scale genome-wide analysis of ancient human diversity a reality, providing a fresh look at human population history."-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20414896

The term fossil is used to denote organic remains in the peer reviewed lit, but then again this is more of a biology paper than a paleontology or geology paper. The wiki page references the Latin root which is fossus meaning "having been dug up".

Regardless, it appears that in the paper dennis cited, the creationists were specifically looking at carbon-dating of inorganic substances and then complaining that they weren't getting accurate readings. If they were doing better "science" than that, I again stand corrected.

Completely agree. Even in common venacular there is an obvious difference between buried organic wood and fossilized wood. We all know the difference, and the difference is permineralization.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-22-2010 7:12 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 220 of 221 (566496)
06-24-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sailorstide
05-01-2006 12:12 AM


true
Of course it is not exact. Unless you are talking about quite recently.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:12 AM sailorstide has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 7:41 AM simple has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15748
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 221 of 221 (566533)
06-25-2010 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by simple
06-24-2010 11:42 PM


accurate enough for practical purposes
Hi simple1, and welcome to the fray.

Of course it is not exact. Unless you are talking about quite recently.

And what you mean by exact. It is accurate enough for practical purposes.

See Message 212.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by simple, posted 06-24-2010 11:42 PM simple has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014