Pathlights' criticisms of C14 dating

Hello Sylas,
This would take too long so I'll throw out the main information. This comes from CreationDigest.com "New RATE Data Supports A Young World" by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
"Our experiments measureed how rapidly nuclear-decayy-generated Helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we published several years before the experiments.4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today."
"But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6,000 years."(dealing with the diffusion rate of the zicon and biotite data)
"These new data13 agree very well with our "Creation" model prediction, as the figure shows. Moreover, the diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow, thus emphatically repudiating it."You go to Page not found - creationdigest read it and let me know what you think. I hope to get some good insight from you Sylas. God be with you. God bless. -Zachariah

No sir I don't. I read what you said and had nothing to add. I gave the information on the other site and when notified to come here you had done all the work for me. Thank you. This is all pretty new to me. I'm learning alot about how they date and such. What do you do by the way. I would have to guess archeology or biology or geology or some science field. You do know your information my friend. I enjoy reading what you have to say. Sorry if I get off subject. I have limited time and do this at work when time allows so I would appreciate a little lattitude, and I get in a hurry. An athiest huh? We'll have to work on that. If there is no God, I hope for your sake you are right. Think of the consiquences...not too fun. God Bless you Sylas. I will talk later. In Christ. -Z

Hey crashfrog, long time. Hey, do you do any fishing up there in Minn. I have family up in N. Iowa they go all the time to Minn and catch those Walleye. You think you could FedEx me about ten pounds of walleye sometime in the near future. I never get it anymore.

actually ned you couldn't be further from the truth. Why would you think that. Fun stuff my brother in Christ. Love Z[This message has been edited by Zachariah, 04-26-2004]

I did find some information from creationdigest on c14 I would like to get your comments on.
"According to the technical monograph "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field," the magnetic field is decaying as a first order exponential with half life of 1400 years, a number much less than the 5700 year half life of C14. The consequence of the decay is that there is corresponding exponential increase of the generation rate of C14. Using present conditions as a reference will result in an increase in the apparent age of older samples.""Geographic location is probably one of the biggest variables in the C14 dating process, yet it seems to be systematically ignored. A few examples include a living tree growing next to an airport dated being about 10,000 years old(5) and a living aquatic plants from Montezuma Well in Arizona which shows apparent ages from 17,300 to 24,750 years.(6)5. Huber, Bruno, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions,"
6. Ogden, J. Gordon III, "Radiocarbon and Pollen Evidence for a Sudden Change in Climate in the Great Lakes Region 10,000 years Ago."Studies of soil and water conditions show that CO2 concentration in water under grasslands is approximately 1000 times greater than CO2 concentrations in water in equilibrium with air. Forest areas show an increase on CO2 concentratins in both soil and water 100 times that of rainwater.(7) Therefore, both plants and animals from zones with high concentrations of old carbon will provide specimens that appear older by conventional C14 standards than they actually are."7.Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, Vol 7, p.733, cited in Ginenthal, op cit., p. 176It looks like we both sides have good arguments. I have an idea. Why don't you, Sylas, me, and someone in Chili, another in say France all plant oak tree seeds on the same day. Allow them to grow for ten years then do C14 test on them and see if they all come out with the same date. I don't think they would. Would that settle the argument or show flaws in your C14 dating? What do you think? Let me know. -Z

correct that is how they can determine the age the older the rock the less the helium. Helium escapes through time and they can then use that to help determine the age, make sense? They dug a hole and the deeper they go the older the rock and the less the Helium. It just verifies there hypothesis.

Interesting. The thing I got from it was that the magnetic field does effect the Carbon readings through time. And if it does change in cycles throughout time then all the dates you refer to would be incorrect. So some brainy scientist says no others say yes and the fight keeps going. There will never be an end. Actually there will be one in the future, but I'm good to go.

Thank you for the correction. I really scanned over the article quickly and thought I had a grasp of what it was saying. Maybe I'm lisdexic.