Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

From:
Principles of Isotope Geology
Gunter Faure
1977, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.I suspect there is a more recent edition out, but the above is the one I have.From Chapter 20 - Carbon, p. 379:

quote:

---

Carbon (Z=6) has two stable isotopes: ¹²C=98.89 percent and ¹³C=1.11 percent. In addition, radioactive ¹⁴C occurs in nature due to its formation in the upper atmosphere by an (n,p) reaction on stable ¹⁴N.

---

and

quote:

---

The isotopes of carbon are fractionated by a variety of natural processes, including photosynthesis and isotope exchange reactions among carbon compounds. Photosynthesis leads to enrichment of ¹²C in biologically synthesized organic compounds. On the other hand, isotope exchange reactions between CO₂ gas and aqueous carbonate species tent to enrich carbonates in¹³C. As a result, the isotopic abundance of ¹³C in terrestrial carbon varies by about 10 percent.

---

Of course, the book goes on into a greater detail discussion of this.I didn't dig around, to find out what influence on Carbon dating these fractionations have. I am confident it is not a fatal influence.Moose

kettle refers to the shape of the lake in profile -- like a kettle cut in half (the more common known lake profile is like a flattened wok).it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the way it was formed. it could be in a rocky substrate, in which case ice could have little effect.Lake Suigetsu is at "(3535'N, 13553'E) near the coast of the Sea of Japan" from the pdf article.latitude 35^o35' would be about 3.5 of the 4 degrees between horizontal lines and longitude 135^o53'would be about where the 136^o longitude line crosses the coast below Fukui (not the big lake NE of Kyoto).see also Earth View

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Razd, I agree with you in respect to the clays settling continually, likely more in the winter. My problem is not with the last 5,000 or so years as much as with how the kettle lake formed in respect to additional varves. The microbiological factors of C14 to C12 being a carbon source for anaerobic bacteria has been documented in the natural. It would appear the dissolved concentration of C-14 & C-12 would decrease the lower in the core sample due to C-14 & C-12
carbonates bubbling upward slowly. It would be interesting if this slightly rising concentration between each varve would of affected the core samples with Carbonate fractionate residues converting c12 to c13 and the possiblility of leaving C14 unaffected to contaminate the c-14 to c-12 ratio's. If so this would give a proportional line of error, no matter if you look at it from a old earth senerio or an young earth senerio.It would be interesting to see if Moose geology book has more information in respect to C14 being able to fractionate or if its just c12 fractionating into c13.When they dated the core samples was the leachate dated too? or was it simply discarded? Has it been determined if the leachate still contains C14, C12 & c13 in solution, and if it does what is the ratio. This would be extremely interesting what the ratio of C-14 to C-12 if any existed within the leachate of the core's sampled.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-17-2004 12:24 AM

And you also need to explain how a different method of suddenly causing the varves can (1) look exactly like the annual varves in thickness, composition, types of organic samples, types of pollen, etcetera, etcetera, (2) have imbedded in them organic samples that just happen to test to the correct C₁₄ age without needing a sudden totally discontinuous change in the behavior of radioactive decay and (3) makes exactly the same changes to tree rings around the world and ice layers at opposite ends of the earth. no, that just does not happen. read about it -- learn.you might try: Radiometric Dating ... he discusses several methods of radiometric dating, including the other two methods mentioned in the OT ... that also corroborate the C₁₄ dates.I repeat: other methods CONFIRM the dating of both the varves and the radio carbon methods, and they also CORRELATE for climate and other events. There is no way that bubbling carbonate in the bottom of a lake in japan can change the ice layers in antarctica and greenland or the calcite deposits in a cave in the US.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The chemical processes lightly touched on in message 121 DO NOT change one isotope of Carbon into another.Quoting myself from 121:

quote:

---

On the other hand, isotope exchange reactions between CO₂ gas and aqueous carbonate species tend to enrich carbonates in¹³C.

---

What this is saying, as I understand it, is that when C0₃ disolved in water comes in contact with atmospheric CO₂, there is an exchange of C between the two phases. In this exchange, the ¹²C tends to slightly preferentially go into the atmospheric CO₂, and the ¹³C tends to slightly preferentially go into the disolved carbonate (CO₃). This would cause in any precipitated CO₃ (I presume as CaCO₃) to be higher in ¹³C.I don't know how this process might effect ¹⁴C in the sediments. It would seem that it would also be slightly enriched. BUT the Carbon dating is NOT being done on the carbonate (per someone upthread), but rather on organic carbon from plant debris.Mooseps: Doing all these sub and superscripts sure is a pain.

You claimed:

quote:

---

This article specifically factually addressed C-14 has been consumed by anaerobic bacteria in a controlled study.

---

As I pointed out that was clearly false. The article specifically stated that there was virtually no C14 in the kerogen - and as a result virtually none in the bacteria either.Having shown that you now say:

quote:

---

PaulK, The scientists know the bacteria are consuming the kerogen, because they designed their experiment so that kerogen was the only source of carbon available for the bacteria to eat.

---

But that is not at issue and does not help your case at all because it provides absolutely NO evidence that it could upset the ratio of C14 to C12.You know it would have been far better to admit that you were wrong than to suddenly try to switch the subject. It's tactics like that that get creationists their - deserved - reputation for dishonesty.

PaulK,PaulK: As I pointed out that was clearly false. The article specifically stated that there was virtually no C14 in the kerogen - and as a result virtually none in the bacteria either.Craig: They cultured the bacteria from the New Albany Shale that that was so old that that the C14 was completely decayed. They then fed these New Albany Shale cultured bacteria new kerogen that was these bacteria's only carbon source.The reason they fed these cultured bacteria only kerogen as its carbon source was because there was no C14 in the bacteria they cultured.http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=87But because the New Albany Shale is so old, the C-14 has completely decayed. The kerogen in the shale no longer contains any C-14."We grew bacteria collected from this rock and measured the C-14 content of their cells," says Petsch. "These measurements showed that these living bacteria contain very little to no C-14.The scientists know the bacteria are consuming the kerogen, because they designed their experiment so that kerogen was the only source of carbon available for the bacteria to eat.

quote:

---

We at least agree C-14 & C12 is bubbling away increasing the concentration in the above varve layers. It does appear that C-14 and C-12 are a bit different. C-14 is an extremely unstable isotope, while C-12 is not.

---

C14 and C12 are different, but not different enough for the bacteria to preferentially eat one isotope and not the other. The very fact that C14 is unstable gives us the ability to date the leaves. The instability of C14 is the very reason that carbon dating works.

quote:

---

Since we agree that C-14 & C-12 concentrations are increase in solution in the varves above. I'm suspecting that its being re-absorbed by hydrogen bonds onto the leaf surface at a different ratio.

---

Bzzz, wrong. The leaf and insect samples are treated to remove loosely bound debris from the samples. Also, the most likely form of carbon being released by anaerobic bacteria is methane which has very little to no reactivity through hydrogen bonds. Methane and other gases released by the bacteria would not react with the leaves in any way that would affect carbon dating.

quote:

---

I doubt there is anyway to test for hydrogen bonded carbon. Instead of carbon assimulated within the kerogens.

---

We are not talking about kerogen, we are talking about leaves. Also, the very study you cite does not claim that the bacteria were able to change the carbon date of the kerogen, so your claim is empty anyway.

quote:

---

The water in the varves would supply the hydrogen to bond to the kerogen particles surfaces. I'm suspecting they are not bonding at the same ratio they were absorbed while living. Do you have evidence that they would bond at the same ratio?

---

Do you have any evidence that waste products from bacteria bind to the leaves?

minnemooseus, If C12 is bubbling out of solution more readily than is C13 which tends to go into solution. If C14 tends to go into solution as C13 is as a carbonate, then C12 is bubbling out of solution at a greater rate. I do like your senerio that CO2 is a gas containing C12, and C13 tendancy to be dissolved as calcium carbonate CaCO3. If C14 tends to form calcium carbonate then you have the means of disrupting the C14 to C12 ratio by calcium carbonate bonds to the leafs outer surface (kerogen).This message has been edited by Craig, 12-17-2004 11:48 AM

Fractionation such as your reference talks about depends almost completely on the mass of the isotope in question - just the mass, nothg else. So a process that enriches a sediment in 13C will enrich it a little more in 14C, because it's even heavier. This phenomenon has been measured many times with oxygen, where 16O, 17O, and 18O are all stable. And sulfur, with four stable isotopes.

Craig, you seem to be just stringing words together here.

Coragyps,Your premise too supports the ratio of C14 to C12 is subject to laws in respect to the atomic weight of C14 being greater than C12. I agree your premise supports C14 disrupting the C14 to C12 ratio, in favor of an young earth.I however think the ratio might be more disrupted by Mooses senerio. If C14 tends to form carbonates, and C12 tends to form CarbonDioxide. Then this could disrupt the C14 to C12 ratio, by simple carbonate bonds to the surface of the leafs and other organics being dated.I agree both your senerios appear to be supporting the young earth senerio. It might be that both of your senerios work in tandum. Its refreshing to see it doesn't support an old earth senerio. If all was suggesting C12 increases that would of supported an old earth senerio, its interesting that the evidence is supporting the young earth senerio.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-17-2004 12:29 PM

quote:

---

I however think the ratio might be more disrupted by Mooses senerio. If C14 tends to form carbonates, and C12 tends to form CarbonDioxide. Then this could disrupt the C14 to C12 ratio, by simple carbonate bonds to the surface of the leafs and other organics being dated in the varves.

---

Could you please support the hypothesis that carbonate binds to leaves within the varves in a way that prevents removal before the sample is dated?

You're just confusing yourself. There's no mention of new kerogen and the points you yourself make contradict that.So again I have to point out that the fact that the bacteria ate the kerogen is not being disputed - and it isn't relevant.On the other hand your suggestion that bacteria selectively ate C14 from the kerogen is an outright falsehood - the fact is that there was virtually no C14 in the kerogen in the first place.The only honest thing for you to do is to admit that you misread the article and what it actually says does not help you. Handwaving wildly in the hope that nobody will notice your error is typical creationist behaviour but rather less than honest.

Craig, if the sediment were enriched in C14 it would appear YOUNGER, not older. How would the sediment being older than the C14 dates show help a young Earth ?