Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

Perhaps Truecreation is missing a fundamental point here. C14 is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of solar radiation with CO2. The C14 thus formed gets incorporated in the organic cycles just like normal C12. Therefore it will accumulate in living organisms up to an equilibrium concentration. However, if the living organism stops metabolising (dies) and is isolated from any source of C14 (say by burial) then the amount of C14(and proportion of C14 to C12) is fixed and C14 starts to undergo radioactive decay.This is why contamination is such an important issue. The atmosphere and all organic material contain new C14. If this is absorbed by the material which is to be carbon dated then it will appear as though it has much more C14 than expected and will give a false young age. And if you are trying to date something which is 40,000 years old, the remaining C14 which you are measuring is in minute concentrations. Therefore even minor contamination make a proportionately large error.I understand that fossils of say 65 million years should have undergone complete mineralisation and all carbon should be replaced. Therefore any carbon, whether C12 or C14, would be expected to be contamination.

​

[This message has been edited by wj, 01-30-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
...And if you are trying to date something which is 40,000 years old, the remaining C14 which you are measuring is in minute concentrations. Therefore even minor contamination make a proportionately large error."
--So what is the mechenism for this absorbtion of new C14 radioisotopes? This is the first problem."I understand that fossils of say 65 million years should have undergone complete mineralisation and all carbon should be replaced. Therefore any carbon, whether C12 or C14, would be expected to be contamination."
--Yes I understand this, so the second problem is, what are you going to do when you find something this old or even older with dates of 12,500 - 50,000 supposed years by C14 dating?[/B][/QUOTE]Well, I'm not a geologist but I can suggest two mechanisms for your first problem. Groundwater seeping with dissolved carbon dioxide as carbolic acid can seep through significant depths of soil and porous rock. Secondly contamination by handling (sweat, skin flakes, synthetic chemicals, diffusion of comtemporary air through porous material. Remember, we are not talking about fully fossilised materials when applying carbon dating.I suspect that those same sources of contamination can have an effect on dating of 65 million year old fossils. But let's not be hypothetical, where are the actual cases of fossils expected to be millions of years old being carbon dated at tens of thousands of years?

Truecreation, I note that you have provided a number of quotes contained in Woodmorappe's "Radiometric Dating Reappraised". You may be interested in reading a critique of this paper by Steven H. Schimmrich at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html The site also has links to a reply by Woodmorappe and a response by Schrimmrich. Whilst the critique addressed the detail of the supposed problems in radiometric dating, the subsequent exchange is also illuminating in the attitude and demeanour of the protagonists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
The classification of living things into taxanomic groups is based on how biologists believe they are related in an evolutionary sense.

​

Notice the word believe. There is no definitive proof of there being ancestors, it's accepted as a belief. Science uses a totally naturalistic approach to the origins of everything. That's the only real reason evolution is accepted. Not because of evidence.

---

Retro, I'm afraid this is a tissue-thin argument. You are trying to wring a drop of doubt out of a stone of evidence.My interpretation of the quote from the above textbook is that the biologists fully accept that evolution occurred and the matter of belief is in regard to the current taxanomical arrangements based on the current level of knowledge. However such taxanomical arrangements are tentative (as everything is in science to one degree or another) and could be revised if/when further evidence arises. Please prove that my interpretation is incorrect.I'm afraid that extensive reading by you will not convince you of the validity of the theory of evolution because you do not appear to be open to accepting the accuracy and validity of any evidence which is presented to you which might be inconsistent with your creationist beliefs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b] [/QUOTE]What is fantastic about that claim?A meteorite called Allende:
Pb-207/Pb-206 = 4.50 by
Pb-207/U-235 = 5.57 by
Pb-206/U-238 = 8.82 by
Pb-208/T-232 = 10.4 by
Sr-87/Sr-86 = 4.48 byTwo agree. Three do not.[/b][/QUOTE]Do you have citations for that context-free data? It seems to be inconsistent with results given by Dalrymple in a web article at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/8906_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.aspTable 1. Radiometric ages for 3 chondrite meteorites. Meteorite Method Age (Ga) Lab
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.52 ++ 0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.53++ 0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.48++0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.55++ 0.03 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.55++0.03 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.57++0.03 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.50 ++ 0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.56++0.05 1
Allende Pb-Pb isochron (27 points) 4.553++ 0.004 7
Guarena 40Ar/39Ar 4.44++ 0.06 2
Guarena Rb-Sr isochron (13 points) 4.46++ 0.08 4
St Servin 40Ar/39Ar 4.43++ 0.04 5
St Servin 40Ar/39Ar 4.38++ 0.04 6
St Servin 40Ar/39Ar 4.42++0.04 6
St Servin Rb-Sr isochron (10 points)< 4.51++ 0.15 3
St Servin Sm-Nd isochron (4 points) 4.55++0.33 4
St Servin Pb-Pb isochron (5 points) 4.543++ 0.019 3From compilation in Dalrymple (1991). Data from university laboratories in Germany(1), Great Britain(2), France (3), California (4), Minnesota (5), Missouri (6), and the USGS in Denver, Colorado (7).The case for consistency in radiometric datings seems well supported.

Can I surmise that, after posting a few messages and making a number of assertions, John Paul will again disappear until the questions addressed to him have quietly slipped off the radar and then suddenly he will reappear and choose to ignore those inconvenient questions?I note that points in messages 106 and 108 (at least) remain unaddressed by John Paul.