Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

When we get to C14 dating, I'll be able to contribute a bit.I have done somewhere over 650 C14 dates in a long career as an archaeologist, and have had to study the topic to figure out what I'm getting.

ThinAirDesigns, I can assure you that kbertsche is extremely knowledgeable about C14 dating.Here is a link to some of his writing:http://datab.us/...n%2BDating%2BPlayListIDPLF412A23C13F494A7He can help you with the theoretical aspects of this subject, and I can help with some of the practical aspects.

My main areas are sample selection and interpreting the results.Others can help you in other areas of C14 dating, just as RAZD has already provided some great information on calibration.

Interesting, I did not know that about Erv Taylor.I have followed his excellent writings and even worked with him on a project about 25 years back. That subject never came up.

Good flowsheet on the scientific method.Now, to stretch your imagination, lets see one for Intelligent Design.That should be fun!

First, you don't date "fossils" with carbon-14 dating. Fossils are once-living things that have had their organic materials replaced by stone. Stone doesn't date well when you're looking for organics.But, some "fossils" are only partially fossilized, and retain some organics, so they can sometimes provide a date.The initial ratio between C14 and C12 is not a problem, as that figure can be supplied through calibration. It was initially assumed that the levels of C14 were constant, but that was shown not to be the case early on (see De Vries 1958).The need from that point on was to establish the initial correct ratios, and that has been done using the calibration curve--the most recent of which in IntCal13.In other words, the atmospheric levels of C14 vary a bit, maybe up to about 11 or 12%. To get a more accurate date, this factor needs to be accounted for. Calibration against tree-rings, varves, corals, and other annular data provided a means to do this. And, historical items of known ages such as Egyptian relics, are also used.The bottom line--C12 is pretty much a constant, while C14 is a variable: it varies both from the initial value and due to radioactive decay through time. But, by controlling for that initial value through calibration the remaining variable is time so the method becomes quite accurate.As for the math--I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.

I have never bothered with that 1.03 correction. I just use the calibrated range and intercept.And I have done over 650 dates in my research area, and have nearly 7,000 dates in my computer.

On the Calib. 7 site it says,Any questions or comments regarding CALIB should be directed to Prof. Paula Reimer p.j.reimer@qub.ac.ukShe is very nice and usually answers quickly.

Calib 7 is a web-based program to calibrate radiocarbon dates, using the Conventional Radiocarbon Age and producing either AD/BC dates or BP dates.That program uses IntCal13, the latest calibration curve, and the email address I gave you should be good for answering any of the questions you have posed here about what those numbers represent.

You are correct, those two are the same.When a radiocarbon sample comes back from the laboratory it is generally expressed as a Conventional Age, or Radiocarbon Age. This is the Measured Age corrected for C13, using a half life of 5568, and using AD 1950 as the base year with all results calculated back from that point.When the laboratory (or you) calibrates that Conventional Age they express the resulting calendar age as, for example, "Cal BC 6250 to 6040 (Cal BP 8200-7990)."Beta Analytic, the largest radiocarbon laboratory in the world, expresses their calibrated dates in just that manner. (This example is from one of my samples.)Hope this helps.

I contacted Dr. Lee some years ago and he sent me a copy of the journal.The famous quote used by creationists begins somewhere in the introduction and after the ellipsis (...) ends somewhere in the conclusions many pages later.I have it at the office and I'll try to remember to dig it out. Maybe I could scan it or something.

I have the article as a pdf, about 1.7 megs in size.If you send me an email address via private messaging I'll forward it to you.

Creationists have to misrepresent, distort, quote-mine, ignore contradictory evidence, develop elaborate fantasy explanations, and lie in many other ways because the real-world evidence simply doesn't support their beliefs.As the first part of defending their beliefs, they have to deceive themselves.

You are exactly the opposite of a scientist. That might be a good idea.

The YEC sites I have seen often say that radiocarbon dating is not accurate for times before the flood.However, they don't all agree on the exact reasons for that inaccuracy.