Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Works both ways. I am a something of an impasse on my rewrite of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 with more emphasis on conscilience ... the problem is that I have only one source for lake varves vs 14C that extends beyond the tree rings (there are some short ones).The varves and 14C levels show that the lower layers cannot be younger than the upper layers and that the trend of 14C from the tree rings continues in a general direction. There is also a second coring set that validates the earlier one, makes some adjustments and corrections, and extends the data slightly ... but it is still data from only one lake.The best comparison I currently have is with marine varves in Cariaco Basin, Venezuela. The problem is that this involves the marine reservoir effect, so (1) there is an additional level of uncertainty with using the marine varves, and (2) I would rather use the differences between them to show the marine reservoir effect (and how it changes with time).My next link is to ice layers for age -- and that means showing consilience between the lake varvesAny thoughts how I should handle this?Enjoy

First off thanks, Indeed, especially when it shows a continued "trendency" so that "all things considered" if there is no reason to posit changes one would expect them the represent reality. The best correlation is with a set of marine varves, however this introduces reservoir effect.Now Diamonds: I am more familiar with oil samples, and there is a good discussion on this on PRATT Claim CD011.6, but follow the link to Kathleen Hunt article Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

quote:

---

... they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels ...

​

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!

​

Dr. Gove and his colleagues are currently trying to improve AMS technology to be able to identify certain fossil fuels that have extremely low 14C content. Current AMS techniques have a 14C/C detection limit of about 10-15 (corresponding to 60,000 yrs), and Dr. Gove's current research, this year, is aimed at improving detectability to 10-18 (110,000 yrs).

​

Their ultimate goal is to reliably measure 14C/C ratios down to the unbelievably low levels of 10-22 (180,000 yrs). This AMS technology would then be used to identify certain oils that have very low 14C levels, and then those oils would be the ones used in the neutrino detectors.

---

The 14C detected levels correlate with radioactivity, varying widely for coals of the same approximate age.There is also information of 14C production in the carbon rods used in nuclear reactors (and spent rods have high radioactivity)And it should be obvious that any effect on one sample of old carbon can be applied to all others such samples (coal, oil, diamonds, etc)So there is a LOT of evidence of radioactivity causing 14C in old carbon.Enjoy

All it needs is to be measurable and you get an age near the limit of 14C dating, which is what is usually reported.Certainly with water concentrating U in carbon\coal this can increase the amounts in coal.And thanks Petro, I had previously wondered what made U precipitate on speleothems. (as in Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems and Devil's Hole -- an extension to what is in my age correlations thread)Enjoy

Nice concept. Should be some good material in family photo albums. We used to have a portrait of my great grands on my mother's side, and you could see the family resemblances. Unfortunately that and a number of family photos burned in a house fire (house totaled, no one hurt), so I don't have that information anymore (although we may have a photo of it).Another analogy that has been used is taking snapshots of a person walking across the US: each snapshot shows the same person in a different location, the locations are within walking distance of the other locations for the time difference. This also shows the importance of location in space as well as time for connecting fossils.It would be cool to combine the two -- a family that immigrates from one location to another with old photos to document the times and locations.Enjoy

According to The method

quote:

---

The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at �10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science. ...

​

​

Figure 1: The "Curve of Knowns" after Libby and Arnold (1949).

---

I believe you can get a free membership to science at Science | AAASCuriously they don't list a 1949 reference but do listArnold, J.R., and W.F. Libby, 1951. Radiocarbon dates. Science, 113:111-120.You could also try to email thomas.higham@archaeology-research.oxford.ac.uk (but I don't think he works there anymore)Enjoy

I'm not aware of this claim, but what I have heard before is the claim that because 14C is not in equilibrium, that the earth cannot be old. The fact is that the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere oscillates around an average level that is the equilibrium level, due to the fluctuation in production.Whether or not he claimed it was in equilibrium is irrelevant to what we know now to be the reality, and it becomes another case of appeal to authority and quote mining to argue that what he said invalidates what we know now.Also, we know that Libby was in error on his measurement of half-life (it is 5730 instead of 5568) and that little was known then about the variation in cosmic rays.I did some more looking and found these:

quote:

---

Science 6 May 1955:
Vol. 121 no. 3149 pp. 649-658
DOI: 10.1126/science.121.3149.649

​

Radiocarbon Dates of Pre-Mankato Events inEastern and Central North America, Richard Foster Flint1, Meyer Rubin2

​

References:
LIBBY, W.F., RADIOCARBON DATING (1952).
LIBBY, W.F., CHICAGO RADIOCARBON DATES .3., SCIENCE 116: 673 (1952). FREE Full Text
LIBBY, W.F., CHICAGO RADIOCARBON DATES-V, SCIENCE 120: 733 (1954). FREE Full Text

---

Those free links are just data lists with little discussion and no mention of equilibrium.Science 3 March 1961:
Vol. 133 no. 3453 pp. 621-629
DOI: 10.1126/science.133.3453.621
(extract): Radiocarbon DatingScience 19 April 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3564 pp. 278-280
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3564.278
(extract): Accuracy of Radiocarbon DatesHope that helps narrow the search.btw -- check with your library to see if they have access to paywall articles.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : btw

Yep that's the claim I have seen before. Because Libby said it then it must be true ...Here's some information on equilibrium, where I picked the case that would come closest to 14C decay because the production is relatively constant:

quote:

---

Radioactive Equilibrium
Radionuclide Has a Much Longer Half-Life

​

​

When the half-life of the original radionuclide is much longer than the half-life of the decay product, the decay product generates radiation more quickly. Within about 7 half lives of the decay product, their activities are equal, and the amount of radiation (activity) is doubled. Beyond this point, the decay product decays at the same rate it is produced a state called "secular equilibrium.

---

And 7 times 5568 = ~38,976 years. (Change that to 5730 and you get ~40,110 years ...)But now we know that 14C production is not steady, and the variation is enough to cause the disequilibrium we see.Another interesting take is this (from John Mackay, Creation Research):

quote:

---

CARBON 14 dating proves things are too old for Genesis to be true. What’s your argument against it?

​

Limitations

​

... However, if the level of C14 in the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium there is a serious problem.

​

To put it in technical terms, according to radioactivity expert Curt Sewell: The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 + / — 0.5 disintegrations per gram per minute. (see article by Sewell here)

​

What’s the significance?

​

We put this to former Los Alamos Nuclear Physicist Dr Tom Hayward and asked him to calculate how long it would take to build C14 up to its current level starting from zero, and to graph the results for us. His results and graphs are as follows:

​

1: Time for formation rate to be in equilibrium with decay rate is 30,000years.

​

​

2: Time needed to reach current position of disequilibrium is between 13 and 16,000 years, assuming rates of C14 formation/decay are the same today as they have always been.

​

---

Notice the palming of the pea to extend the level down to 15.3 disintegrations per gram per minute in order to get the theoretical age from constant 14C production down to ~13,000 years ... and that even then this is still significantly older that the standard ~6500 YEC age by a factor of 2.And the logic is :: gosh it's not 16,000 years old, so therefore it must be 6500 years old?It gets more amusing as he explains old 14C dates by assuming that the preflood 14C was minimal:

quote:

---

Radioactive carbon may not rate a mention in Genesis, but the Bible does tell us that when God finished creating the world it was very good. As radioactive carbon causes genetic mutations, it is not very good, so the air Adam and Eve breathed in and the plant food they ate did not contain it. It is most likely that the combination of the waters above (see Genesis 1:6-9) and seemingly stronger magnetic field would have kept out the radiation that constantly makes C14 in today’s atmosphere. However, after Noah’s Flood the protection of the waters above was removed, and the magnetic field is continuing to decay even as you read. Therefore radioactive carbon is building up in the atmosphere, and will continue to do so should the earth endure to 30,000 yrs of age.

---

So now we must have 16,000 years back to the flood (circa 4500 years ago?) to reach todays atmospheric levels ... It would be interesting to take the 14C atmospheric levels known from the tree ring ages and integrate what the current atmosphere level should be.ExperimentYou can discuss this aspect with an experiment. One of the ways to visually model radioactive decay is with a leaky bucket ... lets start with this image:

quote:

---

Carbon-14 Dating Confirms Earth is Young

​

---

(Of course we know the level is NOT constant, but this show that the more 14C you have (inflow) the more decay you have (outflow), and when decay = production you would have equilibrium.)Use a rain barrel and meter the flow through a drain hole, use constant inflow at several different rates and see how full the barrel gets. Then change it to half on and half off inflow and see how that affects the output.The output is ∝ depth, so this would model the change in decay with atmospheric concentration. You can show what equilibrium is, that it is different for different inflow rates, and that it tends to average fluctuations -- the fuller the barrel is the less the effect of variation has. Note that Sewel states:

quote:

---

... No one knows this answer, so they assume that the atmosphere has always been like it was in 1950. But this is known to be wrong!

​

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of 14C is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 + / - 0.5 disintegrations per gram per minute. The difference between these two numbers shows that the buildup in the biosphere hasn't had time to catch up with production in the stratosphere. In other words, the earth's atmosphere must be less than some fifty thousand years old! This, in itself, is a strong evidence of creationist claims. But the 14C establishment's response is that it's merely a problem not yet solved.

---

Is "atoms per gram of total carbon per minute" the same as "disintegrations per gram per minute" - they would appear to be: one 14C atom produce from 14N + cosmic ray and one atom 14N produced from 14C with beta decay.You will note that sources for these numbers are not given. Is 18.8 the level in 1950? today?Carbon-14 - Wikipedia

quote:

---

As of 2008, the rate of carbon-14 production was poorly known — while the reaction can be modelled or the current concentrations and the global carbon budget can be used to backtrack, attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux incident, such as supernovae, and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.[10]

​

The natural atmospheric yield of carbon-14 has been estimated to be about 22 000 atoms 14C per meter square of the surface of the earth per second, resulting in the global production rate of about 1 PBq/a.[11] Another estimate of the average production rate[12] gives a value of 20 500 atoms m−2s−1. Occasional spikes are possible; for example, there is evidence for an unusual 10-fold increase of the production rate in AD 774—775.[13]

---

(Note they also talk about other sources)Curiously I have difficulty translating "atoms/m^2/s^1" to "atoms per gram of total carbon per minute" -- might want to talk to Los Alamos Nuclear Physicist Dr Tom Hayward (or others)EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

There is of course no decay producing 14C in our atmosphere. What I was looking at was the situation where a radioactive isotope is produced at an assumed constant rate, and the lower curve would match that situation.We know that production is not constant but varies over a (iirc) 19 year cycle and some longer cycles due to variations in solar activity and variations in the earth magnetic field.We also know that a lot of old 12C has been released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel use since the dawn of the coal age, which would depress the current concentration level of 14C/12C in the atmosphere.And we know that current production of 14C is above pre-atomic age numbers.So if you skew which data you use with this situation you can have a current concentration level below what an assumed constant level high input production should give for equilibrium. If you assume a constant production and a decay amount ∝ to the concentration level then you will get an exponential curve.Just like you will get from a rain barrel with a hole in the bottom and constant inflow from a hose.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Exactly, so when creationists start talking about this we know they are starting from an invalid position. Like I said it would be interesting to plot our the 14C levels versus time from the tree ring data to show that it is not a smooth curve as these articles (note they were from two creationist sites, except the secular decay curve I posted). Neither is the cosmic ray strictly speaking. We do know that sun activity has some periodic behavior, and it shows up like clock ticks on the tree ring data. And we know these ancient levels from artifacts of known age, like tree rings, Without reading the paper I don't have a clue what he said, all I am doing is pushing back on the creationist claims, where it doesn't really matter what Libby said as equilibrium cannot be expected from a variable input.What I do know is that we don't really appear to have a good idea of the rate of production or it's transportation to surface organisms: I found a number of papers with quite different results. We don't. The creationists do, and it is SOP for many of them to do so. Indeed. Sometimes more, sometimes less (once you correct for fossil fuel 12C and atomic reaction 14C, etc). Morris is wrong because the earth is easily countably older (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) than this purported age to equilibrium, as documented by mountains of data. Hovind is a used-car\snake-oil salesman.It's typical creationist hogwash, down to the appeal to old science\authority and misrepresentation of facts.Enjoy

Excellent. And I would assume from this that this is what he means by equilibrium -- a steady state condition where number of 14C atoms formed ≈ number of 14C atoms that decay (within the tolerances of measurements).

quote:

---

The mixing reservoir consists not only of living matter which dilutes the radiocarbon, but of the dissolved carbonaceous material in the oceans which can exchange carbon with the atmospheric carbon dioxide and thus dilute it. In fact, the ocean is the larger part of the diluting carbon reservoir (see Table I). ...

---

And of course only using the quantity of 14C decaying in the atmosphere to compare to the total generation of 14C and ignoring the quantity of 14C that gets deposited in the oceans (and decays there) gives a false low level of decaying 14C.ie - a proper comparison includes all the 14C in all the reservoirs (atmosphere, biological organisms, oceans, etc).Thanks, I think that pretty well demonstrates that the creationist claims are wrong wrong wrong.Enjoy.

A theory is a tested hypothesis, 1 test or a thousand.Enjoy

My first response was from my tablet.What you may want to consider is being a tad pedantic to delineate between common usage and scientific usage:A scientific hypothesis is one that can be falsified by objective empirical evidence and it is based on observation to explain a phenomenon, and it should predict something new.A scientific theory is a tested scientific hypothesis - a prediction came true, a falsification test failed (and then you make new predictions and falsification tests). No matter how strong a theory becomes it is still subject to testing and falsification. Here one needs to be careful to distinguish between the process of evolution (the change in frequency etc), which has been observed and it is a fact, and the theory of evolution (that evolution can explain the diversity of life), which is tested with every fossil find and every DNA comparison. So yes still a theory, a very strong theory. Many consider this still an hypothesis. There are also competing concepts (brane\string theory). The new double ability Hadron collider may give us some answers. See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II), I did a bit of review of the work being done in 2009. I believe the predominant hypothesis is that the first life was based on RNA (the "RNA world" hypothesis) If you have an hypothesis that is testable (predictions come true, falsification fails) then you can do science, whatever field you are working in.Enjoy

My first impression is the same as 46&2's and Coyotes's that he is misusing the reservoir effect.My second impression is that, where ever it comes from, this argument can be refuted by comparing the Cariaco Basin varves (laid down under sea water) and the Lake Suigetsu varves (laid down under fresh water) and show that the slopes of the curves for 14C levels are the same. The Cariaco Basin varves are displaced by the reservoir effect, by (iirc) ~100 years apparent older age, and this displacement appears to be fairly constant.If what he said were true then:

1. the Cariaco Basin curve should be consistently flatter in slope compared to Lake Suigetsu (samples in contact with seawater for longer times should show more effect), and
2. the alignment of the Cariaco Basin varves with the German oak and pine would show a flatter average slope for the Cariaco Basin data, as the pine samples were terrestrial and not under sea water
3. the curves would also diverge due to the fact that the decay curve is exponential, his saline effect is presumably similar to the dissolution of salt in water and would be based on surface contact.

This difference in decay is just not seen, as the wiggle-match for these three sets of data shows:

quote:

---

Hughen, K.A., Southon, J.R., Lehman, S.J., Overpeck, J.T.. Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation, Science vol 290, 2000, p 1951-1954.

​

​

Figure 2 Radiocarbon calibration data set from Cariaco Basin core PL07-58PC compared with ... varved lake sediments. Thin black line and solid circles, Cariaco Basin data; thin gray line, German pine data (1); ... and open circles, varves from Lake Suigetsu, Japan (18). Climatic period abbreviations are as follows: Preboreal, PB; Younger Dryas, YD; Blling/Allerd, B/A; and Glacial, GL. Gray bars indicate timing of the Glacial-Blling transition and the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas based on Cariaco Basin gray scale. 14C and U/Th uncertainties are shown at 1σ.

---

The Cariaco-pine overlap is 1370 years.The consilience of these three sets of data showing the same pattern of variation in 14C levels, with hundreds of points of agreement, is rather hard to explain by purported endemic errors.Finally, his effect would depend on the length of time an artifact was in salt water, rather than the time that the salt water had been away from the ocean surface, and you would not see the apparent 1,300 age of freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound , so this creationist argument refutes his creationist argument ... (you can't have it both ways ...) they can't both be true (but they can both be false).One wonders what effect he thinks salt water has on carbon molecules and how it can affect different isotopes differentially.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

Well that looks like one source for the claim.

quote:

---

Radio Carbon Dating

​

Problems with C14 Dating

​

For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.

​

Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.

​

Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.

​

Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.

​

New or Old?

​

Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.

---

We already know the McMurdo Pratt.Note that "Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio" has it backwards -- it would increase the C14 content more than the C12 content because it is younger.Creationists making stuff up again.Enjoy

Indeed, and each volcano has a "signature" mix of minerals and elements so they can be compared and correlated. An ash layer in a peat bog in Japan is from the same volcanic eruption as one in Lake Suigetsu, and this can be used to validate the age of the layers in Lake Suigetsu or vice versa.In addition sometimes artifacts or footprints are found in the tuff (Laetoli being a famous example) or killed by the ash cloud (as occurred at Pompeii) and thus they can be dated directly by the tuff.Major eruptions also leave ash on glaciers or ice fields, and this allows those dates to be correlated.Creationists love to intentionally do science badly because they know that they will get bollixed results which they can then foist on the gullible as "evidence" that the science is wrong. Time and again it is shown that all they have done is gotten the science wrong, as seen in the article TAD posted at the beginning of this subthread.EnjoyNote: you can follow subthreads by using the thread index and searching it for the subtitle (why subtitles are important?) -- click the little icon at the top left -- for this post I have changed it to and on this thread it takes you to EvC Forum: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists Message List