Starlight Within a Young Universe

I believe the greeks had worked out a rough curvature of the earth from the different lengths of shadows at noon on the same days from same length gnomons at different latitudes.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I looked over the article, but could find absolutely no reference to the methodology used or the criteria applied to eliminate contamination.The closest I could find was:

quote:

---

C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ”vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14. Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ”contamination’ and ”background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown.

---

And in under "references and notes":

quote:

---

2. Even with the most sensitive AMS techniques used today, nary an atom of C-14 should be present after 250,000 years.

---

This last statement is false, on two levels. First, the amount of 14C in a specimen does not depend on the method of measurement -- it is there or it isn't. Second, radioactive decay does not eliminate ALL radioactive elements by decay, no matter what the half life is there is always the possibility of some remaining in a sample. It is more likely that such small levels will be detected with more advanced and sensitive instruments. This of course is one of the sources of the background radiation levels that they say they have eliminated in the first statement.Of course dismissing the evidence of contamination and background as being "completely unhelpful in explaining its source" does not mean that this has been SHOWN to be the case, they are just denying the evidence that contradicts their position.The kicker is when they state "as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown" ... and don't give a single reference. Not one. Could it be that they are making a bare unsupported assertion while using KNOWN cases of contamination to INTENTIONALLY provide false samples?

quote:

---

The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ”old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels.³ This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

​

Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have C-14 present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount of C-14.

---

This too is a false statement: 14C dating is only good for samples less than 50,000 years. Anything older than that is misuse of the dating method -- and likely intentionally by Baumgardner et al -- because (could it be?) that is where background levels and contamination are KNOWN to make the results unreliable."reference 3" is Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model available in PDF at
Error | The Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’

---

And "fossilized organic material" is by definition contaminated:

quote:

---

fos”sil”ize”- verb, -ized, -iz”ing.
1. Geology. to convert into a fossil; replace organic with mineral substances in the remains of an organism.

---

But there is one more issue to deal with in this "paper" ...

quote:

---

... because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.

---

The issue of contamination is not just biological contamination - that is a straw man fallacy. Contamination can also come from non-organic sources, and it can also be radioactive. The easiest way to contaminate samples for 14C testing is to subject them to radiation that reconverts 14N to 14C and thus results in false elevated levels of 14C for detection.Curiously the false young dates for ancient coals and oil is directly related to radioactive contamination and not related to geological age of the sample -- thus indicating a high correlation with radioactive contamination.Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

quote:

---

The 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

​

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.

​

So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10^{^-20} or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected.

​

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!

---

Unless of course you WANT false results ... then you go LOOKING for radioactive contamination of fossils.This demonstrates that the opening statement on radiocarbon dating in the "RATE" article is and outright falsehood:

quote:

---

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most2) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ”millions of years’ old.

---

Not just because of the errors listed previously but because the sources they are intentionally using for samples are those specifically listed that are known to be contaminated by radioactivity from other sources.Curiously the issue of 14C dating has nothing to do with starlight and fantasy models of a universe and it's effect on explaining the astronomical age of the universe and the earth.What it does show is that Humphreys ... and Baumgardner and others ... are not interested in eliminating sources of errors to develop scientific conclusions, but in actually using known sources of errors to create false impressions for gullible people.Meanwhile the evidence of annual layers still shows the world is older than any YEC model I know of. What part about the argument from authority being a logical fallacy DO you understand? A blind man shooting at a target will occasionally hit a bull's eye but that does not make him a marksman.The claims that Humphrey's work is not valid science is based on evaluation of that work by scientists that show where, how and why it is wrong. Those are the GOOD arguments.and btw, some of the best writers of Science Fiction are scientists.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, that's what I wanted to know-- whether or not triangulation was used, or if by some other method that I was unaware of. I know that triangulation is very accurate here, but I wasn't certain if new methods have been devised.

Nemesis, A while back nosyned posted this. I had to look it up (thought I bookmarked it) Stellar ParallaxEdited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.

---

Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.

So, according to the same logic, all Velikovsky's theories concerning the planets acting independent of physics, with Mars causing the plagues of Egypt due to some close encounter, has to be correct because he predicted Venus would be hot?Is it absolutely impossible a person could accidently reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons?Even a clock that doesn't work is right twice a day.

It is true that they do not give to many clues on where and how they got those results. I will continue looking for now, your references are helpful though.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Reply should be on
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)As that thread deals specifically with age dating methods, and discusses Radiocarbon as it corroborates other systems.Of particular note is that the effect of climate on carbon 14 dating is also matched by the effect of climate on the annual layer systems, and that any criticism of carbon dating needs to address how this correlation occurs.Then we can leave this thread to refutations of your astronomical assertions. Such as Message 34.Enjoy.{abe}
I have transfered the carbon 14 debate to Message 50 so we can continue there. I apologize for dragging your topic off on a tanget.{/abe}Edited by RAZD, : abe end

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The problem with the Big Bang is it says little about how it banged, why it banged or exactly when it banged. Its a thermodynamic dead end, and the laws of physics cannot break down at the mere suggestion of a philosopher.Now I find M-Theory an interesting theory because it does something that atheists swear oaths not to do: Its teaches things that are unseen by the atheists. I think M-Theory (membrane theory) may be a little misleading. Did the white-hold universe become a membrane? Probably not but who actually knows for certain. Though it is my belief that M-theory can receive some credit if it does rule out monotheism--hence, M-Theory=M-onotheism in my personal view of this metaphysical conjecture.My favorite evolutionists, DR.M.Kaku, who I respect as a scientist, said that "our universe could be just one bubble in an ocean of bubbles." What I see in this view is not an accidental universe nor a solution for the accidental Big Bang. I see a bounded universe!! I see 11/12 dimensions of space-time which can explain why we cannot see angels, but many prophets have literally seen the dimensional doors open when they were called by the LORD.Back to Humpherys Starlight and Time (an awesome book!!). Now if we live in a bounded universe and even Big Bang theory agrees that the universe had a beginning (though the details differ), then perhaps the answer of starlight in a young universe is indeed supported by gravitation time dilation and the bubble-multiverse, since God is Infinite in existence and He has been creating even before He created the earth and everything in it. He did create the angels and they are the link that solves the alien-mystery and the starlight problem in a young universe.True. The universe is billions of years in age! But gravitational time-dilation has been proven and it make sense that gravity distorts time sinse it does the same right here on earth! How easy it will distort time beyong the earth's atmosphere!Of course, inn reality, all cosmogonical models cannot be proven and every one of them has to be accepted by faith. No need to force a cosmogonical view on anyone in the public!

---

Everything was nothing before there was something.
Everything is something even if its nothing at all.
For nothingness came from Something, and that
Something has always been there.
Without an Infinite Designer, nothing,
could not have ever been.
For even Nothing is Something;
And from Something...came everything.
~ Jason Fessenden

Do we have any peer-review studies on this "de novo" effect?
Can it happen with the other radiometric dating methods?
If so; what effects does it have?

Hello, MikeB, and welcome to EvC!!There's a more recent article with quite a few literature references here:
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?I'm sure RAZD will be along shortly, too.I very much doubt that you would see similar effects with the other common radiodating methods for a couple of reasons. First, the other isotopes used have half-lives on the order of the age of the Earth, so you wouldn't see the parent isotope ever getting to such low levels that contamination would bias results. Second, most other methods measure daughters, not parents. And thirdly, I'm not aware of any means to "replenish" isotopes like potassium-40 or rhenium-187 in the ground - only in supernovae.Edited by Coragyps, : add paragraph

In reading back over this thread I noted the brief discussion of recent radiocarbon dates in supposedly ancient coal and natural gas.These are typical creationist mistakes, not problems with radiocarbon dating. Here are analyses I did of two of the most common creationist claims:==================Claim:Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966)Analysis:False information due to sloppy research.This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:

Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia ” 1680 170. A.D. 270

​

Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41 25” N Lat, 74 40” E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.

What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads “Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam . ”But the term “coal” in place of “charcoal” was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find “Pennsylvanian” in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.ReferenceVinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, 1966, pp. 292-323.==================Claim:Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) ” should have been 50 to 135 million years old. C14 gave dates of 30,000 and 34,000, respectively.Analysis:False information due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with radiocarbon dating.This was another difficult reference to track down because the original source is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question originates in Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, page 200.)The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraphs describing these two samples:

​

I-1149. Sealy Springs well, Alabama ” >34,000

​

From Sealy Springs Well, Cottonwood, Houston County, Alabama. Well yielding salt water and natural gas, probably from Upper Cretaceous Eutaw sandstone. Comment (D.R.B.): sample submitted as control. Infinite age as expected.

​

I-1150. Maxie Gas Field, Mississippi ” >30,000

​

From Lower and Upper Cretaceous, and Eocene formations in Maxie Gas Field, Forrest County, Mississippi. Comment (D.R.B.): control sample yielding infitite age as expected.

Note the little “>” symbols in front of the dates? This means “greater than” and denotes that the measured ages reflect the limits of the instrumentation rather than an actual age. In other words, the creationists either goofed and missed the “>” symbols, or hoped that nobody would check up on their research.Rather than serving as an example of the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating, this refuted creationist claim serves as another example of the inaccuracy of creationist research.ReferenceTrautman, Milton A. and Eric H. Willis. Isotopes, Inc. Radiocarbon Measurements V. Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, 1966, pp. 161-203.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

NosyNed gave a POTM for this message.Alas, it is very off-topic and thus is buried in an inappropriate topic. I very much encourage you to submit the same message as at the Proposed New Topics forum. The subtitle will make a wonderful new topic title.I'm confident the new PNT will get a rapid promotion.Now back to the topic drift/abandonment problem. This topic has come back to life after being idle for pushing two years. I think I need to kill it (close it). Will leave open for about 15 minutes to catch any messages in preparation.If anyone wishes to make a case for this topic being reopened, go to the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---