This is irrelevant with the curve as it now gives age in actual counted years for tested c-14 results. You can actually work back from it to what the relative proportions would have been at the time the specimens stopped uptake of C-14.
Those layers show an earth over 45,000 years.
If carbon dating was matched up with the layers, what was the set-standard for the age of the layers?
The reason I ask this question is because it remains quite possible that the standards be tampered with or otherwise manipulated to *fit* the speculated dates obtained by the C14 tests.
1. C-14 is increasing in the atmosphere due to nuclear bomb tests in the 1950's...This is a very strong piece of evidence that you continue to ignore.
Dr. Libby, who began developing radiocarbon-dating methods in 1946, calculated that there existed an influx of radiocarbon in the atmosphere. Granted, nuclear bomb tests in the South Pacific in the 1950's could have contributed to an increase in the rate of carbon-14 influx, it does not give account for the idea that such tests exclude the influx of C-14 on our atmosphere.
Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the influx rate is not equal to the disintegration rate of C-14 in the upper atmosphere. His calculations reveal a recent turning of the C-14 clock--otherwise the two factors would be balanced. His research indicates that the clock was turned *approximately 80 centuries ago. Now, He was not working in favor of creationism necessarily; nevertheless his findings give account for a catylized-increase of radiocarbon in the atmosphere as of about 8000 years ago.
2. The age of the earth is not measured by carbon 14 decay rates. In fact, the 4.5 billion year old solar system is supported by non-terrestrial bodies, ie meteorites. So you have to show how 15 or so ratios of parent and daughter pairs could all be wrong and still give the same number. If you think C14 is used to measure the age of the earth, then you are mistaken.
Obviously, I DO NOT think that C-14 dating is not used to measure the earth's age (evolutionists and mainstream-geologists believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years old and therefore disregard C-14 dating as a proper method of measuring back that far). This statement has been made many times, and I do not intend on using radiocarbon dating to give an argument for the creation model.
Nevertheless, the influx in radiocarbon is an area of science that I am still currently studying and cannot be given as *empirical evidence for OR against creationism and therefore I believe it requires further scrutiniy by both sides.
3. You claim in your posts that you want to discuss scientific data, but then go on and on about how you are being attacked. I, personally, would love to get in a scientific debate on a subject of your choosing. I might attack your logic, but I will never attack you personally. I have great respect for people's faith in their god, even if I disagree with them on theologic or scientific grounds.
That is good to read. Thank you.
As far as radiocarbon buildup and dating methods is concerned, we still have much to discuss. As far as the ceolocanth argument is concerned, I withdraw my earlier statement that it can be given as evidence against evolution (that is what science is about... if reasonable doubt exists against a specific argument or piece of evidence, it is taken out of context and no longer used in the debate). Nevertheless, since radiometric dating and geologic strata's relation to the fossil record are still being heavily discussed and scrutinized on both sides of the spectrum here, I would appreciate it if--if nothing else--people would not use the ceolocanth as evidence FOR evolution either (and I will not try to offer it as evidence AGAINST evolution, since evidently there exists no evidence to suggest that the ceolocanth of today is so much the same as the extinct "ceolocanths" that it could not have evolved).
The argument goes like this. 14C is produced in the upper atmosphere faster than it is being removed, and therefore the concentration of 14C should be greater than it actually is. This means the 14C/12 C ratio has not yet reached equilibrium. This could only be because insufficient time has passed for equilibrium to be reached, and the numbers support an earth only thousands, not billions, of years old.
For a very simplified version the argument, yes that is the context in which I was ORIGINALLY referring to radiocarbon influx for.
There are a couple of ways to answer this issue. First, Abby's carbon 14 (Message 79) , while not specifically addressing the equilibrium issue, does raise a very real problem for your position. If the ratio had truly been making steady progress toward equilibrium beginning around only 10,000 years ago, then there could be no correlation with lake varves, tree rings and glacial layers.
First of all, tree rings' size--and the frequency thereof--are due to the amount of precipitation recieved that year. Thus, heavier rainfall accounts for thicker, more widely-spaced rings. Contrastingly, a drought would account for narrower rings. However, one problem that has been overlooked is the fact that the Bible teaches that the trees were all created on day 3 (not counting the ones created in the Garden of Eden on day six, in Gen chapter two, but that's a different issue). Anyway, the point being made is that evolution vs. creation is, essentially, a paradox in essence because one is trying to compare scientific rationale in terms of the western mind with that of Biblical teachings (stories remaining since the writing of Genesis). Therefore, in order to discredit creationism, one must use more than simply a good understanding of science, because the Bible teaches that the trees living around the world prior to the Flood were created on day 3. Adam having been made a full-grown man on day six; likewise, the trees were made full-grown (with hundreds of rings at least already existent) and therefore tree-ring dating cannot be used to discredit the possibility of a creation-miracle because the idea is that trees--with a speculative age of hundreds or even thousands of years old--were in fact created simultaneously on a single day. Furthermore, the influx of C-14 in the atmosphere began approximately 8000 years ago as determined by Whitelaw's research from the Virginia polytechnic Institute. Thus, when trying to utilize tree-ring phenomena to justify the speculated accuracy of radio-carbon dates ascertained, one would encounter a rubber-ruler problem (in terms of the trees with thousands of "years" worth of rings already having been created within the first six days of the earth's existence).
Furthermore, glacial layers have been speculated to be not annual layers, but altercations of warm-cold-warm-cold (such melting-points and freezing-points of the surface in Greenland could be reached in a climatic fluctation within a few weeks, not years). Therefore there has been no further evidence given to account for the argument that the glacial deposits of layers proves annual deposits rather than bi-weekly or monthly, etc.
The second approach addresses the 14C equilibrium issue more directly by explaining that the production rate of atmospheric 14 C varies over time. Sometimes it is higher than the rate at which it is removed (mostly through decay), and sometimes it is lower. The production rate appears to vary according to many factors, including the earth's magnetic field strength (also not a constant), sunspot activity and solar storms. The rate of removal can also vary somewhat.
The varying rate of production of 14 C has been confirmed by the correlation studies mentioned by Abby, and have even been correlated with varying magnetic field strength as recorded by contemporaneous rocks. It is consistent with the correlation studies that indicate the concentration of atmospheric 14C has varied both up and down over time.
Your underlying assumption of a constant rate of production of atmospheric 14C has been shown to be false, and so there is no 14C equilibrium problem.
Despite a good argument given, I nevertheless see a flaw in the logic thereof...
As mentioned earlier, if the c-14 dates have been matched with the dates given by the layers, who set the standard for the strata-dates?
Also, if arguing that the influx of C-14 in the atmosphere has been "all over the radar-screen" in terms of not leaving our atmosphere at a steady rate, then why couldn't that also suggest the dates ascertained by radiocarbon dating to be equally unreliable? Afterall, according to an article published in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, volume 288 (by J. Ogden III) fewer than half of all the radiocarbon dates taken from testing have been adopted as "acceptable" by investigators.
Increased fossil fuel use would also explain the disequilibrium that Servant was complaining about. Of course, no one has ever claimed that the isotopes would be in PERFECT equilibrium anyway, just close enough to date organic matter younger than about 75,000 years old within a margin of error that is acceptable.
Despite the fact that radiocarbon dating has already been established on this site as being reliable (a point that somebody is bound to throw at me yet again) I would like to touch base on a few points about carbon-dating?
First off, as mentioned above, tree-ring dating cannot be given as evidence against a 7000-year-old earth because, as the book of Genesis declares, all trees and plants alive on early earth were created on day 3, fully-grown and intact immediately (therefore a tree with six-thousand rings cannot be assumed to be 6000 years old because God would have the ability to create it in one day, as he created a full-grown man on day 6) Yes, that?s a religious argument, but in fact the Bible and its ideologies are what need to be proven wrong in order for evolution to prevail as 100 percent factual.
Furthermore, I would like to point out a few minor speculations that have to be assumed* reasonably un-tampered-with in order for C-14 dating to be accurate:
? Atmospheric carbon: for the past several thousand years the air around us had to have had the same amount of carbon-14 that it now has (obviously not true as given by BOTH sides of the debate above)
? Cosmic rays: cosmic rays from the solar system reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now
? Decay and balance rates: both the rate of balance and that of decay would have little if any fluctuation (obviously not true)
? No contamination: nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing radiocarbon
? Amount of C-14 at death: the fraction of C-14 that was possessed by the specimen at the time of death, is still known today
? Atmospheric nitrogen: nitrogen is the precursor to C-14 and so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant
? Uniform results: the technique always yields the same results on the same sample or related samples that are evidently part of the same larger specimen
? Earth?s magnetic field: fluctuation in the earth?s magnetic field would not contribute to any fluctuation in C-14 over time
If as few as two or three of the above speculations made during a radiocarbon test were thrown off even marginal, the dates obtained would be catastrophically different from the actual age of the specimen.
Also, as argued by the evolutionists on this page, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has fluctuated. Therefore, theoretically C-14 should not be given as evidence FOR OR AGAINST evolution or creation until we can understand its mechanism and the studies thereof further in-depth. As I?ve mentioned, what?s the standard for the strata and the age of the fossil-record? If it can be argued that the geologic strata was laid down quite instantaneously only a few thousand years ago, then that would not only account for the endless number of mission links, but would also explain the misinterpretation as of the accuracy between C-14 dating and the ?age? of the strata.
In other words, the geologic strata, if you choose to look at it through the eyes of an investigator rather than a biased, opinionated mind, thus could give ample evidence that the dates between the strata and radiocarbon are due to a geo-synchronous Flood.
Sorry, but I have to go. Busy weekend coming up and I?m really not sure when I?ll be back on.
Sincerely,
Servant
Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...
™ Version 4.2
