Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Everybody seems to be being cool and detatched (pretty much, anyways). That's good.I just wanted to point out that, unless I missed something (very possible), I don't think Craig ever once said that the bacteria were selectively eating 14C instead of 12C. What he seems to think, rather, is that since bacteria are eating the kerogen (or leaves in the varves in Lake S.) the 14C/12C ratio is somehow being affected.Looking at ratios alone, this idea would be just incorrect. However, I won't go so far as to say that bacteria actions do NOT affect 12C/14C ratios at all (in either direction); it does seem counter-intuitive, however.As far as the different weights of the two isotopes are concerned, this flashed through my mind briefly, but I quickly realized this would make the ages go the wrong way (i.e., carbon ages would get younger with depth) ~ and then I read PaulK's post which says basically the same thing.

Carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate, though, are all the same thing. They're just the species that form when you dissolve carbon dioxide gas into water at different levels of acidity/alkalinity. They won't cre much about isotopes once in solution - perhaps there's a significant isotope effect on crossing from the air into solution, though.

Craig did specifically claim that the study showed bacteria eating C14
Message 107 - which is not really true.And since only selective eating of C14 would increase the apparent age, and Craig did not offer any other reasonable explanation of what he could mean (or a retraction) I see no reason to think that he meant anything else.

Craig seems to have a lot of problems that aren't accounted for.He needs the ratio to be affected, it has to be affected rather a lot, it has to somehow match the varve count, it has to match to other sites that are far away, it has to match other completely different methods and all the different correlations have to hold.He continues to ignore all of this and make up stuff on the fly without thinking it through. It maybe that he doesn't actually understand what he is writing.

PaulK,I can certainly see how one could think Craig was trying to imply selective eating, but I really don't get that when I read his posts. For instance, in the post you link to he simply says that the bacteria eat 14C, and they do. In the next post (#108), he tells Loudmouths that the bacteria eat the 14C before it converts to 12C, and they do. Neither time has he claimed that the bacteria are selecting 14C instead of 12C. Also, if you will read some of the dialog between Craig, Crashfrog and Loudmouth, I think you will find that Craig is claiming that the bacteria are eating both and that this upsets the ratio somehow. Crashfrog and Loudmouth both try to teach Craig about how ratios work in response to his claims.Now I think Craig knows how ratios work, but then we have what are apparent ponderings on his part about the 14C or 12C bonding to objects in overlying layers and such. He does not seem too dogmatic (to me, anyways) about these ponderings.I repeat, however, that I can see how one could think Craig had implied selective eating ~ that's why I wanted (to try to) clear it up a bit.

But in the experiment there was no C14 for them to eat. What Craig said was wrong.And if he thinks that just eating carbon will autmatically and consistently skew all the results in just the way he needs then he is being very, very, unrealistic.And if Craig ca't clarify what he really means I think that my interpretation is the most charitable since what he explicitly did say was wrong anyway - and if he didn't mean that the bacteria selectively ate C14 he was wrong again to even bring it up.

PaulK,Well, I hope you don't think I was "picking on you." I meant no disrespect (just in case I came across that way), it's just that the way you were interpreting him led you to the conclusion that he was being dishonest. It was certainly easy enough to think Craig was implying the "selective eating" idea (I think at first Loudmouth also thought Craig meant that), and that's why I wanted to point out that he didn't actually imply that idea it just really looked like he did.Craig certainly may have misread the article. As a matter of fact, Craig mentions them feeding "new" shale to the bacteria, but I think he has mistakenly thought that's what they meant when they said "New Albany shale"...if he did, that's worth a small chuckle, I think; I occasionally make mistakes like that.I don't know if the idea of bacteria affecting 14C/12C ratios is realistic or not...it's the first time I've ever heard of such an idea. Craig has seemed rather to be in a "pondering" mode on this issue, I think. I consider the idea interesting, but I'm not going to get excited about it right now.Anyways, I also didn't mean to be a bother about this either...so, "nuff said"...right?

Oh, I can easily think of something else he could mean, and I think it's what he does mean:"Since da Bible done tol' me that the Earth is young, something, somewhere, somehow, must be wrong with carbon dating, and maybe if I string enough randomly words together I can convince dese guys".Craig doesn't have any idea of how carbon dating works, how calibration works, how correlations work, how chemistry woks, or what would make the samples appear older or younger. He doesn't realize that adding 14C would make samples appear older.

NosyNed,Except for Craig thinking you are a lurker (psst: Craig, NosyNed is a long-time memeber with a VERY good reputation with this forum), I've enjoyed much of his input and the related discussions. But I do recognize the issues you bring up (which, of course, is the whole point of the thread).Hopefully, I will be able to do the in-depth reading (of RAZD's opening post and links and one of RAZD's posts that goes into some detail about carbon dating over the next two or three days...I might still have questions about carbon dating and calibration after that but I want to do the reading first).

Perhaps, Literalist (and thanks for the kind words), you can help explain things to Craig. Your point of view might enable you to see how to explain things since he doesn't seem to "get" what others are saying. I've run out of ways to word it. (as if I'd ever run out of words )

Are you actually quoting someone here?In case you forgot, respect is the rule around here.

Most any metabolic action on a source of carbon will lead to products with altered ratios of 12C to 14C, and, for the identical reasons, 12C to 13C. The 12:13 ratio is, in fact, used as a correction to figure what 12:14 ratio to expect in some studies. I think I have a reference at home that gets deeper into the hows and whys of this - I'll look tonight or tomorrow. But with a great amount of certainty, I'll say that the enormous selectivity of enzymes, in general, toward their substrates will and does result in big isotope fractionations.

Coragyps,Cool. That sounds very interesting. I'm afraid chemistry wasn't my best subject; so, while I'll be very interested in seeing a technical explanation, I might have trouble understanding it (i.e., I might need clarification here or there).BTW, what is "fractionation"?

Actually the main reason I conclude that Craig is likely dishonest is not his initial error but the evasions and hand-waving that came afterwards. If he had simply admitted his error rather than tried to pretend that he hadn't said it then the issue wouldn't have come up.If you look back through the thread that ought to be clear.

Paraphrasing, if you think there is more to the arguements so far then perhaps you can point it out. True enough, however sometimes patience wears thin. In this case the post is more making fun out of the nature of the arguement than the individual. If the argument is foolish then the individual putting it forward may look a little foolish too. However, this was, I think, more directed at the argument than the poster.Again, if there is more to the arguement perhaps you could point it out.