Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years

quote:

---

Alright, as a Creation Scientist, this is a rather complex explanation, so sorry if I lose some of you...

---

LOL....

quote:

---

The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years.

---

"Dr." Barnes... 1973... based upon a paper from 1883 by Horace Lamb... and using 25-- yes, 25-- measurements to represent the whole planet... yeah, very imressive!The magnetic field is not decaying at anywhere near this rate, and even seems to gain strength now and then. Magnetic field decay? Nope... Account SuspendedDon't like the links? How about this one? APOD: 2002 November 25 - The Earth's Magnetic Field Doesn't look all that decayed to me. Actually, I like it because it illustrates why 25 measurements for a whole planet is a pretty idiotic number.

quote:

---

There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism.

---

Wrong again. The rock spreading out from the mid-ocean ridges doesn't show stronger and weaker magnetic fields. It quite blatantly records flipped magnetic poles.

quote:

---

So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate.

---

You are right about one thing. A decay rate the likes of what you suggest could be measured and quite easily. Why hasn't it been measured by anyone not pushing a Biblical agenda? You couldn't miss a field decay rate like you propose.

quote:

---

So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase.

---

You, in fact are assuming something contrary to the evidence-- that the magnetic field and thus the c-14 has declined at a steady rate. The magnetic field has both increased and decreased over time, and so has c-14 production. But we know about this fluctuation and can compensate for it, as well as cross check with other methods of dating.

quote:

---

The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old! Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago!

---

Sources?Ever hear of contamination? It happens all the time. That is why serious scientists take multiple samples and cross reference them, rather than take one wierd date and chirp that the method doesn't work. Tell me, if you had twenty samples giving dates within 5% of each other and one or two samples giving dates 20% or more off, would you conclude that the 20 dates are wrong or the two wierd dates?

quote:

---

Trust me, if somebody comes up to you and says, "carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old" they DO NOT know what they're talking about.

---

I think you just demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. C-14 dating only works up to about 40 or 50 thousand year ages. So the most anyone could claim based on C-14 is that the Earth is at least 40-50k years old, not millions.

quote:

---

As the magnetic field shrinks, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere increases, so C-14 dating doesnt work like scientists think...

---

And of the tens of thousands of scientists working in relevant fields, only a couple of creationists have noticed? LOL...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

First of all, C-14 has not reached the point of equilibrium yet.

---

Meaning it fluctuates a bit? No kidding! Scientists know this and can compensate for it.

quote:

---

The assumption that still remains unsettled is that the C-14 in the atmosphere prior to the Biblical flood have been different.

---

You are assuming a biblical flood. There is no evidence for such a thing-- none. And as there is no evidence for it, why exactly should anyone worry about c-14 levels before and after it? Why worry about the effect of an event which we have no reason to believe ever happened?

quote:

---

The water canopy at the outer layer of the atmosphere

---

Which, again, is assumed and has no evidence to back it up.

quote:

---

which would account for where the flood-water came from

---

Right. We need a source for all that water which caused the flood that LEFT NO EVIDENCE.

quote:

---

explains why tropical plants were found frozen in the Arctic circles

---

Does it now?1) Where tropical plants found in the artic? Or perhaps just some very distant relatives of tropical plants?2) I'd think that the better explanation would be something for which we have ample evidence-- like continental drift.

quote:

---

would have kept the radiation out of the atmosphere before the flood.

---

So the water canopy was in orbit then? Otherwise that radiation would not be kept out of the atmosphere, but would be trapped as heat inside the atmosphere.

quote:

---

Therefore, C-14 abundance in the atmosphere would have been increasing immediately following the flood and the collapse of the water canopy.

---

There is evidence for neither the flood nor the canopy-- two things we have no reason to insert into the equation.

quote:

---

Remember that there IS water found in space, and when water becomes subjected to colder temperatures as in the atmosphere, it becomes magnetic.

---

Sorry... what?

quote:

---

So scientifically, IT IS scientifically possible that there would've been a canopy

---

You aren't making much sense here, bud.

quote:

---

that would explain why the Bible says there was an 'expanse' that seperated the upper waters from the lower waters, and also would explain why C-14 has it's inconsistencies

---

Does the Bible explain the effects of nine kilmeters of water hanging above the earth?

quote:

---

For instance, the rings in the trees are caused by annual percipitaion--when a year sees much drought, the rings are closer together because water was less abundant.

---

It isn't the proximity of the rings that matter.Maybe you should read up. Dendrochronology

quote:

---

Also, when rain is fluctuating, there is often observed to be more than one ring formed in the same year.

---

There are false and missing rings. Did you think no one had noticed? These can be sorted out with large sample sizes and cross-checking. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/skeletonplot/absentfalse.htmBTW, false rings add apparent age while absent rings subtract apparent age. Why did you not mention the absent rings?

quote:

---

I found a freshly-cut tree along my campsite, and counted the rings. Although the forest was planted thirty-some years earlier, there were about 45 rings in the tree

---

And you are trained to do this? And, as before, real scientists use many samples and statistical methods to sort these things out.

quote:

---

C-14 would naturally be more abundant in trees anyway, because trees absorb C02, and thus intaking C-14 as well.

---

It doesn't really matter.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 04-28-2003]