Radiometric dating

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Dad, I've noticed something. When addressing things you don't agree with you give them childish, mocking names (speck, granny bug, box). Why is this? Do you feel that you need to refer to them in a ridiculing fashion?

 

[Jet Black]

We have been talking about C-14 long enough, you should know why it needs to be calibrated. It is actually one of the few methods that needs calibration.
As pointed out before, these other methods agree with each other.

aah yes. callibration of carbon dating:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10968818&postcount=12

 

[dad]

When addressing things you don't agree with you give them childish, mocking names (speck, granny bug, box). Why is this?

So even a child can get wise to the name of the evolution game. I'd like to consider it inspiration.

 

[dad]

reply to jet black

aah yes. callibration of carbon dating:

Now when measuring a sample, this background radiation creates noise, which, if our sample only contains a tiny amount of C14, will wash out the radiation released from the sample; in short we simply cannot tell the difference between the radiation from the sample and the natural background.

So if there was radiation say a sunburst, or cosmic event during the flood, the radiation would affect things?

From earlier we noted that C14 is produced in the atmosphere. well what about other carbon sources? well we know that there is lots of dissolved carbon in the sea, which originates from limestone and other ancient deposits. Now this carbon is all extremely ancient - often referred to as "dead" carbon as it contains little or no C14. So if anything gets their carbon from these sorts of sources, or is contaminated by these sources, then it will appear much older than it actually is.

!

Contamination of samples can also be a problem, so if we preserve something in a carbon based preservative, then we will get a false age yet again - this has been observed in Mammoths preserved in formaldehyde and other preserving agents. Other interesting examples of problems can occur in underground nuclear sources which produce C14 in a similar way to atmospheric sources, so sometimes coal might be dated as under 50,000 years old if it is near a uranium deposit for example, since C14 will be produced from the radiation from the Uranium, again observation of the environment in which the material is found can eliminate these problems, since if you know there is contamination in some way, then you know your result is going to look strange.

Yes if it dates too old it is strange.

I mentioned earlier that the amount of C14 under production in the upper atmosphere may change, and indeed it does. One criticism of C14 dating is that it relies on knowing how much C14 is produced, and of course nobody was measuring the Solar Wind 4000 years ago so how do we know how much was being produced. Maybe a lot less was being produced, making things look much older than they are,

Hey, this stuff is good!

we can callibrate the amount of C14 and work out perturbations from the current value. We can match the amount of C14 in the living trees with dead trees and see where they overlap. Using this we can callibrate the C14 production rates back to about 9000 years or so.

If we assume away the creation, and the flood, and the preflood world, perhaps. But that would be very boxy reasoning indeed!

Occasionally there are additional rings or missed rings, however dendrochronologists can tell quite easily

Using how it works today, of course. Todays climates, conditions, atmosphere, etc.
Or we could look more realistically at it, and admit the old world was very different. They found an eight foot crocodile up not too far from the noth pole, with the remains of a toad in it's belly, for example! (fossilized, of course, cold blooded creatures can't live anywhere near there now.) also bears and beaver, and animal remains galore that tended to be much bigger than today's! The conditions were very very different this we have evidence for! Not only that, but we know from historical documents (bible) that lifespans were much bigger as well!
So if a man lived a thousand years (women weren't mentioned, maybe they tended to outlive their husbands by 300 years!?) how long would a beaver, or a tree live! The tree of life in New Jerusalem, for example puts out a different kind of fruit every month of the year!!! What did Eden's tree of life do? So we know even, at least in some cases, the cycles were different, as well as the lifespans. So if a tree now lives, say for example 4 times longer than a man, it then may have lived thousands of years (if not for the flood). Then when the garden was planted the trees may already have been say, a thousand years old! They must have been mature, because Adam ate the fruit! Well, this is a good enough and long enough example, I don't need to go over the whole article, as we should see the two arguements pretty plainly already here. (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10968818&postcount=12)
But thanks for the tidbits on how useless the c14 is without the tree rings and such!!