Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arikay" data-source="post: 14298457" data-attributes="member: 6561"><p><span style="color: darkblue">"1.) Plants tend to "breath in" less C-14 than C-12, so the C-14/C-12 ratio is smaller in most plants when they die, thus making them appear to be older [1]."</span></p><p></p><p>I would recommend a bit more research. The site you copied this from referenced another site, which stated correctly that the ratio between C-12 and C-13 can be used to correct for this problem. Thus even according to the original reference material, there is no problem here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"2.) The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and thus in all living organisms) changes from time to time. Or in other words, C-14 is not actually in equilibrium with C-12. During the industrial revolution, for example, when enormous amounts of fossil fuels were being burnt, more C-12 and less C-14 was in the atmosphere, making things appear to be older [1]. "</span></p><p></p><p>This is the reason C-14 needed to be calibrated. C-14 calibration can be done through a number of different means. Tree-ring dating, Varves, stalagmites. These calibrations can be double checked with each other.</p><p>The problem fossil fuels have created is known and few date very young samples without calibrating for errors. The is no problem here.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"3.) The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere would alter the amount of C-14 formed. Due to the sun's activity and the strength of the earth's magnetic field, (a stronger magnetic field reflects more cosmic rays) the amount of cosmic rays converting N-14 into C-14 varies [1]. "</span></p><p></p><p>Yep, this is why C-14 isn't in equilibrium with C-12. However, calibration takes care of this. There is no problem here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"4.) Assuming the account of the Great Flood in the Bible is true, we can deduce that tons and tons of Carbon were burried beneath the earth's surface, thus lowering the amount of C-12 and C-14 on earth and in the atmosphere. However, after that, no new C-12 was being produced but C-14 was being produced at the same rate. Therefore the C-12/C-14 ratio is lower now than it was before the flood. So since organisms before the flood had less C-14 in them, they appear now to have been decaying for years before they actually died [1]. "</span></p><p></p><p>Aren't you claiming C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions? Isn't it a little hypocritical to claim that C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions based on assumptions?</p><p></p><p>C-12 isn't being produced now. Burring carbon wont all of a sudden rid the world of C-12, it exists in all life and is a major element on earth. Carbon dating is based on carbon in the atmosphere, since this appears to assume the atmosphere still exists, it wouldn't adjust it much.</p><p>However, lets just assume their claims are correct, we can make predictions with them. If the flood caused a major disturbance in the C-14 ratio, it should be noticeable when we date objects. There should be a gap between pre flood and post flood dates. Post flood dates should appear about accurate and pre flood dates should appear vastly older. This is not observed. There is no problem here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"5.) Volcanic emissions in general release gas with a larger C-12/C-14 ratio (very C-14 dilute). Since with modern models and Biblical descriptions of the Great Flood, we know that much volcanic activity accompanied the flood, fossils from the time of the flood would have much less C-14 in them when they die and thus appear to be older [1]. "</span></p><p></p><p>Again with the assumptions. Before you can claim something did something, you need to show the first something even exists. The independent calibration methods say it didn't. This supports the idea of a large gap between pre flood and post flood. Depending on the amount of volcanic contamination it is possible that during flood specimens should date much older than pre flood which should date much older than post flood, causing noticeable gaps. These don't appear. There is no problem here.</p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"6.) The Bible says the rainbow at the end of the flood was the first rainbow ever. This obviously proves that some sort of atmospheric change had taken place during the flood and could have easily altered C-14 production [7]. "</span></p><p></p><p>"Obviously proves"? Wow, talk about your baseless assumptions.</p><p>"Could have"? Something more substantial is needed.</p><p>There is obviously no problem here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"7.) Today the atmosphere is still being altered by a number of factors such as global warming and holes in the ozone layer, so the amount of C-14 production still not constant "</span></p><p></p><p>Which isn't a big deal as long as we are able to calibrate the system. We can. There is no problem here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"http://www.geocities.com/stuball127/dating.html "</span></p><p></p><p>I hope your next argument isn't to post the "inaccurate dates" list (some of wich the OP dealt with). If so, I would hope you will do some research into them, before you copy and paste it here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: darkblue">"See what I mean about enough ammo to cast doubt on the less than 6000 year old stuff? "</span></p><p></p><p>I see absolutely no ammo here. </p><p>And I assume you mean more than 6000 year old stuff, and by that I assume you mean more than 4500 year old stuff.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arikay, post: 14298457, member: 6561"] [color=darkblue]"1.) Plants tend to "breath in" less C-14 than C-12, so the C-14/C-12 ratio is smaller in most plants when they die, thus making them appear to be older [1]."[/color] I would recommend a bit more research. The site you copied this from referenced another site, which stated correctly that the ratio between C-12 and C-13 can be used to correct for this problem. Thus even according to the original reference material, there is no problem here. [color=darkblue]"2.) The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and thus in all living organisms) changes from time to time. Or in other words, C-14 is not actually in equilibrium with C-12. During the industrial revolution, for example, when enormous amounts of fossil fuels were being burnt, more C-12 and less C-14 was in the atmosphere, making things appear to be older [1]. "[/color] This is the reason C-14 needed to be calibrated. C-14 calibration can be done through a number of different means. Tree-ring dating, Varves, stalagmites. These calibrations can be double checked with each other. The problem fossil fuels have created is known and few date very young samples without calibrating for errors. The is no problem here. [url]http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html[/url] [color=darkblue]"3.) The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere would alter the amount of C-14 formed. Due to the sun's activity and the strength of the earth's magnetic field, (a stronger magnetic field reflects more cosmic rays) the amount of cosmic rays converting N-14 into C-14 varies [1]. "[/color] Yep, this is why C-14 isn't in equilibrium with C-12. However, calibration takes care of this. There is no problem here. [color=darkblue]"4.) Assuming the account of the Great Flood in the Bible is true, we can deduce that tons and tons of Carbon were burried beneath the earth's surface, thus lowering the amount of C-12 and C-14 on earth and in the atmosphere. However, after that, no new C-12 was being produced but C-14 was being produced at the same rate. Therefore the C-12/C-14 ratio is lower now than it was before the flood. So since organisms before the flood had less C-14 in them, they appear now to have been decaying for years before they actually died [1]. "[/color] Aren't you claiming C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions? Isn't it a little hypocritical to claim that C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions based on assumptions? C-12 isn't being produced now. Burring carbon wont all of a sudden rid the world of C-12, it exists in all life and is a major element on earth. Carbon dating is based on carbon in the atmosphere, since this appears to assume the atmosphere still exists, it wouldn't adjust it much. However, lets just assume their claims are correct, we can make predictions with them. If the flood caused a major disturbance in the C-14 ratio, it should be noticeable when we date objects. There should be a gap between pre flood and post flood dates. Post flood dates should appear about accurate and pre flood dates should appear vastly older. This is not observed. There is no problem here. [color=darkblue]"5.) Volcanic emissions in general release gas with a larger C-12/C-14 ratio (very C-14 dilute). Since with modern models and Biblical descriptions of the Great Flood, we know that much volcanic activity accompanied the flood, fossils from the time of the flood would have much less C-14 in them when they die and thus appear to be older [1]. "[/color] Again with the assumptions. Before you can claim something did something, you need to show the first something even exists. The independent calibration methods say it didn't. This supports the idea of a large gap between pre flood and post flood. Depending on the amount of volcanic contamination it is possible that during flood specimens should date much older than pre flood which should date much older than post flood, causing noticeable gaps. These don't appear. There is no problem here. [color=darkblue]"6.) The Bible says the rainbow at the end of the flood was the first rainbow ever. This obviously proves that some sort of atmospheric change had taken place during the flood and could have easily altered C-14 production [7]. "[/color] "Obviously proves"? Wow, talk about your baseless assumptions. "Could have"? Something more substantial is needed. There is obviously no problem here. [color=darkblue]"7.) Today the atmosphere is still being altered by a number of factors such as global warming and holes in the ozone layer, so the amount of C-14 production still not constant "[/color] Which isn't a big deal as long as we are able to calibrate the system. We can. There is no problem here. [color=darkblue]"http://www.geocities.com/stuball127/dating.html "[/color] I hope your next argument isn't to post the "inaccurate dates" list (some of wich the OP dealt with). If so, I would hope you will do some research into them, before you copy and paste it here. [color=darkblue]"See what I mean about enough ammo to cast doubt on the less than 6000 year old stuff? "[/color] I see absolutely no ammo here. And I assume you mean more than 6000 year old stuff, and by that I assume you mean more than 4500 year old stuff. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
Top
Bottom