Where did all the C14 go?

[philadiddle]

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, why do we carbon date things at 50,000 years old? Shouldn't there be a lot more C14 in those things? Where did it go?

Note - There have been lots of discussions on carbon dating in various threads, I'd like to stick to the above questions as much as possible.

 

[troodon]

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, why do we carbon date things at 50,000 years old?

The two possible solutions to this conundrum are:

1) The earth is older than 6,000 years
2) Carbon dating is not yielding correct ages for "old" objects

Place bets now!

 

[philadiddle]

Well, with no explanations from the YECs I guess that this means they don't have everything figured out, and I can therefore declare my view as correct. This is how it works right?

 

[Assyrian]

The problem is that C14 measurements depend on initial 14 levels in the atmosphere, so C14 dates need to be calibrated against other dating techniques such as tree rings and varves. What C14 does is allow you to compare objects in your archaeological site with laminae laid down in a lake bed 10,000 miles away. It is not the C14 that overturns YEC but the reliability of varves and tree rings it is callibrated with.

 

[philadiddle]

The problem is that C14 measurements depend on initial 14 levels in the atmosphere, so C14 dates need to be calibrated against other dating techniques such as tree rings and varves. What C14 does is allow you to compare objects in your archaeological site with laminae laid down in a lake bed 10,000 miles away. It is not the C14 that overturns YEC but the reliability of varves and tree rings it is callibrated with.

They still need a model that explains the ratios of isotopes that we find.

Also, the calibrated dates aren't drastically changed, the adjustments tend to be a small percentage of the pre-adjusted age.

 

[philadiddle]

90 views and I see that there are several creationists active the last few days. Why do none of them have a response to this? Creationism has a model that explains the data doesn't it?

 

[pgp_protector]

90 views and I see that there are several creationists active the last few days. Why do none of them have a response to this? Creationism has a model that explains the data doesn't it?

I'd guess they'll say Either
1) God did it to Test our faith.
2) Satan Did it to lead us astray.

 

[troodon]

It is not the C14 that overturns YEC but the reliability of varves and tree rings it is callibrated with.

Yeah, these are really the key. Without this kind of corroboration one could (I suppose) speculate that differences seen in C14 levels are due to atmospheric variation, temporally and possibly even spatially. The fact that the C14 record tracks so well with both dendrochronology and limnochronology seems to falsify this explanation.

One's only solution is to say "it isn't reliable" and stop your critical thinking right there.

If I were to really try to defend YEC, and to do so in an intellectually-honest manner (lawl), I think my only choice would be to attack the underlying uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates. If rates of isotope decay change through time then one can speculate that actual years and C14 years can diverge from each other. Obviously I wouldn't have any evidence to support this, it would just be unfounded speculation.

 

[duordi]

C14 is like an hour glass.

If you look at it and see sand in the top of an hour glass (this is like C14) then you know it has been in that orientation for less then an hour because in one hour the top would be empty even if the top was full of sand at the start. Suggesting the top of the hour glass was full of sand would be like suggesting a hole sample was completely composed of C14 which is highly improbable.

This is why we can know the earth is not older then 100,000 years. There is still C14 in the samples, (there is still sand in the top of the hour glass.

Before you can use the hour glass to date something you have to decide how much sand was in the top of the hour glass to begin with.

Just like you have to decide what the concentration of C14 was before the flood?

If you assume there was about the same amount of C14 as there is now with some adjustments based on a lot of million year old biosphere assumptions then you get 50,000 years.

Of course garbage in garbage out. If your assumptions about an old biosphere are incorrect then you should expect to get incorrect results.

It has amazed me to watch evolutionists try to disprove life on earth is recent by applying assumptions based on their million year old dates.

It may be that they are so saturated with one point of view that they can not consider another or it may be that they do not realize they are making assumptions.

Well anyway, C14 is like a clock timer without numbers. The numbers are 1 too 12 (they are the half life of C14) and you can assume and place them where ever you choose on the clock face. So you can make the clock timer say any time you wish but you can not go over 12.

Duordi

 

[philadiddle]

C14 is like an hour glass.

Ok I'll give this a chance.

If you look at it and see sand in the top of an hour glass (this is like C14) then you know it has been in that orientation for less then an hour because in one hour the top would be empty even if the top was full of sand at the start. Suggesting the top of the hour glass was full of sand would be like suggesting a hole sample was completely composed of C14 which is highly improbable.

This is why we can know the earth is not older then 100,000 years. There is still C14 in the samples, (there is still sand in the top of the hour glass.

How does this explain why there is so little C14 in the samples? Shouldn't there be more than we find?

Before you can use the hour glass to date something you have to decide how much sand was in the top of the hour glass to begin with.

And how can we do this?

Just like you have to decide what the concentration of C14 was before the flood?

What was it?

If you assume there was about the same amount of C14 as there is now with some adjustments based on a lot of million year old biosphere assumptions then you get 50,000 years.

Nobody assumes there was the same amount as there is now, we know that it changes over time. How have you determined what the original amount was and can you show me how the numbers work out to fit the data we have?

Of course garbage in garbage out. If your assumptions about an old biosphere are incorrect then you should expect to get incorrect results.

You're trying to lure me into a conversation about my view by attempting to poke holes in it. I'm not taking the bait. This is about your view so please take this opportunity to explain your working model to me.

It has amazed me to watch evolutionists try to disprove life on earth is recent by applying assumptions based on their million year old dates.

Again, this doesn't explain why we find the ratios of isotopes that we do if the earth is so young.

Well anyway, C14 is like a clock timer without numbers. The numbers are 1 too 12 (they are the half life of C14) and you can assume and place them where ever you choose on the clock face. So you can make the clock timer say any time you wish but you can not go over 12.

Duordi

And again, you are just trying to poke holes into the scientific methods we currently use. You can do that but I don't want to discuss it here. I want to know what better explanation you have to replace it. Why is there so little C14 in the samples we have?

 

[Assyrian]

They still need a model that explains the ratios of isotopes that we find.

Also, the calibrated dates aren't drastically changed, the adjustments tend to be a small percentage of the pre-adjusted age.

That is a different question Creationist can't answer, why very different dating methods produce very similar results. But of them all, C14 which depend so much on initial conditions, is the least problematic.

 

[TasManOfGod]

If you take into consideration the conditions on earth before the Flood you will have your answer

 

[philadiddle]

If you take into consideration the conditions on earth before the Flood you will have your answer

And what were those conditions?

 

[chilehed]

Creation happened two minutes ago. We were created with fossil memories in order to tempt scientists.

 

[TasManOfGod]

And what were those conditions?

Lots of green stuff on the ground and water in the air

 

[philadiddle]

Lots of green stuff on the ground and water in the air

How does that explain why we find so little C14 in things that they appear to be 50,000 years old?

 

[TasManOfGod]

How does that explain why we find so little C14 in things that they appear to be 50,000 years old?

This site may help you understand. Note pag 6
Apparently something indicating 50 000 YO would actually be 4350 YO taking the original conditions into account

 

[philadiddle]

This site may help you understand. Note pag 6
Apparently something indicating 50 000 YO would actually be 4350 YO taking the original conditions into account

What site? I don't think you posted the link.

 

[TasManOfGod]

What site? I don't think you posted the link.

oops
Carbon 14 Dating: What assumptions should we take?

 

[philadiddle]

oops
Carbon 14 Dating: What assumptions should we take?

I've read through some of it and I'm hoping you can save me some time. I see explanations as to why old material (like coal) has C14 when there "should be none" but I don't see an answer to what I posted above. Can you point me to the specific part that explains it? Or quote it on this page?

Thanks.