This fulfills my promise in The Meaning Of The Trinity, Message 646, to open a new topic for discussing candle2's so-far unsupported claim of there being many flaws in dating methods since that discussion is off-topic there:
DWise1 writes:
Since it is off-topic here as pointed out by candle2, I will propose a new topic for this discussion, even though I have no doubt that candle2 will yet again cut and run or otherwise do his best to sabotage discussion -- ie, being a creationist, he will undoubtedly do what creationists always do.
Nonetheless, I will propose that new topic referring back to these messages and my request/demand that he first study up on the subject since his past lack of performance demonstrated that he clearly does not understand radiocarbon dating (despite his false claims to the contrary).
candle2 indicated that he is just now leaving vacation, so in order it doesn't scroll off the All Topics page before he gets back from vacation I will wait about a week or so before proposing the topic. After that, I will wait an appropriate amount of time before posting bump messages for him.
While waiting for this topic to be promoted, I'll copy key messages in the other topic over to here plus links to replies.
I will now repost pertinent message content. My purpose in posting all this background information is to provide it here in this topic where all further discussion should be conducted. That way, you won't need to hunt it all down yourself in another topic, though I also provide links so that you can check the originals.
First, basically how it started. I'm just posting the pertinent parts of those messages:
Excerpt from my Message 576 reply to candle2's misconstruing of the Holy Roman Empire claiming it to be something else entirely different:
DWise1 writes:
First you lied about evolution and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.
Then you lied about the radiocarbon dating method and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.
Then you spread right wingnut conspiracy theories which we checked and exposed to be lies.
And now you make false statements about history which we have checked and exposed to be false.
Everything you've said that can be checked has been checked and proven to be false.
You also blather on about things that cannot be checked, namely about the supernatural. Why would you expect us to believe you about that and how could you possibly expect us to believe you about the supernatural when everything else you've posted has turned out to be false?
This is little bit off the subject, but you brought it up. You have done nothing to disprove that Radiocarbon Dating is flawed. Nor have you posted anything that cast doubt on Creation. In fact, you have increased my belief in God and Creation.
You have done nothing to disprove that Radiocarbon Dating is flawed.
Do you think that radiocarbon dating is flawed? Then why don't you present those flaws? You have not done that yet that I can tell. Why not?
Besides your lie that you do understand radiocarbon dating (which you very obviously did not and undoubtedly still do not), all you mentioned was finding trace amounts of C14 in coal and in diamonds where they had been created recently from nearby radiation sources deep underground. Those trace amounts have nothing whatsoever to do with radiocarbon dating!
I will explain it to you YET AGAIN (which you wlll yet again ignore whining that your phone screen is too small (So read it on your computer, idiot!))
The only C14 that plays any role in radiocarbon dating is the C14 that has been incorporated into plant tissue, from which it can pass to animal tissue through the eating of the plants or of the plant-eaters. That means that the only C14 in radiocarbon dating is atmospheric C14, not subterranean C14. If you honestly and truly (two words foreign to creationists) believe that enough of those subterranean traces of C14 are getting into the plants and hence into the food chain, then tell us how!
That should be as glaringly obvious as Revelation having been written long before the Holy Roman Empire ever existed. Especially to anyone who actually does know something about radiocarbon dating, which you just as glaringly obviously do not!
If you know of any actual flaws in radiocarbon dating, then present them and we can discuss them (assuming you don't stay true to your MO and run away from it). So what's keeping you back?
Nor have you posted anything that cast doubt on Creation.
Of course not, because that has never been my intent! Not even once in the four decades that I've been studying "creation science" (AKA creationism, not to be confused with belief in actual Creation).
Rather, I oppose "creation science" for being nothing but a pack of lies which has led believers to lose their faith. And I don't have to cast doubt on it because just exposing its lies should be enough if creationists were honest or the least bit interested in the truth (which sadly they are not, but rather go ever deeper into denial and self-delusion).
Rather, it is creationism that works to cast doubt on Creation. Creationism, and especially YEC, denies the Creation in all of its claims and even teaches that if the Creation is actually as we find it, then that somehow disproves God. Basically, that's spiritual suicide that you are promoting and many have taken that bullet.
But in addition, creationism and its glaringly false claims make Christianity look stupid, so much so that it drives many away from ever even beginning to consider becoming a Christian.
By destroying its followers' faith and warning other away from converting, creationism does truly contribute to the growth and spread of atheism.
You're doing a good job of it!
In fact, you have increased my belief in God and Creation.
Yep, burrowing even deeper into denial and self-delusion in a desperate attempt to hide from the truth.
No reply from candle2, but he instead he replied to this excerpt from Tanypteryx' Message 587:
Tanypteryx writes:
You have done nothing to disprove that Radiocarbon Dating is flawed.
You have not presented a shred of evidence that radio dating is flawed.
Tanyptery, we all know the limits and inaccuracies of dating. Basic assumptions used in dating methods are are just that, assumptions. Wrong assumptions lead to unreliable data. Don't pretend that you don't know about the unreliability of dating methods. I know, beyond any doubt, that you and all evolutionists have these huge doubts. If a dating technique is found to be wrong just once, none of the results can be trusted. You know this, and I know this. And, you know that I know this.
Lots of replies to that piece of work -- six replies including mine. Here is my reply Message 597:
DWise1 writes:
{ typical creationist BS lies about radiometric dating methods }
You know this, and I know this. And, you know that I know this.
Yes, we do know about radiometric dating methods, but you do not! How do we know that you don't know what you're talking about? Because we have seen you repeatedly post utter nonsense on the subject.
IF YOU HAVE A CLAIM TO MAKE, THEN MAKE IT!
If you know of any actual flaws, then present them and include the reasoning behind presenting them as flaws. IOW, you need to demonstrate enough knowledge of those "flaws" to be able to discuss them and to support your contention that they present some kind of problem. IOW, stop playing your game of the willfully ignorant (your handlers) leading the willfully stupid (you).
No reply from candle2. No to me nor to anybody else that I can tell. I brought it up again in my reply Message 617 to his unrepentant nonsense about the Holy Roman Empire (excerpt pertinent to radiocarbon dating):
DWise1 writes:
And you are still avoiding your glaringly blatant falsehoods about "flaws in dating", which is not surprising since you have nothing and even you know that.
If you know of any actual flaws, then present them and include the reasoning behind presenting them as flaws. IOW, you need to demonstrate enough knowledge of those "flaws" to be able to discuss them and to support your contention that they present some kind of problem. IOW, stop playing your game of the willfully ignorant (your handlers) leading the willfully stupid (you).
Dwise 1, this isn't a thread about evolution, nor is it a thread about ridiculous dating techniques. Stop pretending that evolutionists have crystal balls that can tell us exactly what happened and when it happened. However, I will state my objections to carbon-dating methods as soon as my wife and I return from our vacation. Study assumptions.
Three replies, two from me but only the second one is pertinent to this discussion. AZPaul3's reply Message 625:
AZPaul3 writes:
Stop pretending that evolutionists have crystal balls that can tell us exactly what happened and when it happened.
Avoiding an obvious joke, yes, we do have crystal balls. They are called museums, universities and like that. Loaded with millions of fossils and lots of people way smarter than you we get to look into the past, see the present and predict the future.
You are so far behind the reality of our knowledge you, of all people on this planet, have no way to challenge any of it.
However, I will state my objections to carbon-dating methods as soon as my wife and I return from our vacation.
Why? It will just be lies, half truths, misunderstandings, misinformation and religious bluster. Not worth the electrons. Don't bother.
Study assumptions.
Study reality, you imbecilic fool.
In my reply pertinent to this discussion, Message 646, I advised candle2 to prepare for the discussion following his vacation by studying up on radiocarbon dating since everything he has posted so far demonstrates his gross ignorance of the subject. I also added my proposal to propose this new topic so that we would no longer be off-topic. In its entirety:
DWise1 writes:
However, I will state my objections to carbon-dating methods as soon as my wife and I return from our vacation. Study assumptions.
In the meantime, STUDY WHAT RADIOCARBON DATING IS AND WHAT IT'S BASED ON (ie, where the C14 comes from and where it DOESN'T)!
The Wikipedia article, Radiocarbon dating, would be a good place to start. . Pay particular attention to the section, Carbon exchange reservoir, and its accompanying graphic, "Simplified version of the carbon exchange reservoir, showing proportions of carbon and relative activity of the 14C in each reservoir". In particular, note in that graphic that it does not include subterranean C14 produced continuously by radiation sources deep underground, because that subterranean C14 plays no role in radiocarbon dating and has nothing to do with the method. That is important because that false creationist "objection" (ie, that trace C14 in coal and diamonds presents problems for radiocarbon dating) is so far the only "objection" that you have presented and it has been thoroughly debunked.
Learn something!
CAVEAT: DO NOT RELY ON A CREATIONIST SOURCE!Creationists are lying to you. If you do use a creationist source, then verify it thoroughly!
You admonish us to "Study assumptions"? We have! Why haven't you done the same? We have tried many times in vain to explain to you what the actual assumptions are, but you have steadfastly refused to explain what your creationist assumptions are!
Stop your hypocrisy! Put up or shut up!
ABE:
The reappearance of this issue arose organically in my Message 576 as one of the several examples of candle2's false claims that we have been able to check and which proved to be false, leading to the obvious (and so far ignored) question:
DWise1 writes:
You also blather on about things that cannot be checked, namely about the supernatural. Why would you expect us to believe you about that and how could you possibly expect us to believe you about the supernatural when everything else you've posted has turned out to be false?
Since it is off-topic here as pointed out by candle2, I will propose a new topic for this discussion, even though I have no doubt that candle2 will yet again cut and run or otherwise do his best to sabotage discussion -- ie, being a creationist, he will undoubtedly do what creationists always do.
Nonetheless, I will propose that new topic referring back to these messages and my request/demand that he first study up on the subject since his past lack of performance demonstrated that he clearly does not understand radiocarbon dating (despite his false claims to the contrary).
candle2 indicated that he is just now leaving vacation, so in order it doesn't scroll off the All Topics page before he gets back from vacation I will wait about a week or so before proposing the topic. After that, I will wait an appropriate amount of time before posting bump messages for him.
Then before I had time to propose this new topic (further delayed by my knee injury), he returned early.
I will take those messages up in my next message here.
BTW, my purpose in posting all this background information is to provide it here in this topic where all further discussion should be conducted.
Continuing my reposting of message traffic in The Meaning Of The Trinity pertinent to this discussion and leading to this proposed new topic.
Here, the actual discussion starts with candle2's Message 655:
candle2 writes:
Dwise 1, one of the grandkids got sick, and granny had to to come back home.
So here is what I mean by assumptions. Assuming something to be true is not good science. In fact it is not science at all.
Scientists who believe in evolution are among the most assuming scientists in the world.
When dating dead organisms utilizing the Carbon-14 dating method two facts need to be established.
One is the decay rate of C-14. The other is the starting amount.
There is no way to determine if the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today.
If one assumes that the ratio is true, and the assumption is true, the dating method is valid up to perhaps 75,000 years.
If the assumption is not true the method will give incorrect dates.
Since we have no way of knowing the ratio of C14 to C-12 5000 years ago, we do not have the empirical or observational science necessary for interpretations of past events.
When we lack observational knowledge/science, we are left with historical science. Historical science can be highly subjective. Evolutionists rely heavily on historical science, which involves assumptions.
The founder of the Carbon-14 dating method, Dr. Willard Libby, assumed (ain't this what evolutionists do) the rate to be constant based on evolution.
Then he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium.
By this I mean that the amount of Carbon atoms in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed.
The Specific Production Rate of C14 per gram is currently twice that of Specific Decay Rate.
Dr. Libby ignored the nonequilibrium state.
By Dr. Libby's own estimation it would be 30,000 years to reach equilibrium.
I am not even taking into account the effects of the worldwide flood, or earth's changing magnetic field.
Nor am I taking into account contamination, or any of the other issues involved with dating techniques.
Evolutionists thrive on assumptions, especially false ones. But, even when wrong no one calls them on it.
Evolutionists are the ones who get the grants, and the ones who run our universities.
They can and do distort facts to fit their agenda. I know this as fact. And nobody is going to change my mind.
Basically, he has done nothing but to repeat false creationist claims (is there any other kind of creationist claim?) with no indication that he understands any of it. The six replies, including mine, address that while some also respond directly to specific claims (follow links to read them yourself):
So far, candle2 has replied to none of these replies except for Pollux' second one which has nothing to do with the subject; IOW, candle2 has so far avoided our replies to his claims.
Kind of, because he did reply to me without addressing the message to which he "replied". We'll look at that below.
First, here is my first reply Message 660. Rather than answering point-by-point just so that he can declared his refusal to read any of it because his phone screen is too small, I planned to post a separate reply for each point. I posted my first one and am writing the second. So here is the first:
DWise1 writes:
Dwise 1, one of the grandkids got sick, and granny had to to come back home.
Short vacation! Though I shouldn't talk since I've been incapacitated by a knee injury the past few days. Getting better.
So here is what I mean by assumptions. Assuming something to be true is not good science. In fact it is not science at all.
True enough about making assumptions, which is why one must examine, test, and verify one's assumptions. And when assumptions are found to be wrong, then acting on that testing by correcting and refining those assumptions that can be corrected and dropping the ones that cannot be corrected.
That is what science and scientists do all the time, while it is the creationists who never test their own assumptions and will never ever act upon any of their assumptions found to be wrong.
Read my draft HTML page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. A very quick summary is that scientists are trying to discover something, so they take their research seriously. Of necessity, they base their research in part on the research of other scientists (eg, "don't reinvent the wheel", "I stand on the shoulders of giants."), which means that scientists have a strong vested interest in the veracity and validity of that other research, which means that when a scientist publishes the findings of an experiment, other scientists will repeat that experiment to see if they get the same results; IOW, they test each other's work trying to prove them wrong. Science demands it.
Case in point was the bombshell news of the discovery of "cold fusion". The moment the paper was published, it was FAX'd out (remember, no Internet back then) throughout the physics community and everybody eagerly read it and repeated the experiments. They found that it wasn't true and they all dropped "cold fusion".
In contrast, creationists are not trying to discover anything, but rather they just want to convince others (and more importantly themselves) of their groundless, unverified, and never-tested assumptions. If another creationist comes up with a claim or argument, they never ever even think of testing it for being true, but rather they just blindly believe it and repeat it as long as it sounds convincing (at least to them in their willful ignorance, though not convincing to anyone who knows anything about the subject). They have no need for any of it to be true, just so long as it sounds convincing. And they will only stop using those groundless arguments when they get too much bad press for that argument (eg, moon dust, protein comparisons).
Case in point: leap seconds show that the earth's rotation is slowing down at a rate that would mean the mere millions of years ago it had to have been spinning impossibly fast. In reality, 4 billion years ago the earth would have been spinning only twice as fast. The originator, most likely Walter Brown in 1979, didn't understand what leap seconds are nor how they work. Even though the claim was decisively refuted in 1982, creationists keep repeating it -- a Canadian group proved that to 15 creationist sites and none of them repented of that particular lie. See my page on it, Earth's Rotation is Slowing for more information.
So you have our roles reversed: scientists test their assumptions (AKA "hypotheses") rigorously in order to eliminate the wrong assumptions, while it's the creationists who make refuse to test their assumptions and instead declare them to be Gospel.
What you're doing there is described as "the pot calling the silverware black."
More to come.
No reply from candle2, at least not a direct reply, so he's starting to make it weird.
In his reply Message 662 Tanypteryx responds to candle2's typical creationist mindless slander against scientists along with offering him links to previous topics which discuss how scientists do scientific work. I replied to that message with my Message 663:
DWise1 writes:
When thousands of other scientist may be relying on your data, cheating and fraud will be exposed, and would ruin a career.
Whereas all creationists rely on from other creationists' "work" is that it is sensationalist and sounds convincing. Cheating and fraud will never endanger any creationist's career, mainly because sensationalist claims are created through cheating and fraud.
I already pointed him to my draft web page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. There I break down step-by-step the differences between how scientists do things in contrast to how creationists do things.
Since it presents that information in a two-column table, translating it to would be bothersome.
That is my message that candle2 finally "replied" to with his Message 669:
candle2 writes:
Dwise 1, I do read articles from both sides. A well rounded individual will do this. You can lay out articles day after day; month after months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on assumptions. And, assuming something is not science; it is guesswork. It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was like 5000 years ago. It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was like prior to the global flood. Do you have the slightest idea how much carbon was removed from the atmosphere and buried during and after the flood? I am not the one with the blinders on here, Dwise 1. You are.
Except for the general subject, none of that had anything to do with any of my messages, especially not to the one to which he was "replying".
Since this proposed topic has not been promoted yet, I will reply to that in the former thread and repost it here in a reply to this message.
In the meantime, candle2's message was replied to by ringo (Message 671) and nwr (Message 672). candle2 "replied" only to nwr.
Here is the final chain at this time (19-Oct-2022 12:34 PM PDT):
You can lay out articles day after day; month after months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on assumptions. And, assuming something is not science; it is guesswork.
Every time you take a step while walking, you assume that your foot won't fall through the ground. That's an assumption. All of life is full of assumptions. Even mathematics depends on assumptions (which we call axioms).
You cannot get away from depending on assumptions. The assumptions that science makes are well tested.
Nwr, the wrong assumption can lead to wrong conclusions. The look of quicksand can be quite deceptive. A foot stepping into quicksand can become entangled. Or a foot stepping on a rattlesnake under a pile of leaves can cost a person his life. I do not have an issue with someone stating that they believe in evolution, or that they have confidence in dating methods. Just don't try to pass it off as being fact. And don't say that those who do not believe in these issues do not support science.
Just don't try to pass it off as being fact. And don't say that those who do not believe in these issues do not support science.
We don't pass anything off as fact. We have the experiments and the data that show those facts precisely. We know, even if you don't, how and why the measurement works. And, yes, those who do not accept this science do so for religious reasons and do not support science. You are decidedly anti-science.
Here is my reply to candle2's "reply" to ... I honestly have no idea which of my messages he thought he was "replying to".
Although I reposed it in the previous message, I repeat it here to make the continuity easier for the reader. candle2's "reply" Message 669 is:
candle2 writes:
Dwise 1, I do read articles from both sides. A well rounded individual will do this.
You can lay out articles day after day; month after months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on assumptions. And, assuming something is not science; it is guesswork.
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was like 5000 years ago.
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was like prior to the global flood.
Do you have the slightest idea how much carbon was removed from the atmosphere and buried during and after the flood?
I am not the one with the blinders on here, Dwise 1. You are.
And yet you remain so profoundly ignorant? That tells us clearly that you do no such thing. Claiming to do something that you do not is an example of what's called lying. Like in Message 482 when you falsely claimed "I know how carbon dating works."
If I had a nickel for every time a creationist made that claim, I could go to Vegas and play Video Poker all weekend (not that I would want to do either). Why do creationists insist on making such statements when they are so glaringly false?
A well rounded individual will do this.
True enough, but what is that supposed to have to do with you?
OTOH, I have read from both sides. I have even sat through several Kent Hovind "seminar" videos, which is how I learned about his utterly bogus solar-mass-loss claim (which is completely refuted just by doing the math, so now he forbids his audience to ever do the math or to listen to anyone who has done the math).
As General Sun-Tzu instructs us, we must know both the enemy and ourselves in order to be victorious in battle. That requires learning the enemy's side, but you do not allow yourself to do that. Furthermore, the need to know yourself requires you to know what your side is based on, but you do not allow yourself to do that either. That becomes so glaringly obvious when the most terrifying question you can ever ask a creationist is, "What are you saying? Please explain your claim." I've even seen creationists cancel their email accounts in order to avoid that question. A question that any normal will freely answer, which we have done ... repeatedly, but not you.
In public education, the goal of education is that the student understand the subject matter, not that they be required to believe in it. An example was the Air Force Communications Command Leadership School (1982) where we learned what Marxism and Communism is; not to turn us all into Commies, but rather to help us know the enemy (remember, that was during the Cold War). Beneficiaries of public/secular education are able to investigate, research, and learn any subject that might catch their interest or that they might be required to learn about and to do so without any qualms. Such people are truly able to read and learn from both sides of any issue.
In sharp contrast, religious education is for the purpose of indoctrination, the purpose of which is to require the students to believe and believe in what is being taught. This perversion of education makes its victims incapable of learning anything else, since they have been made to think that learning something also requires that they believe in it. Quite literally, when I have urged a creationist to study and learn evolution so that he can discover its actual problems instead of the many creationist lies they have been indoctrinated in (and hence develop actual effective arguments instead of repeating stupid ineffective lies), he emphatically refused to do so because "that would require me to believe in evolution!"
You can lay out articles day after day; month after months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on assumptions. And, assuming something is not science; it is guesswork.
What the hell are you talking about?
And it has already been explained to you some many times that the next step in starting with an assumption is to test it! Science always tests its assumptions (usually AKA "hypotheses" -- but there are also axioms, mostly in mathematics (so go tell Kleinman that mathematics is bogus because it makes assumptions)). In sharp contrast, creationists never ever test their assumptions!
So just what the f**k are you talking about?
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was like 5000 years ago.
Bullshit! But then that's your profound ignorance speaking.
Gas bubbles trapped in glacial ice contain samples of the atmosphere from when they were trapped in the ice. Those have been studied extensively to analyze what the atmosphere was like so many thousands of years ago.
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was like prior to the global flood.
Well, you do have me on that one. Because your "Global Floodye" never happened!
For that matter, the closest thing to a "global flood" started 11,000 years ago when the ice cap from the last ice age started to melt resulting in sea level rising about 200 feet -- and it is still on-going and even picking up steam. Many land bridges disappeared beneath the waves; eg, the Bering Strait, Indonesia (as evidenced by Wallace's Line which explains the biodistribution in those islands), Doggerland which formerly connected England to the Continent. There's also the Persian Gulf which used to be dry land (all depths in the Persian Gulf are less than 200 feet).
This next needs to be verified. A YouTube video of Easter eggs to be found in Star Trek episodes points to a graphic of the earth in DS9 in which we can see North America without Florida.
[voice=NY_NJ_stereotype_tough_guy]Yo! We got your global flood right here![/voice]
Do you have the slightest idea how much carbon was removed from the atmosphere and buried during and after the flood?
Same answer: Your silly global flood never existed, so your question is absolutely meaningless.
But just for fun, how do you propose that your imaginary floodye would have removed carbon from the atmosphere? Magick?
In the meantime, we do know that the amounts of CO2 and C14 have not been constant. We know that from several different lines of evidence, including the gas bubbles trapped in glacial ice. We understand a lot about that, whereas you are forever clueless. Hmm!
I am not the one with the blinders on here, Dwise 1. You are.
Classic clueless projection.
It is your own choice to use willful stupidity to maintain your willful ignorance.
And it will have to be your choice to finally pull your head out and start to learn something. Too bad your sphincter is so tight that it's cutting off the blood supply to your brain.
Part II, Reply to candle2's False Claim: "Decay Rates are not constant"
Second installment of my reply to candle2's Message 655 (17-Oct-2022 12:44 PM PDT), reposted above:
When dating dead organisms utilizing the Carbon-14 dating method two facts need to be established.
One is the decay rate of C-14. The other is the starting amount.
OK, decay rate. What about it? Are you trying to insinuate that tired old creationist lie about decay rates changing wildly?
Please read this article on the subject, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens, a Christian and a physicist and a member of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA -- "a Christian religious organization of scientists and people in science-related disciplines. The stated purpose is 'to investigate any area relating Christian faith and science.'").
He shows that physicists have tried everything they could think of to change decay rates and in virtually all cases what they did had no effect. The ones that they've been able to make change are lighter isotopes not used for dating that they subjected to extreme conditions. For example, on page 20:
quote:There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods we have discussed.
1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164, 1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.
2. { pressures and temperatures in the center of the sun, which cannot be produced naturally on earth }
3. { relativistic effects on time in space vehicles traveling very fast }
These cases are very specialized, and all are well understood. None of these cases alter the dates of rocks either on Earth or other planets in the solar system. The conclusion once again is that half-lives are completely reliable in every context for the dating of rocks on Earth and even on other planets. The Earth and all creation appears to be very ancient.
If your "objection" relates to how half-lives are determined, Dr. Wiens covers that too as you can see for yourself when you read his article yourself.
Most half-lives have been determined within 2%. As Dr. Wiens writes in the appendix, APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods (page 23):
quote:4. The decay rates are poorly known, so the dates are inaccurate.
Most of the decay rates used for dating rocks are known to within two percent. Uncertainties are only slightly higher for rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%), discussed in connection with Table 1. Such small uncertainties are no reason to dismiss radiometric dating. Whether a rock is 100 million years or 102 million years old does not make a great deal of difference.
5. A small error in the half-lives leads to a very large error in the date.
Since exponents are used in the dating equations, it is possible for people to think this might be true, but it is not. If a half-life is off by 2%, it will only lead to a 2% error in the date.
So trying to claim that the decay rate of C14 is not constant will buy you nothing ... except for exposure as a dishonest creationist.
Your first "objection" to radiometric dating is nothing but the usual creationist false nonsense that you fell for because of your ignorance of science and your willful stupidity of refusing to learn any better.
The other is the starting amount.
Nothing but more of the same kind of stupid creationist nonsense.
I will address it in the next installment.
In the meantime, candle2, do try to come up with actual problems for radiocarbon dating, not just the same old creationist BS falsehoods (AKA "lies").
ABE:
I'll repeat my advice to you again even though you will only be willfully stupid and ignore it yet again:
In the meantime, STUDY WHAT RADIOCARBON DATING IS AND WHAT IT'S BASED ON (ie, where the C14 comes from and where it DOESN'T)!
The Wikipedia article, Radiocarbon dating, would be a good place to start. . Pay particular attention to the section, Carbon exchange reservoir, and its accompanying graphic, "Simplified version of the carbon exchange reservoir, showing proportions of carbon and relative activity of the 14C in each reservoir". In particular, note in that graphic that it does not include subterranean C14 produced continuously by radiation sources deep underground, because that subterranean C14 plays no role in radiocarbon dating and has nothing to do with the method. That is important because that false creationist "objection" (ie, that trace C14 in coal and diamonds presents problems for radiocarbon dating) is so far the only "objection" that you have presented and it has been thoroughly debunked.
This is the third installment of my reply to candle2's Message 655 (17-Oct-2022 12:44 PM PDT), reposted above in Message 3.
This is the part of his message that I'm replying to:
When dating dead organisms utilizing the Carbon-14 dating method two facts need to be established.
One is the decay rate of C-14. The other is the starting amount.
I already replied to the "One is the decay rate of C-14" part in my Message 6. candle2 just simply repeated the long refuted false creationist "objection" that the decay rate may not be constant. I cited a scientist and a Christian (writing for an association of scientists who are Christians and who formed that association because they are Christians.
This installment continues by replying to that second part: The other is the starting amount.
Now, this is a typical and very well-known creationist false claim, which only serves as further evidence that candle2 does not know what he is talking about. I'll cover the general case here and then talk specifically about C-14 in the next installment.
The basic argument is that radiometric methods rely on comparing the amounts of the parent element with the amounts of the daughter element. That is to say that nuclear fission involves heavier elements breaking down into lighter elements, archetypically "uranium decaying into lead" (but it's a long and involved chain of isotopes that is more involved in that -- eg, most elements have multiple isotopes, some naturally occuring and some radiogenic (ie, produced as products of radioactive decay) and we can tell them apart).
OK, part of the problem is that creationists don't understand the idea of isotopes. So before we continue I must first cover some basic high-school chemistry and basic atomic theory (the Bohr model specifically), since I have no idea of how much candle2 knows, if anything:
Notation for an atom is its elemental abbreviation which appears in the Periodic Table of Elements; eg, C for carbon, U for uranium, Fe for iron, Au for gold, etc.
Notation of a molecule (a combination of atoms) uses the same abbreviations followed by a subscript giving the number of that element's atom in the molecule. For example, water consisting of two hydrogen (H) and one oxygen (O) is H2O, an oxygen molecule is O2, carbon dioxide is CO2, glucose (a simple carbohydrate) is C6H12O6.
On the most basic level, an atom consists of a nucleus surrounded by shells of electrons:
Basically, the nucleus contains two types of particles: protons and neutrons. Collectively they are called nucleons and hence the total number of protons and neutrons is the atom's nucleon count (term will be used below).
Almost all of an atom's mass is in its nucleus. Assigning a mass of one (1) to a nucleon, the number of nucleons will be about its Atomic Weight. One mole of a substance (6.02214076×1023 atoms or molecules, AKA Avogadro number) will weigh its atomic weight in grams. For example, the atomic weight of a molecule of water is 18.0154, so one mole of water would weight 18.0154 grams (and have a volume of 18.0154 milliliters which is 3.655 teaspoons or 1.218 tablespoons).
Neutrons have no electrical charge and protons have a positive electrical charge. Therefore, the positive charge of the protons give the nucleus a positive electrical charge. Since particles with the same polarity repel (postive attracts negative, but positive repels positive as negativ repels negative), it is the neutrons that hold the nucleus together (as I recall from half a century ago in high school chemistry).
By definition, the element that that atom is of is determined entirely on the number of protons it has, which is its Atomic Number. Change the number of protons and you've changed the element.
The chemical reactions that an atom will engage in depends on its electrons (basically, on the extra electrons in the outer shells which are not stable since they are not complete).
The number of electrons that an atom has is normally the same as the number of protons, but it is possible for an atom to have a different number of electrons than protons, which are ions. More electrons than protons makes for a negative ion, fewer electrons than protons makes for a positive ion, and the number of electrons being the same as the number of protons makes for an electrically neutral atom. We commonly encounter ions in solutions (eg, table salt, NaCl, dissolved it water forming sodium (Na+) and clorine (Cl-) ions).
When we look at the nucleons, we find that the number of neutrons can be different in an element's atoms. When viewed in this way, those atoms are called isotopes, even those isotopes in which the number of neutrons is that same as the number of the protons.
An isotope is identified by its proton count (the Atomic Number) and the its nucleon count (ie, the sum of its protons and neutrons).
There are a few different forms of notation for isotopes:
Preface the element symbol with the proton-plus-neutron count (superscripted) and the proton count (subscripted); eg, carbon 126C, radiocarbon 146C.
That notation can be simplified by leaving out the proton count, which is the same as the element's Atomic Number. Therefore the examples above would be written as 12C for carbon and 14C for radiocarbon. I seem to recall seeing this used without superscripting so that carbon would be written as 12C and radiocarbon as 14C.
An even simpler notation which does not require special formatting is to write the nucleon count after the elemental symbol, connecting them with a hyphen. Hence the examples above would be written as C-12 and C-14.
I tend to use that last notation.
Since all isotopes of an element have the same number of protons and electrons, they will all react chemically in an identical manner. For example, water (H2O) can also be formed with one of those hydrogen atoms being replaced with deuterium (H-2) to form a molecule of heavy water.
Since the isotopes of an element have different numbers of nucleons, they will all have a different atomic weight. Because of that fact, we can differentiate between different isotopes, something that is important in radiometric methods.
The differences in mass can change the isotope's physical properties. In some cases, greater mass can make that isotope less likely to be incorporated in a compound. Also, heavy water is less suseptible to electrolysis, which is how we obtain heavy water (ie, use electrolysis to split the regular water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, and when all the regular water has been split what remains is heavy water which occurs naturally).
Some isotopes are stable and some are unstable (and hence radioactive). Some are naturally occuring and some are produced by radiation (eg, C-14) and some are radiogenic (ie, produced by the decay of a heavier element).
So, to summarize, if you change the number of protons then the atom becomes a different element, but if you change the number of neutrons it remains the same element but becomes a different isotope designated by its different atomic weight (approx).
OK, do you understand isotopes now? Well, please try to wrap your brain around the fact that a given element can have more than one isotope. And that we can tell one from the other, which means that we can tell the difference between a naturally occuring isotope and a radiogenic isotope.
That helps us to deal with that basic and highly simplistic creationist argument.
The next part will examine how radiometric dating is practiced and how that answers your complaint: "We don't know the starting amount of the daughter element"
Edited by dwise1, : added "(the Bohr model specifically)"
Part IV, Reply to candle2's False Claim: "We don't know the starting amount of the da
This is the fourth installment of my reply to candle2's Message 655 (17-Oct-2022 12:44 PM PDT), reposted above in Message 3.
This is the part of his message that I'm replying to:
When dating dead organisms utilizing the Carbon-14 dating method two facts need to be established.
One is the decay rate of C-14. The other is the starting amount.
Here is a better statement of candle's "objection" taken from Apologetics Press):
quote:Assumption 3: No Daughter Element Existed at the Beginning
To date rocks using any radiometric dating system, a person must assume that the daughter element in the sample was not there in the beginning. However, that claim cannot be proven. Who is to say that the rock did not start out with 23 ounces of lead already in it? The lead could have been in the rock from the beginning (and so could the uranium). To illustrate this point, suppose you go to a swimming pool and find a hose that is pumping water into the pool at a rate of 100 gallons an hour. You discover that the pool has 3,000 gallons of water in it. You calculate that the hose must have been running for 30 hours. However, when you ask the owner of the pool how long she has been running the hose, she tells you that she has been running it for only one hour. Most of the water was already in the pool due to a heavy rain the night before. If you assumed that all the water came from the hose, your calculations would be way off—29 hours off to be exact. Assumption three, that no daughter element existed at the beginning, simply cannot be granted.
This is an example of a typical creationist mistake in which they make ignorant generalizations which makes them lose track of vital details that are very important.
Well ... it's not a question of "daughter elements", but rather daughter isotopes. So the question isn't just about a "daughter element", but rather different isotopes of the daughter element.
For example, that quote from Apologetics Press named lead as the "daughter element". Lead has many isotopes, tens of them (List of isotopes of Lead) ranging from Pb-178 to Pb-218. And as we established on the previous page, Message 7, each isotope has a different mass so we are able to tell one isotope from another. Therefore, we can only count the radiogenic isotope which is part of the parent element's decay chain and disregard the non-radiogenic isotopes.
Before addressing the specifics of radiocarbon dating, let's look at an actual radiometric dating method, isochron dating.
First he covers generic radiometric dating. This is the most basic and simplistic method, basically only as far as most creationists get, if even that far.
The variables in the equations are:
Pnow - The quantity of the parent isotope that remains now. This is measured directly.
Dnow - The current quantity of the daughter isotope.
Porig - The quantity of the parent isotope that was originally present. This is computed from the current quantity of parent isotope plus the accumulated quantity of daughter isotope.
halflife - The half-life of the parent isotope. Standard values are used, based on direct measurements. (Constancy of decay rate is covered in the Age of the Earth FAQ.)
age - The value computed from the equation and the other three quantities, is the amount of time which has passed.
The first basic formulae are:
Pnow = Porig * 2( -age / halflife )
Solving for age and substituting Dnow:
age = halflife * log2( 1 + ( Dnow / Pnow ) )
Remember that the generic method is very simplistic and does not hold up well in the real world.
This is the next section (bold added in last paragraphs). Also please refer to the next message, Message 9, in which Taq posted the graphics for the figures from Stassen's article that I refer to; I'm not able to post graphics myself:
quote:Potential problems for generic dating
Some assumptions have been made in the discussion of generic dating, for the sake of keeping the computation simple. Such assumptions will not always be accurate in the real world. These include:
The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero (or known independently and can be compensated for).
No parent isotope or daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation.
If one of these assumptions has been violated, the simple computation above yields an incorrect age.
Note that the mere existence of these assumptions do not render the simpler dating methods entirely useless. In many cases, there are independent cues (such as geologic setting or the chemistry of the specimen) which can suggest that such assumptions are entirely reasonable. However, the methods must be used with care -- and one should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age... especially in absence of cross-checks by different methods, or if presented without sufficient information to judge the context in which it was obtained.
Isochron methods avoid the problems which can potentially result from both of the above assumptions.
Stassen follows with the isochron method, which starts with:
quote:Isochron methodology
Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)
Each group of measurements is plotted as a data point on a graph. The X-axis of the graph is the ratio of P to Di. The Y-axis of the graph is the ratio of D to Di. For example, an Rb/Sr isochron plot looks like this:
Figure 1. Example isochron plot.
P = Rb-87; D = Sr-87; Di = Sr-86. The X-axis (horizontal) is the ratio of (Rb-87 / Sr-86); ie, P / Di, ratio of parent and the NON-radiogenic isotope The Y-axis (vertical) is the ratio of (Sr-87 / Sr-86); ie, D / Di, ratio of the radiogenic and NON-radiogenic isotopes Three samples are plotted on the graph
What does it mean?
The intent of the plot is to assess a correlation between:
The level of P (X-value of the data points), and
Any enrichment in D (Y-value of the data points):
Figure 2. Meaning of the plot axes.
Increasing abundance of P moves the plot point to the right Increasing enrichment in D moves the plot point up
If the data points on the plot are colinear, and the line has a positive slope, it shows an extremely strong correlation between:
The amount of P in each sample, and
The extent to which it is enriched in D, relative to Di.
This is a necessary and expected consequence, if the additional D is a product of the decay of P in a closed system over time. It is not easily explained, in the general case, in any other way.
Why isochron data are colinear
The data points would be expected to start out on a line if certain initial conditions were met. Consider some molten rock in which isotopes and elements are distributed in a reasonably homogeneous manner. Its composition would be represented as a single point on the isochron plot:
Figure 3. Global composition of the melt. Plots a single plot based on the composition of the melt; subsequent graphs are derived from this one
As the rock cools, minerals form. They "choose" atoms for inclusion by their chemical properties.
Since D and Di are isotopes of the same element, they have identical chemical properties*. Minerals may include varying quantities of that element, but all will inherit the same D/Di ratio as the source material. This results in an identical Y-value for the data points representing each mineral (matching the Y-value of the source material).
* Note that the above is somewhat simplified. There are minor differences between isotopes of the same element, and in relatively rare circumstances it is possible to obtain some amount of differentiation between them. This is known as isotope fractionation. The effect is almost always a very small departure from homogeneous distribution of the isotopes -- perhaps enough to introduce an error of 0.002 half-lives in a non-isochron age. (It can happen... but it is rare and the effect is not large enough to account for extremely old ages on supposedly young formations.)
In contrast, P is a different element with different chemical properties. It will therefore be distributed unequally relative to D & Di as minerals form. This results in a range of X-values for the data points representing individual minerals.
Since the data points have the same Y-value and a range of X-values, they initially fall on a horizontal line:
Figure 4. Differential migration of elements as minerals form. Shows that minerals which incorporate D better than P will plot to the left of the initial melt while those that incorporate P better than D will plot to the right All points start out on a horizontal line for zero-age
A horizontal line represents "zero age." *
* More precisely, a horizontal line represents an age which is indistinguishable from zero. In most cases, any age less than about 10-3P half-lives will include zero within its range of uncertainty. (The range of uncertainty varies, and may be as much as an order of magnitude different from the approximate value above. It depends on the accuracy of the measurements and the fit of the data to the line in each individual case.) For example, with Rb/Sr isochron dating, any age less than a few tens of millions of years is usually indistinguishable from zero. That encompasses the entire young-Earth timescale thousands of times over.
As more time passes and a significant amount of radioactive decay occurs, the quantity of P decreases by a noticeable amount in each sample, while the quantity of D increases by the same amount. This results in a movement of the data points to the left (decreasing P) and upwards (increasing D). Since each atom of P decays to one atom of D, the data point for each sample will move along a path with a slope of -1.
Decay occurs in a proportional manner (that is, when 20% of the P in one sample has decayed, 20% of the P in every sample will have decayed). As a result, the data points with the most P (the right-most ones on the plot) move the greatest distance per unit time. The data points remain colinear as time passes, but the slope of the line increases:
Figure 5. Movement of data points as decay occurs. Illustrates the movement of the data points as they age
The slope of the line is the ratio of enriched D to remaining P. It can be used in place of "Dnow/Pnow" in the decay equation.
Miscellaneous notes
Age "uncertainty"
When a "simple" dating method is performed, the result is a single number. There is no good way to tell how close the computed result is likely to be to the actual age.
An additional nice feature of isochron ages is that an "uncertainty" in the age is automatically computed from the fit of the data to a line. A routine statistical operation on the set of data yields both a slope of the best-fit line (an age) and a variance in the slope (an uncertainty in the age). The better the fit of the data to the line, the lower the uncertainty.
. . .
General comments on "dating assumptions"
All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time. The wonderful property of isochron methods is: if one of these requirements is violated, it is nearly certain that the data will indicate the problem by failure to plot on a line. (This topic will be discussed in much more detail below.) Where the simple methods will produce an incorrect age, isochron methods will generally indicate the unsuitability of the object for dating.
Avoidance of generic dating's problems
Now that the mechanics of plotting an isochron have been described, we will discuss the potential problems of the "simple" dating method with respect to isochron methods.
Initial daughter product
. . .
Contamination - parent isotope
. . .
Contamination - daughter isotope
. . .
Exceptions for loss of daughter
. . .
These exceptions should be of little comfort to young-Earthers, for (1) they are uncommon (extremely uncommon in the case of partial resetting); and (2) the result in both cases is an isochron age which is too young to represent the time of formation. Young-Earthers necessarily insist that all ancient isochron ages are really much too old.
I left out a lot as marked by ellipses, so you should go to that article to read those sections yourself. There's also a subsequent section, So, are isochron methods foolproof?, which covers problems that the method could encounter. The good thing about the isochron methods as opposed to your simplistic generic method is that the methods have built-in checks, the first and biggest one being that if the data points do not all fall on a line, then something is not right.
Creationists in their arrogance think that scientists are nothing but a bunch of idiots blindly trusting faulty methods, whereas it is instead the arrogant creationists who are the idiots pontificating of scientific methods that they know nothing about.
You think you're so smart by pointing out bad dates? Who do you think found those bad dates? Creationists? No, it's the scientists working with those methods who find the problems; creationists just look up their results in order to misrepresent the process.
Glenn R. Morton was a petroleum geologist who started out a Christian fundamentalist whose only knowledge of geology came from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Actually, he had earned a BS Physics and then went to work in petroleum exploration where he learned geology OJT (On-the-Job Training). He even hired a number of ICR geology students to work with him. Being faced every single day with unavoidable rock-hard geological facts that creationism had taught them did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning resulted in all of them suffering crises of faith. Morton himself was driven to the verge of atheism by creationism until he was able to arrive at a harmonization which was scientifically accurate (HINT: creationism is the opposite of that).
One of his pages is archived in the WayBack Machine: Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look. The first section, Are Radioactive Dates Wrong?, in which he reviewed work by a creationist with the pseudonym of "John Woodmorappe" (turns out he was a high school teacher):
quote:Are Radioactive Dates Wrong?
John Woodmorappe (1979) went through the scientific literature looking for radioactive dates which are 20% too old or too young. He specifically excluded from his search any date which matched the expected age. This type of selective editing is exactly what Young earth Creationists charge the Evolutionists with. Woodmorappe says
"An objective comparison between the number of fitting vs. the number of anomalous dates in the Phanerozoic is hindered (if not prevented) by the fact that anomalous dates frequently (or usually) are not reported in scientific journals." (Woodmorappe 1979, p. 113)
Thus while he criticizes the old-earther for selectively publishing radioactive dates, he does the very same thing by only publishing bad dates. This seriously hurts his credibility. In his article he listed these bad dates but did not plot them. If he had, he would have seen something remarkable. Above the 350 dates are plotted . A perfect dating result should appear on the line. Note that there are more dates under the line than above the line. If radioactivity is producing dates which are too old, you would expect that there would be more dates above the line than below the line. What this proves is that if a radioactive date is wrong it is far more likely to be too young than too old! Young earth creationists need the dates to be too old if their viewpoint is correct.
And just in case, candle2, if you also push that stupid old "shrinking sun" claim, that same page also covers it: THE SHRINKING SUN. He includes a graph of solar diameter measurements made between 1700 and 2000. Then he draws a line through the data points from Eddy and Boornazian's study of measurements made over a 90-year period, showing that cherry-picking only those measurements while ignoring all the others would lead to a false rate of solar diameter change (actually, the sun is slowly becoming bigger).
So, now that you see that your "problems" for radiometric dating are nonsense, the next installment will address radiocarbon dating more directly.
Edited by dwise1, : Added reference to the next message which contains the graphics I refer to
Re: Part IV, Reply to candle2's False Claim: "We don't know the starting amount of the da
Great post. I thought I would post a few visual aids from the TalkOrigins page. The plots really help me understand what is going on.
Here is a representative isochron plot for Rb/Sr
A generalized plot showing the slope of the lines for the zero age and older age:
Using these variables:
P = Rb-87; D = Sr-87; Di = Sr-86. The X-axis (horizontal) is the ratio of (Rb-87 / Sr-86); ie, P / Di, ratio of parent and the NON-radiogenic isotope The Y-axis (vertical) is the ratio of (Sr-87 / Sr-86); ie, D / Di, ratio of the radiogenic and NON-radiogenic isotopes Three samples are plotted on the graph
We then have a few representative graphs for situations where you don't get a straight line for an isochron.
Candle3 Still Up To Same Old Tricks and Telling Same Old Lies
Over in the Choosing a faith topic, Candle3 (formerly known as "candle2" -- Admin has combined the two accounts) was up to his same old off-topic tricks and lies about radiocarbon dating. As I already stated here, I created this topic specifically for those discussions, but I have no doubt that he has never bothered to come here.
So I'm reposting those messages here to pull them in where they belong.
Just please try to refrain from returning to spouting those stupid creationist bullshit lies again.
Which reminds me that I should complete that topic I created for you, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2. Even though you will just continue to refuse to even look at it, let alone read it, but others can learn from it.
To which he replied in his Message 3840 (in its entirety):
Dwise, you state: "Just please try to refrain from returning to spouting those stupid creationist bullshit lies again." ***Don't worry. I have outgrown that ridiculous and sophomoric postulation of evolution.
I read that as his having forsaken creationism, which is good news. But then within two minutes he was back at it again in a reply, Message 3841, to Taq's Message 3838which had made no mention of evolution:
Taq, you are in the cult of evolution. You waste you life on this pathetic concept. Grow up.
My reply Message 3842 to Candle3's Message 3840 started out with praise for his finally having come to his senses, but then the rest strongly excoriates him when I noticed that he was immediately back his same old lies AGAIN! In short, he had just lied TO MY FACE, which really pissed me off.
Candle3's response was to post this Message 3847 in which he was back at posting a long list of bullshit creationist claims which have been refuted to his face so many times that his repeating them as if they had never been refuted constitutes deliberate lying on his part. That reply was to my original Message 3837 in which I had expressed the hope that he wouldn't do such a thing.
Dwise, you stated: Which reminds me that I should complete that topic I created for you, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2. Even though you will just continue to refuse to even look at it, let alone read it, but others can learn from it. ***I have replied to you multiple times about dating techniques. Any reasonable individual would dismiss them. There are too many assumptions made with dating methods. For example, evolutionists assume that the decay rate has been constant for hundreds of millions of years. There is no way to know this, not even with a modicum of certainly. Evolutionists state that their samples have always been in a closed system. They insist that outside elements could not, and did not, add or subtract radioactive isotopes. Evolutionists claim that the parent-daughter elements of original sample is always knows. Whenever dating methods and techniques disagree with their assumed then they say that the sample has been corrupted. They want it both way, whichever supports their assumptions. Evolutionists insist that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been constant. There is no way to know this. Science cannot test this. The half-life of C-14 is roughly 5700 years. After 50,00 years, (no, I'll be generous and give evolutionists 100,000 years) samples should not contain C-14; at least not in a detectable amount. You seem to be an intelligent individual, Dwise, but you are wasting the talent God gave you. Some are studying and working in order to be ready to rule with Christ when He returns to set up His kingdom. Evolutionists are wasting their life on garbage. It makes me sad to witness it.
I replied twice. My first reply (Message 3853) was to chastise him and to remind him YET AGAIN that this discussion doesn't belong there but rather here in this topic. My second reply addressed his false claims with copious links back to where I had already addressed those false claims right here in this very topic.
And I have replied to your utterly and incredibly stupid bullshit lies about those dating techniques in which I explained in detail why your stupid bullshit lies are indeed stupid bullshit lies. Many times! And you repeatedly refuse to even look at them. Which is why it pisses me off so much that you continue to post your utterly and incredibly stupid bullshit lies.
I even created a new topic, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2, specifically for this discussion. THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO TAKE THIS, though you will continue to refuse to do so. In that topic, I have explained in detail how radiocarbon dating actually works.
First, a quick repeat of the same refutations to your bullshit lies that I have already provided far too many times, this time with links to the pertinent messages in Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2 -- OBTW, that is an example of a link; observe and learn for once in your miserable benighted life.
For example, evolutionists assume that the decay rate has been constant for hundreds of millions of years. There is no way to know this, not even with a modicum of certainly.
Bullshit! Refer to Message 6. Extensive experimentation and testing has shown that decay rates are very highly resistant to external forces. The only cases where decay rates were found to be affected either required very highly extreme conditions (eg, pressure and heat many times greater than in the center of a star) or only affected the decay rates of very light isotopes (eg, beryllium-7) with half-lives so short (eg, minutes or seconds or fractions thereof) as to be completely useless for a dating method. And even then, the effect is only a very small percentage, commonly less than the margin of error in determining the decay rate.
Evolutionists state that their samples have always been in a closed system. They insist that outside elements could not, and did not, add or subtract radioactive isotopes.
Bullshit! Only stupid lying creationists would say that!
Refer to Message 8 for the truth, especially the part where the isochron method detects such an occurrence.
Evolutionists claim that the parent-daughter elements of original sample is always knows.
Bullshit! Only a stupid lying creationist would claim that because they rely on an extremely over-simplistic misunderstanding that completely ignores actual practice.
Again, refer to Message 8 for the truth, especially the part where the isochron method compares and depends on the ratio of radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element.
Whenever dating methods and techniques disagree with their assumed then they say that the sample has been corrupted. They want it both way, whichever supports their assumptions.
Contamination is always a problem, as I will cover in Part VI. Indeed, there is always a background amount of C-14 that cannot be eliminated, so scientists have to test a sample that contains no radiocarbon, like a diamond to determine that background amount in order to eliminate it from the actual measurement. By analogy, consider weight flour on a kitchen scale: first you put the empty container on the scale and press the "tare" button to eliminate its weight from the measurement of the flour's weight.
Evolutionists insist that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been constant. There is no way to know this. Science cannot test this.
No, scientists do not assume that, but rather through testing they discovered that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is not constant and they have worked out methods to account and compensate for that variation. Only stupid lying creationists claim otherwise, as you yourself just did YET AGAIN! You fucking lying moron!
I will cover that in Part VI.
The half-life of C-14 is roughly 5700 years. After 50,00 years, (no, I'll be generous and give evolutionists 100,000 years) samples should not contain C-14; at least not in a detectable amount.
That would only be true of C-14 in organic samples that was of atmospheric origin, and not recently formed C-14 from other sources. As I have explained to you countless times already. Why are you so willfully stupid that you are incapable of learning anything?
Also, I have repeatedly demanded that you explain why you would ever expect recently generated C-14 of non-atmospheric origin and which was never a part of the food chain should have anything to do the radiocarbon dating method. Countless times have I asked and demanded that and each and every time you refused to answer! You dishonest piece of shit!
In the meantime, please pull your head out of your ass.
CAVEAT:
That topic is not yet completed for a couple reasons; eg:
I got diverted by other matters that required my limited spare time.
You are so stubbornly willfully stupid that you would never ever bother to even look at it. I would be extremely surprised if you clicked on it even once -- though if you were to say that you did, I couldn't believe you since you incessantly lie about everything.
I am breaking up my general reply into several parts in order to keep each part short. Here is the general breakdown:
Message 1, Message 2, Message 3, Message 4 -- copying the discussion from the thread that you were pulling off-topic with your bullshit along with replies both from myself and from others. That was to pull all pertinent material into one place for efficient referencing.
Message 6, Part II, Reply to candle2's False Claim: "Decay Rates are not constant" -- Refuted this bullshit lie of your using the article on the subject, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens, a Christian and a physicist and a member of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA -- "a Christian religious organization of scientists and people in science-related disciplines and whose stated purpose is 'to investigate any area relating Christian faith and science.'").
Message 7, Part III, Some Basic Chemistry -- since you have demonstrated abysmal ignorance of even the most basic scientific knowledge, this is a quick review of 1960's high school chemistry using the Bohr model of the atom. I also review what makes an atom a particular element and what an ISOTOPE is.
Message 8, Part IV, Reply to candle2's False Claim: "We don't know the starting amount of the daughter element" -- I review the basics of radiometric dating methods, in particular contrasting the overly simplistic approach which is prone to error (and hence is misrepresented in creationist lies as the only method) with the highly reliable and largely self-validatingisochron dating method, which incorporates testing the ratio between radiogenic and non-radiogenic ISOTOPES of the daughter element (which explicitly takes into account the initial amount of the daughter element). This method also detects whether parent or daughter elements had migrated into or out of the sample; that is part of its self-validating feature.
Message 9, Re: Part IV ... by Taq -- in which he posts the graphics from Chris Stassen's Isochron article which I could not.
That last dated from more than two years ago (18-Nov-2022). I had planned out and started on the further installments to my reply, listed here:
Part V, The Radiocarbon Dating Method -- I describe the formation of C-14 from nitrogen atoms being hit by radiation and how only C-14 of atmospheric origin plays any part in radiocarbon dating, and how C-14 from subterranean radiation sources does not. I also cover the reservoir effect which is the source of many creationist lies.
Almost completed and ready for posting.
Part VI -- Here I plan to examine in more detail the various factors that can affect results and how they are accounted for. This is important since typical creationist claims are based on the total fiction that scientists are a bunch of blithering idiots who blindly apply a simplistic method completely ignorant of the "serious problems" that the creationists point out in their claims. In reality, those creationists got those "serious problems" from the very same scientists they are trying to "expose as incompetent and deluded". Scientists know their methods very well, have studied and tested them thoroughly, and have catalogued all problems along with methods for detecting and dealing with a problem. Clearly, scientists are not the idiots, but rather it is the creationists who are the idiots.
Part VII -- I plan to enumerate Candle3's "serious problems for C-14 dating" and address them directly on the basis of what we have discussed in Parts I-VI.
That last was posted 25-Jan-2025 with no reply from Candle3. As usual, he just ran away unable to support any of his claims.
Edited by dwise1, : added that he had lied to my face
This is the fifth installment of my reply to candle2's Message 655 (17-Oct-2022 12:44 PM PDT), reposted above in Message 3.
Sorry for the long delay, what with the previous installment having been written more than two years ago. I got diverted to other matters, plus it was obvious that candle2 (now going by Candle3) hadn't bothered to read it and, frankly, never would. He has made it painfully apparent that learning something is against his religion.
In this part, we will learn about the radiocarbon dating method, how it works, and what can affect results. This will correct Candle3's confusion over where and how the carbon-14 that the dating method is based on is produced. It will also examine how that newly-produced C-14 then moves into various reservoirs (a very important term and concept which creationists typically ignore in order to create false claims, most notably the "living molluscs or living seals dated as thousands of years old" (they get "old carbon" from dissolved limestone or sea food, respectively) ).
In the next part (Part VI), I plan to examine in more detail the various factors that can affect results and how they are accounted for. This is important since typical creationist claims are based on the total fiction that scientists are a bunch of blithering idiots who blindly apply a simplistic method completely ignorant of the "serious problems" that the creationists point out in their claims. In reality, those creationists got those "serious problems" from the very same scientists they are trying to "expose as incompetent and deluded". Scientists know their methods very well, have studied and tested them thoroughly, and have catalogued all problems along with methods for detecting and dealing with a problem. Clearly, scientists are not the idiots, but rather it is the creationists who are the idiots.
In the next part after that (Part VII), I plan to enumerate Candle3's "serious problems for C-14 dating" and address them directly on the basis of what we have discussed in Parts I-VI.
That should complete all parts of my response, which establishes that Candle3's claims are blatant lies. Then we can read Candle3's response (which we will never see as is so sadly typical of creationists).
So on to learning about the radiocarbon dating method, how it works, and what can affect results. That is to say, what scientists do already know but creationists are too willfully ignorant to understand.
Again, refer to the Wikipedia pages, Radiocarbon dating and Carbon-14, since I cannot reproduce the graphics. For example, refer to the section, Carbon exchange reservoir, which shows the transfer of C-14 between "reservoirs" (none of which involve any trace subterranean C-14 since that plays no part in the method as I have already explained to Candle3 several times).
The article, Isotopes of carbon, states that carbon has 15 known isotopes from C-8 to C-22, of which C-12 and C-13 are stable. The longest-lived radioisotope (ie, unstable) is C-14 with a half-life of about 5703 years while the other carbon radioisotopes have half-lives measured in minutes down to fractions of a second; from that link:
quote:The most stable artificial radioisotope is C-11, which has a half-life of 20.3402(53) min. All other radioisotopes have half-lives under 20 seconds, most less than 200 milliseconds. The least stable isotope is C-8 with a half-life of 3.5(1.4)×10-21 s.
Therefore, the only isotopes of carbon we will deal with are C-12 and C-13 (both of which are stable, though C-13 accounts for only 1% of carbon atoms and so can safely be ignored in this discussion) and C-14 (which decays radioactively and is the only carbon radioisotope found in nature). These three carbon isotopes are identical chemically, meaning that they react the same in chemical reactions, but their different masses can affect how readily they can form compounds which can affect how much of them we find in compounds, the same as happens with isotopes of other elements (ie, it's a common occurance called isotopic fractionation which scientists are well aware of and understand). I will discuss isotope fractionation in a later part, but I already mentioned it in Message 8:
Since D and Di are isotopes of the same element, they have identical chemical properties*. Minerals may include varying quantities of that element, but all will inherit the same D/Di ratio as the source material. This results in an identical Y-value for the data points representing each mineral (matching the Y-value of the source material).
* Note that the above is somewhat simplified. There are minor differences between isotopes of the same element, and in relatively rare circumstances it is possible to obtain some amount of differentiation between them. This is known as isotope fractionation. The effect is almost always a very small departure from homogeneous distribution of the isotopes -- perhaps enough to introduce an error of 0.002 half-lives in a non-isochron age. (It can happen... but it is rare and the effect is not large enough to account for extremely old ages on supposedly young formations.)
This section, Radiocarbon dating: Physical and chemical details describes how C-14 is produced and decays. Basically, neutrons generated by cosmic rays strike nitrogen-14 atoms and turn them into C-14 (follow that link for more details). The newly formed C-14 quickly combines with oxygen to form carbon monoxide and then carbon dioxide, some of which will be taken in by plants during photosynthesis (the basis of radiometric dating). Also note that while C-14 in the atmosphere will decay, it's being replenished constantly by cosmic rays, albeit not at a constant rate over time.
Please note that any source of radiation can produce C-14. For example, there are many subterranean radiation sources, which accounts for trace amounts of recently produced C-14 in buried rocks (eg, coal, fossils), as I have explained repeatedly to Candle3 despite his constantly ignoring that fact (indeed, if he didn't insist on ignoring it, I wouldn't have had to explain it to him so many times). And as I have also had to explain to him far too many times, C-14 produced by subterranean radiation sources PLAY NO ROLE WHATSOEVER IN RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS; radiocarbon dating depends entirely on C-14 produced in the atmosphere.
That link immediately above also provides the same explanation I have given Candle3 repeatedly:
quote:Carbon dioxide produced in this way diffuses in the atmosphere, is dissolved in the ocean, and is taken up by plants via photosynthesis. Animals eat the plants, and ultimately the radiocarbon is distributed throughout the biosphere. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 is approximately 1.25 parts of C-14 to 1012 parts of C-12. In addition, about 1% of the carbon atoms are of the stable isotope C-13.
. . .
Principles
During its life, a plant or animal is in equilibrium with its surroundings by exchanging carbon either with the atmosphere or through its diet. It will, therefore, have the same proportion of C-14 as the atmosphere, or in the case of marine animals or plants, with the ocean. Once it dies, it ceases to acquire C-14, but the C-14 within its biological material at that time will continue to decay, and so the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in its remains will gradually decrease. Because C-14 decays at a known rate, the proportion of radiocarbon can be used to determine how long it has been since a given sample stopped exchanging carbon – the older the sample, the less C-14 will be left.
We need to reiterate an important point here: Any source of radiation can (and does) produce C-14, but the only radiation sources and the their resultant C-14 that plays any role at all in the radiocarbon dating method are the ones that produce C-14 in the atmosphere. Therefore, subterranean radiation sources producing trace amounts of C-14 deep under ground play no role whatsoever in radiocarbon dating, as I have explained to Candle3 repeatedly.
Just to make it absolutely clear, this is what the radiocarbon dating method is based on:
Cosmic rays (both galactic and solar) enter the atmosphere and generate neutrons which strike nitrogen-14 atoms turning them into carbon-14 atoms (ie, one of the seven (7) protons in the nitrogen nucleus gets turned into a neutron leaving the nucleus with six (6) protons which makes it carbon. This happens constantly, though the rate of C-14 production is not constant due to factors such as the fluctuation of the earth's geo-magnetic field (thus changing how many charged particles are deflected -- watch the classic school film, The Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays, 1957 (I saw it around 1960 in elementary school, so it might be too advanced for Candle3) -- such that C-14 production is greater when the field is weaker and less when the field is stronger).
The C-14 atoms react with oxygen to form CO and CO2 and they disperse in the atmosphere.
That C-14 enters the biosphere through the food chain: plants incorporate C-14 in their tissue through photosynthesis and animals incorporate that C-14 by eating plants or other animals that eat plants.
From Radiocabon dating: Principles, the basis of radiocarbon dating is the ratio of carbon-14 and carbon-12 and the following formula. Quoting from that source, since the original explains it better than I could:
quote:Principles
During its life, a plant or animal is in equilibrium with its surroundings by exchanging carbon either with the atmosphere or through its diet. It will, therefore, have the same proportion of 14C as the atmosphere, or in the case of marine animals or plants, with the ocean. Once it dies, it ceases to acquire 14C, but the 14C within its biological material at that time will continue to decay, and so the ratio of 14C to 12C in its remains will gradually decrease. Because 14C decays at a known rate, the proportion of radiocarbon can be used to determine how long it has been since a given sample stopped exchanging carbon – the older the sample, the less 14C will be left.
The equation governing the decay of a radioactive isotope is:
N = N0e-λt
where N0 is the number of atoms of the isotope in the original sample (at time t = 0, when the organism from which the sample was taken died), and N is the number of atoms left after time t. λ is a constant that depends on the particular isotope; for a given isotope it is equal to the reciprocal of the mean-life – i.e. the average or expected time a given atom will survive before undergoing radioactive decay. The mean-life, denoted by t, of 14C is 8,267 years, so the equation above can be rewritten as:
t = ln(N0/N) × 8267 years
The sample is assumed to have originally had the same 14C/12C ratio as the ratio in the atmosphere, and since the size of the sample is known, the total number of atoms in the sample can be calculated, yielding N0, the number of 14C atoms in the original sample. Measurement of N, the number of 14C atoms currently in the sample, allows the calculation of t, the age of the sample, using the equation above.
The half-life of a radioactive isotope (usually denoted by t1/2) is a more familiar concept than the mean-life, so although the equations above are expressed in terms of the mean-life, it is more usual to quote the value of 14C's half-life than its mean-life. The currently accepted value for the half-life of 14C is 5,700 ± 30 years. This means that after 5,700 years, only half of the initial 14C will remain; a quarter will remain after 11,400 years; an eighth after 17,100 years; and so on.
The above calculations make several assumptions, such as that the level of 14C in the atmosphere has remained constant over time. In fact, the level of 14C in the atmosphere has varied significantly and as a result, the values provided by the equation above have to be corrected by using data from other sources. This is done by calibration curves (discussed below), which convert a measurement of 14C in a sample into an estimated calendar age. The calculations involve several steps and include an intermediate value called the "radiocarbon age", which is the age in "radiocarbon years" of the sample: an age quoted in radiocarbon years means that no calibration curve has been used - the calculations for radiocarbon years assume that the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio has not changed over time.
The main points:
The dating calculations depend on the ratio of C-14 to C-12, with the assumption that at the time of death the organism's ratio was the same as that in its environment and that the measured difference is due to the depletion of C-14 through its radioactive decay back to nitrogen.
Despite assumptions made in formulating the calculations (eg, rate of C-14 in the atmosphere being constant, which we know is not true), scientists are well aware of where and in what manner and to what degree those assumptions do not hold and hence are able to take that into account as they calibrate the method.
Basically, scientists are no fools, but rather it's the creationists who are the fools by stewing in their willful ignorance and refusing to learn how dating methods are really applied.
The C-14 that an organism takes in comes from its environment which may be isolated from the atmosphere where the C-14 is being produced. That means that that important 14C/12C ratio can be and is different in different environments. Those differences in ratio are called reservoir effects as discussed below.
Through various exchange channels, the C-14 produced by cosmic rays will end up in one of five reservoirs (refer to Carbon exchange reservoir for a complete discussion with graphics) -- This is highly important information that pertains directly to most creationist claims about C-14:
Atmosphere --
Contains 1.9% of the total C-14 in the exchange reservoirs.
Is the source of new C-14 being produced primarily by cosmic radiation and trace amounts by other means (eg, lightning).
Exchanges C-14 with the surface ocean (2-way), terrestial biosphere (2-way), and dead organic matter (only receives) -- see below.
Terrestial biosphere --
Contains 1.3% of the total C-14 in the exchange reservoirs.
C-14 moves from the atmosphere into the terrestial biosphere through photosynthesis, by which C-14 is incorporated in plant tissue.
Within the terrestial biosphere, C-14 is incorporated into animal tissue when animals eat plants or animals who had eaten plants, etc.
C-14 moves back into the atmosphere through respiration -- eg, animals ingest C-14, breathe in oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide, some molecules of which contain C-14.
Dead organic matter --
Contains 3.6% of the total C-14 in the exchange reservoirs.
This is what gets tested in radiocarbon dating.
C-14 moves from the terrestial biosphere into the dead organic matter reservoir through death, after which the dead plants and animals will no longer take in fresh C-14 and the C-14 already in it decays.
Some of that C-14 returns to the atmosphere through decay.
In another exchange not included this exchange diagram, some C-14 can return to the terrestial biosphere through absorption of organic compounds in the soil, etc.
Surface ocean --
Contains 2.4% of the total C-14 in the exchange reservoirs.
C-14 can move from the atmosphere into the surface ocean by CO2 going to dissolved carbonate.
C-14 in the surface ocean can return to the atmosphere through dissolved carbonate going back to CO2.
The surface ocean reservoir is the sole interface with the deep ocean reservoir.
Surface waters contain a combination of older deep ocean water with depleted C-14 and water recently at the surface with C-14 from the atmosphere. Therefore, compared with atmospheric C-14, the ocean's C-14 is "old" and will cause sealife to be dated as older than they actually are.
Deep ocean --
Contains 90.8% of the total C-14 in the exchange reservoirs, by far the vastly greatest part.
C-14 can move from the surface ocean through mixing.
C-14 can move from the deep ocean to the surface ocean through mixing and upwelling.
The deep ocean's sole interface is with the surface ocean and it takes a long time (1,000 years) for its waters to circulate back through surface waters, thus biasing surface waters with "old carbon".
quote:
Carbon is distributed throughout the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the oceans; these are referred to collectively as the carbon exchange reservoir, and each component is also referred to individually as a carbon exchange reservoir. The different elements of the carbon exchange reservoir vary in how much carbon they store, and in how long it takes for the C-14 generated by cosmic rays to fully mix with them. This affects the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the different reservoirs, and hence the radiocarbon ages of samples that originated in each reservoir. The atmosphere, which is where C-14 is generated, contains about 1.9% of the total carbon in the reservoirs, and the C-14 it contains mixes in less than seven years. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere is taken as the baseline for the other reservoirs: if another reservoir has a lower ratio of C-14 to C-12, it indicates that the carbon is older and hence that either some of the C-14 has decayed, or the reservoir is receiving carbon that is not at the atmospheric baseline. The ocean surface is an example: it contains 2.4% of the carbon in the exchange reservoir, but there is only about 95% as much C-14 as would be expected if the ratio were the same as in the atmosphere. The time it takes for carbon from the atmosphere to mix with the surface ocean is only a few years, but the surface waters also receive water from the deep ocean, which has more than 90% of the carbon in the reservoir. Water in the deep ocean takes about 1,000 years to circulate back through surface waters, and so the surface waters contain a combination of older water, with depleted C-14, and water recently at the surface, with C-14 in equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Creatures living at the ocean surface have the same C-14 ratios as the water they live in, and as a result of the reduced C-14/C-12 ratio, the radiocarbon age of marine life is typically about 400 years. Organisms on land are in closer equilibrium with the atmosphere and have the same C-14/C-12 ratio as the atmosphere. These organisms contain about 1.3% of the carbon in the reservoir; sea organisms have a mass of less than 1% of those on land and are not shown in the diagram. Accumulated dead organic matter, of both plants and animals, exceeds the mass of the biosphere by a factor of nearly 3, and since this matter is no longer exchanging carbon with its environment, it has a C-14/C-12 ratio lower than that of the biosphere.
At this point, we should note yet again (for Candle3's benefit since he is such a willfully slow learner) that the only C-14 that plays a role in the radiocarbon dating method is the cosmogenic produced in the atmosphere.C-14 produced by other sources (eg, subterranean radiation sources) play absolutely no role in the dating method. And, yet again, if Candle3 still thinks those other sources do play a role, then I demand that he explain how that is supposed to be. That demand has been made of him repeatedly and he runs away from it each and every time, which is evidence that he knows full well that his claim is false and yet he continues to make that false claim knowingly (a test for determining deliberate lying).
Now I will offer the same information as above but in a more concise and hopefully easier form:
C-14 forms naturally from cosmic radiation hitting the upper atmosphere, so it is deemed cosmogenic. However, subterranean radiation sources can create trace amounts of C-14: "The presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material possibly indicates its contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in surrounding geologic strata." (the "biogenic sources" would be bacteria which is virtually everywhere)
It is that reservoir of atmospheric C-14 that is the basis for the radiocarbon dating method. Here is basically how it works:
Cosmic radiation impinges into the upper atmosphere, changing some nitrogen-14 nuclei to carbon-14 by basically changing one of nitrogen's protons (147N) to a neutron (146C). This is the on-going cosmogenic source of C-14.
Please also note that the more cosmic radiation that's present the more C-14 is produced. That amount of cosmic radiation is inversely dependent on the strength of the earth's geo-magnetic field -- refer to the episode of The Bell System Science Series, "The Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays" (1957) -- on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03uQDMjTN90 . Changes in the geo-magnetic field's strength causes the rate of C-14 production to vary, thus keeping the atmospheric reservoir from ever reaching equilibrium.
Plants incorporate atmospheric C-14 into their tissues through the process of photosynthesis: plants take in carbon dioxide and water and produce carbohydrates and oxygen -- remember that cellulose, which gives plants their physical structure and us roughage, is a carbohydrate. This step is absolutely key to the dating method!
Animals then eat the plants, or else eat animals that had eaten the plants, thus incorporating that C-14 into the tissues of their bodies. If you think about it, animals cannot acquire C-14 through respiration since we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide -- this will be important when responding to creationist claims of "bad dates" for seals.
As long as that plant or animal is alive, it will continue to take in C-14, but that stops when it dies. From that time on, the C-14 will decay -- that also happens when it's alive, but that loss through decay is made up for by taking in more C-14. However, it will take some time before enough C-14 decays to be detectable.
quote:During its life, a plant or animal is in equilibrium with its surroundings by exchanging carbon either with the atmosphere or through its diet. It will, therefore, have the same proportion of 14C as the atmosphere, or in the case of marine animals or plants, with the ocean. Once it dies, it ceases to acquire 14C, but the 14C within its biological material at that time will continue to decay, and so the ratio of 14C to 12C in its remains will gradually decrease. Because 14C decays at a known rate, the proportion of radiocarbon can be used to determine how long it has been since a given sample stopped exchanging carbon – the older the sample, the less 14C will be left.
There's an explanation of how radiocarbon dating works and what it depends on.
In the next part (Part VI), I will examine in more detail the various factors that can affect test results and how they are accounted for.
Unlike creationists, scientists are no fools. Contrary to creationist lies about scientists being a bunch of blithering idiots who blindly apply a simplistic method completely ignorant of the "serious problems" that the creationists "point out" in their claims, scientists are very well acquainted with their methods and have studied them thoroughly. Indeed, all the "problems for carbon dating" used by creationists were discovered, catalogued, studied, and resolved by scientists, whereas all the creationists ever do is to repeat lies they've been told by other creationists, never learning a damned thing.
Hence, what we learn in the next part (Part VI) will equip us to examine and respond to the creationist claims.
I'm currently working on the next part of my response to Candle3 (reposted here at Message 3): Part VI, Factors Affecting Radiocarbon Dating Results.
A Leitmotif in Candle3's typically creationist attacks against radiometric dating in general and radiocarbon dating in particular is the same old canard of "scientists don't know what they're doing so they blindly make stupid assumptions." In particular with radiocarbon dating, he claims that scientists don't know that the rate of C-14 production (and hence the C-14/C-12 ratio) is not constant, but rather blindly assume that it is. That is a lie. In reality, scientists are fully aware of the variability of the rate of C-14 production and have studied it extensively, including how to deal with it. Indeed, the only reason creationists are aware of it is because they learned it from scientists; creationists just lie about it.
So, returning from that tangent, in principle every test procedure, every measurement, contains error. Entire college courses cover sources of error, how to detect error, and how to analyze and correct for error. Every scientist (and engineer, even though most creationist "scientists" are actually engineers; eg, Dr. Henry Morris PhD Hydraulic Engineering) has learned how to deal with error, especially those who have reached the doctorate level.
Not only is nothing creationists "expose" anything new to scientists, but the source of creationists' information are the scientists themselves. That would be like trying to disprove computers because they only use two digits (binary) instead of "God's mandated digit count of ten" (decimal). Well, of course every programmer who has ever come in sight of "the metal" knows all about that. Rather, it's the lay audience, the general public with no training in the fields being misrepresented, who are the targets of creationist deception. Creationists don't want to talk with the scientists who would see right through their deception in an instant, but rather the "great unwashed" who don't know anything and so can be fooled.
So once scientists get a new tool in their hands, they start to test it and find where any problems are; basically they take that puppy out for a spin to see what it can do. As a result, they quickly find the presence of error, the sources of that error, what is causing it, and how to deal with it. Basically, just another day on the job.
In Candle3's Message 655 (17-Oct-2022), he repeated an old PRATT which I'm addressing here. The irony is that, whereas Candle3 is trying to use it to attack the idea that C-14 production is constant, this claim itself depends on that rate being constant. Here's that claim:
The founder of the Carbon-14 dating method, Dr. Willard Libby, assumed (ain't this what evolutionists do) the rate to be constant based on evolution.
Then he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium.
By this I mean that the amount of Carbon atoms in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed.
The Specific Production Rate of C14 per gram is currently twice that of Specific Decay Rate.
Dr. Libby ignored the nonequilibrium state.
By Dr. Libby's own estimation it would be 30,000 years to reach equilibrium.
First, please note that Dr. Libby was involved in developing the method, before scientists using his method discovered that the C-14 production rate was not constant. That would be like taking Darwin to task for not understanding DNA, which was discovered a full century after Darwin's time.
Dave Matson:The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods. Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. Hovind.
Kent Hovind:R1: The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
R1. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed. Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?
This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!
The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)
Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.
It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument. (See Figure 1).
So this is an early creationist claim (1968, whereas most PRATTs date from the late 1970's during the post-Epperson v. Arkansas resurgance of creationism and its transformation into "creation science"), which leaves us skeptical that either Cook or Lingenfelter was aware that the rate of C-14 production isn't constant.
Also, while Candle3 says it was Dr. Willard Libby who had performed that equilibrium calculation, my source only names those two creationists as the source ... well, as Dr. Henry Morris' source at least. The problem with relying on creationist calculations is that they are notorious for making false assumptions and throwing in extraneous factors -- we definitely learned that with their meteoric moon dust calculations which inflated their results by a factor of 10,000, inflating a third of an inch of dust into about 280 feet. Because of that, we need to see Cook's and Lingenfelter's calculations and if Libby had also performed such calculations, see his as well in order to compare them.
For that matter, it would also help if Candle3 were to reveal his own sources to us. Just which stupid lying creationist is he copying his claims from? Curious minds want to know.
Edited by dwise1, : in sub-topic title: Lie --> Lies
A Geologist: Radiometric dating doesn't work like young earth creationists claim
I just found this year-old video by Steven Baumann, a geologist (degreed and licensed), in which he reviews a creationist video featuring a YEC chemist presenting standard YEC misrepresentation of radiometric dating. He uses that green bucket at one point to muffle his cries of frustration at how incredibly stupid and false the creationist claims are; he also bangs his head against the wall a couple times.
The main reason for posting it here is that, as a practicing geologist, he is far more familiar with radiometric dating, including experience using it, than a chemist with no actual experience in the subject (typical of creationist claims); to quote a PhD Physical Geology and evangelical Christian who used to be active in creation/evolution when he was a doctorate candidate (when his site disappeared after he graduated, I offered to repost a few of his pages on my site, but he preferred I not since he had left that behind to build a family and career):
quote:
I've read many of the materials written by young-earth creationists such as Steve Austin, Thomas Barnes, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, Gary Parker, and Harold Slusher among others. I'm also very familiar with the material put out by Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. In addition, I've even attended lectures and seminars by several well-known young-earth creationists.
In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?
(my emphasis added)
Creationists would rather believe the ignorant evangelist talking stupid crap over the highly trained and experienced scientist, but we beg to differ greatly.
A few examples of what Baumann covers:
The chemist depicts the entire rock as being tested, so he depicts uranium (U) and lead (Pb) atoms distributed throughout the entire rock and the entire rock being susceptible to atoms leeching in and out.
In reality, the entire rock is not what's tested, but rather it is individual crystals in the rock that are tested. Remember it's igneous rocks that are dated for when they had last solidified from a total melt. Also, those rocks contain crystals. It is the crystals that are removed from the rock and are tested.
In particular, he concentrated on zircons, crystals zirconium(IV) silicate (ZrSiO4). Zircon crystals are particularly resistant to the outside influences that creationists love to invoke. Also, while it is chemically possible for uranium (U) to be substituted in for zirconimum (Zr), the same is not true of lead, so the only way for lead to be found substituting for zirconium is from a substituted uranium atom having decayed to lead.
While the creationist chemist did say one thing right by nixing the use of radiocarbon to date rocks because of its short half-life, he then later cites the use of a dating method with long half-liveson a recent eruption and complains of getting a bad date. IOW, after criticizing using an inappropriate test, he then uses an inappropriate test!
The reality is that those radiometric tests are based on new crystals forming during the solidification from a complete melt. Much of the material ejected during an eruption had already been in that volcano as solidified rock for a very long time. As I learned while researching [mgs=8], unmelted old rocks carried out by lava flows are called xenoliths. Part of a geologist's training is to identify xenoliths or at least to know that they exist, like a creationist's "training".
Baumann also emphasizes that geologists look for "bad dates" and seek to identify sources for them, including human error ("Or did we just fuck something up?")
When the creationist chemist cited water as dissolving the "uranium salts", Baumann replied that "we do not date SALTS!!!" (crossing that out multiple times on the white board for emphasis).
He added that zircon crystals are very impervious and that "you could piss on it for a thousand years and not effect it one bit!"
Yes, creationist idiocy does raise his dander at times.
And so on. Again, this video is good for describing aspects of the actual practice of radiometric dating as opposed to creationist bullshit imaginings.
Another video would be this one in which Aron Ra converses with a frequent guest, Jon B., a geochemist who works frequently with radiometric dating.
Explaining Radiometric Dating to Facebook Trolls:
Jon B.'s explanations include the first explanation I heard of why anyone would ever think of radiocarbon testing a diamond: using a sample containing NO radiation source to calibrate the testing equipment.
If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”
The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.
(my emphasis added)
This is precisely why I keep asking Candle3 for his sources (and why he keeps ducking his responsibility). Unless we can see what the source actually says, we cannot know what the creationists are talking about.
™ Version 4.2
(1)