C14 Dating

[Vance]

Why are religious people so terrified of scientific dating techniques?

Not terrified at all. I just find it humorous that people buy into every word of the "scientists" hook, line and sinker.

If people really knew how much guessing, conjecture, out right fabrication occurred in "scientific" stuff they would be a lot more skeptical.

Ever notice that even in a college level "scientific" lab experiment that no two lab groups get the same answer? (And rarely does anyone of them stumble upon the "correct" answer.) Strange that!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not terrified at all. I just find it humorous that people buy into every word of the "scientists" hook, line and sinker.

If people really knew how much guessing, conjecture, out right fabrication occurred in "scientific" stuff they would be a lot more skeptical.

Ever notice that even in a college level "scientific" lab experiment that no two lab groups get the same answer? (And rarely does anyone of them stumble upon the "correct" answer.) Strange that!

Let me just preempt the responses.

"We might as well just throw sceince out".

[semlogo]

And what happens when we measure living organisms that died on a known date and we get particularly OLD ages?

Does that not show our assumptioon of a constant C14 absorption rate in error?

According to the godless scientists, they have other dating methods to address older samples. Methods, no doubt, given to them by SATAN.

[semlogo]

Not terrified at all. I just find it humorous that people buy into every word of the "scientists" hook, line and sinker.

If people really knew how much guessing, conjecture, out right fabrication occurred in "scientific" stuff they would be a lot more skeptical.

Ever notice that even in a college level "scientific" lab experiment that no two lab groups get the same answer? (And rarely does anyone of them stumble upon the "correct" answer.) Strange that!

EXACTLY! Experts in their field are exactly like students in freshman chemistry class. And experts can never replicate their experiments - they just fake it!

[Zakuska]

"godless scientists"

Is that not an oxymoron?

Adding the "ist" on the end of science names their God.

[SilverKnight]

Why so much fuss over dating techniques?

A billions year old earth isn't nearly as menacing to our religious stories as the fossil record is.

[Tarski]

The variants couldn't possibly be consequent to the fact that there is a "constant" being employed whose "constancy" has only been observed for less than a century, could it?

And yet adherents to the Holy Order of C14 assure us that its rate of decay has remained constant for millions and even billions of years, and that it is not susceptible to any external influences whatsoever. Therefore "a major alteration of the specimen's geochemistry" cannot possibly be related to due to the "fact" that their holy presumed "constant" is nothing of the sort. Right?

I've always regarded the Holy Order of C14 as the modern humanist's effective equivalent of the ancient Greek dramatist's deus ex machina.

This is clear evidence that you are clueless about science in general and the science of radioactivity in particular.

The decay rate of Carbon-14 is a mathematical consequence of some very fundamental quantum theory. It is not something we just observe without understanding its origin. Given the well attested foundations of quantum mechanics, the half-life of C-14 (and its "constancy") is forced on us and to resist it is akin to resisting the conclusion that 2+2=4. The only way out, would be to do one of the following:

1) Reject quantum theory. In this case, the myriad things that quantum theory explains are suddenly without any explanation at all.

2) Posit variable fundamental constants such as Planck's constant or electron mass. Once again, doing this destroys our understanding of everything from stellar evolution to basic chemistry. Hards sciences would collapse across the board--and for what?

But what motivation would there be anyway? The current theory works perfectly.

[Zakuska]

Intresting and relevant article...

The scoop on Poop

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

The same thing that happens when I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and a miniature fly pink elephant pops out. I obviously did something wrong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why so much fuss over dating techniques?

A billions year old earth isn't nearly as menacing to our religious stories as the fossil record is.

The fossil record?

Any way I am not fussing over the technique, I even admitted that I think C-14 can be accurate. What I am fussing over is the dismissal of the anomaly with out any further exploration.

[Tarski]

Zakuska:

The same thing that happens when I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and a miniature fly pink elephant pops out. I obviously did something wrong.

Yes and it isn't that different when angels pop out as they seem to do so often for a certain type of person (always when no one is looking though).

[Zakuska]

This is clear evidence that you are clueless about science in general and the science of radioactivity in particular.

The decay rate of Carbon-14 is a mathematical consequence of some very fundamental quantum theory. It is not something we just observe without understanding its origin. Given the well attested foundations of quantum mechanics, the half-life of C-14 (and its "constancy") is forced on us and to resist it is akin to resisting the conclusion that 2+2=4. The only way out, would be to do one of the following:

1) Reject quantum theory. In this case, the myriad things that quantum theory explains are suddenly without any explanation at all.

2) Posit variable fundamental constants such as Planck's constant or electron mass. Once again, doing this destroys our understanding of everything from stellar evolution to basic chemistry. Hards sciences would collapse across the board--and for what?

But what motivation would there be anyway? The current theory works perfectly.

NOTE: Any of those who suffer from the delusion that "half life decay" of any chemical is constant need to read up on the current scientific observations...

Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment

In the recent paper, geochemist Chih-An Huh reported that the decay rate of 7Be depends on its chemical form.4 The measurements were done at the unprecedented high precision of

[Ceeboo]

There are countless C-14 dating examples that have proven how Un-scientific (to say the least) they are. In some cases they are nothing short of silly.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Tarski]

The fossil record?

Any way I am not fussing over the technique, I even admitted that I think C-14 can be accurate. What I am fussing over is the dismissal of the anomaly with out any further exploration.

Since real life science is done by humans, it is messy. For this reason isolated anomolies are nothing to get hung about. It is pattersn that repeat under controlled circumstances that should hold our attention.

As for further exploration, well, we are exploring all the time and anyone is free to explore any avenue they like.

If there are real facts to be learned on this issue, we will find them. On the other had, just like we are unlikely to find out that the earth is flat after all, we should not expect well established parts paleontology to be changing much in the future. The new stuff will mostly happen at what are currently the boundaries of our knowledge.

[Tarski]

There are countless C-14 dating examples that have proven how Un-scientific (to say the least) they are. In some cases they are nothing short of silly.

Peace,

Ceeboo

CFR

(Don't bother with creationist references).

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

As a general rule I let chemistry and the study of radionuclides deal with their respective areas of expertise.

[Tarski]

NOTE: Any of those who suffer from the delusion that "half life decay" of any chemical is constant need to read up on the current scientific observations...

Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment

First of all, we are talking about C14 not Be.

Second, the question is whether fundamantal decay rates are the same for a given circumstance (understood). The suggestion being denied is that C14 has a half-life that varies fundamentally with time in a way that is not the effect of circumstantial factors such as those that affect electron density. (I would like a reference to the idea that C14 is senstive at all to such factors).

Do you suppose that animals afew thousand years ago so chemically different than now that the decay rate of C14 was affected?

Perhaps the BoM horses weren't made of proteins and so on? Silicone maybe? LOL

In fact, do you have any evidence of the half-life of C14 depending on chemical environment at all?

Why so desperate?

[Tarski]

Tarski:

As a general rule I let chemistry and the study of radionuclides deal with their respective areas of expertise.

Zak should do the same.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

I can't speak for Zak. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want me to even if I could.

[Zakuska]

http://pages.csam.mo...340chemnuc.html

In some cases, however, as reviewed in (1), the effect of chemical environment on the probability of nuclear decay has been demonstrated and understood. It happens when beta-plus radioactive substances decay via electron-capture. According to (2), for example, the nuclear decay rate of ⁷Be implanted in palladium is about 0.8% higher than in ⁷Be implanted in gold. According to (3) the decay rate of ⁷Be in BeO is 54.23 days while in Be(OH)₂ it is 53.42 days. This amounts to the 1.5% difference. The effect of chemical surrounding on the probability of the electron-capture process has been recognized by mainstream scientists long before 1989. It is considered to be an exception from the general rule -- other forms of radioactive decay cannot be modified by making changes in chemical environment. As indicated above, the ⁷Be effect is rather small.

There is a 1.5% variance between ⁷Be decay rates depending on the chemical they are embeded in. So no the decay rate is not constant. At least for 7Be

Continuing... two other teams have replicated variableness in decay rates of Uranium.

Can the rate of another kind of radioactive decay be changed? The negative textbook answer to this question conflicts with observations described by at least two teams of CMNS researchers. John Dash et al., for example, reported that the decay time of the alpha-radioactive uranium was shortened by a factor of four after the material was exposed to the glow-discharge plasma for 18 hours (4). Likewise, V. Vysotskii et al., reported that the decay time of the beta-radioactive ¹³⁷Cs, in some biological cells, was reduced from 30 years to less than one year (5). Bacteria, as suggested by authors, are able to cause the

¹³⁷Cs(p,?)¹³⁸Ba

Who's being desperate now tarski?

[Tarski]

Tarski:

I can't speak for Zak. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want me to even if I could.

Another note. It makes sense that chemical environment should affect decay rates for inverse beta decay or decay by electron capture. If I am not mistaken, C14 is not one of those and if it were the fact would be taken into account.

[hagoth7]

Why are religious people so terrified of scientific dating techniques?

Dunno. Does it include a movie and popcorn?

[Ceeboo]

CFR

(Don't bother with creationist references).

LOL! CFR but "don't bother with creationist references"

AS if someone who holds a creation World view would have bogus "Carbon-14 dating references"

and someone who holds a Evolution World view would have real "Carbon-14 dating references".

How silly!

I will repeat (whether you happen to hold a "creation" belief or an "evolution from nothing" belief), Carbon 14 testing has been proven to be highly unreliable on several levels.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Zakuska]

LOL! CFR but "don't bother with creationist references"

AS if someone who holds a creation World view would have bogus "Carbon-14 dating references"

and someone who holds a Evolution World view would have real "Carbon-14 dating references".

How silly!

I will repeat (whether you happen to hold a "creation" belief or an "evolution from nothing" belief), Carbon 14 testing has been proven to be highly unreliable on several levels.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Heres a perfectly good example to look at Ceeboo.

Claim CD011.3:

Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, showing that the dating method is invalid.

Source:

Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.co...argondating.jsp

Response:

1. The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."
   The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:
   Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails
   Melanoides tuberculatus
   living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO
   3
   -
   with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

   In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect. The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.
   Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect. If found with shells in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if shells are locally affected by the reservoir effect and, if so, how much their radiocarbon dates have been skewed by it.
   (See also the C14-dating of a seal for another example of the reservoir effect.)

http://www.talkorigi...CD/CD011_3.html

This Sword cuts 2 ways.

So ground water the snails live in are deficient in C14 thus skewing the data and making these modern snails look 27000 years old. But last time I checked... Mammoths, horses, as well as trees and plants also drink this same mineral rich ground waterl, how much "dead carbon" did they incorporate into their cells through carbon dead ground water, thus scewing the data?

[ssbn623]

I'm a religious person and a scientist (well, engineer) and my dating techniques were so poor that I was terrified for a long time that I'd die a bachelor.