Transilvanian wrote:http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

SO what is the explanasion for C14 isotope in millions yrs objects? Because with my English is hard to understand...
In one simple sentence.

Transilvanian,

It helps to understand decay and half-life. Half life is not half of the total life of ALL the atoms in an object.


Here is an example:
Let's say an apple has a half life of 1 hour....

Take a whole apple.
Wait 1 hour before cutting it in half and eating that half. That is a half life of 1 hour meaning half is left after an hour.

Now wait another hour and cut that half in half again (1/4).
Eat that quarter.
You still have a quarter left after 2 whole hours.

Wait another hour and cut that quarter in half and eat one. You still have 1/8th left after 3 whole hours.

Keep doing that until you get down to two atoms of apple and MUCH MUCH more time has passed than just the hour.

That is how half life works, and that is why stuff that has a half lives of thousands of years can still leave trace amounts after billions of years.

Quite simply, it's possible to find Carbon-14 in coal, diamonds and oil, whenever these substances are in close proximity to other radionuclides. Such as the thorium and uranium isotopes found in granite, several of which have extremely long half-lives. Some of these isotopes can undergo spontaneous fission, and release neutrons. When this happens, carbon atoms in the adjacent coal, oil or diamonds can absorb those neutrons. Carbon-12 absorbs one neutron to become Carbon-13, which is still stable, but can then absorb a second neutron from these sources, to become Carbon-14. When you have a sufficient abundance of neutron-releasing isotopes in the adjacent strata, coal, oil and diamonds can continue absorbing neutrons, and the amount of Carbon-14, though small, remains measurable as long as new Carbon-14 atoms are being produced by neutron absorption.

There's also the possibility of other particle interactions producing the same end result. Whilst cosmic ray spallation of nitrogen nuclei in the atmosphere is a large source of terrestrial Carbon-14, it's also possible for spallation events to convert nitrogen atoms in coal or oil (there are usually a fair number present, courtesy of the fact that the living organisms from which the coal and oil were derived also contained lots of nitrogen atoms).

Transilvanian wrote:http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

SO what is the explanasion for C14 isotope in millions yrs objects? Because with my English is hard to understand...
In one simple sentence.

Imagine you have 128 dollars in your bank. Every year, you lose half of your money. In one year, you have 64 dollars. In five years you have four dollars. In 10 years you have about 12-13 cents.

At a certain point, there just isn't enough to give exact numbers on the date. In 20 years you have 0.0122 cents. In 25, 0.0003 cents. Now, imagine that in the inital example, you have 128 dollars, but every 2-3 months you gain a penny (it's not a specific rate). Once you start to get 15-20 years away, the new pennys are going to be far more noticable than any of the money remaining from the original 128 dollars, and they are going to make it impossible to be perfectly accurate.

This is why carbon dating cannot be used for very very old things, because at that point most of the original "money" (carbon) has gone, and most of what you're collecting are the new pennys (there is a small amount of C14 decay coming from places other than the fossil). That small amount has almost no effect on the accuracy at first (what is 1 penny compared to 128 dollars?), but over time starts to have a HUGE effect on accuracy after many years (1 penny is a LOT more than 0.0003 cents).

Luckily, when dating things, we can use elements that take a much slower time to decay than Carbon 14. In the example, this would be like halving your money cut every 1 million years instead of every year. This would allow your dating to be accurate for a much longer time than you could when you were losing your money/elements at a faster rate.

campermon wrote:

pensioner wrote:But why don't some of these guys learn that carbon 14 dating is only good for Organic materials?

Yes. Also, C14 dating is only valid for some organic remains. i.e. you can't use it to date sea life.

I did not know that but google is my friend
http://www.tollundman.dk/kulstof-14.asp

pensioner wrote:

campermon wrote:

pensioner wrote:But why don't some of these guys learn that carbon 14 dating is only good for Organic materials?

Yes. Also, C14 dating is only valid for some organic remains. i.e. you can't use it to date sea life.

I did not know that but google is my friend
http://www.tollundman.dk/kulstof-14.asp

Yes. It is because the CO2 dissolved in sea water is depleted in 14C compared to atmospheric CO2. Hence seaweed and phytoplankton, which gain Carbon from dissolved CO2 have depleted 14C and ditto the animals that feed primarily on these.

I understand, but I think than then the age would be the upper limit, 50.000, not 20.000.

Transilvanian wrote:I understand, but I think than then the age would be the upper limit, 50.000, not 20.000.

The age of what?

I`ve found this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/pigs
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

Here writes that

In 1974, a third chronology of the area was published in Nature, based on palaeomagnetism.5 The conclusion of 2.7 to 3.0 million years seemed to represent a 'bulls-eye' for the correlation of the various dating methods.

By late 1974, the KBS Tuff had been dated five different times by four different dating methods. The alleged compatibility of the different methods would seem to be a geologist's dream.

After that they have corrected the 2.6 Ma dato 1.9Ma. But different dating methods have correlated in 2,6. Then how was it wrong??

It's answers in genesis and creation.com, they lie. It's that simple.



Get the original studies. Do not ever, EVER trust creationist sites. They are proven liars.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest ... l-record-a

They say that the skull was dated wrongly, because the tuff was dated wrongly, but this was later corrected.
But how was the tuff dated wrongly with 4 different methods giving the same wrong result of 2,6Ma?
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

So Curtis and others redated the KBS tuff using selected pumice and feldspar samples, and obtained an age of 1.82 million years. This new date agreed with the appearance of the new skull.

Can somebody explain me this?

Transilvanian wrote:http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9676/is-knm-er-1470-evidence-that-other-dating-methods-other-than-the-fossil-record-a

They say that the skull was dated wrongly, because the tuff was dated wrongly, but this was later corrected.
But how was the tuff dated wrongly with 4 different methods giving the same wrong result of 2,6Ma?
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

So Curtis and others redated the KBS tuff using selected pumice and feldspar samples, and obtained an age of 1.82 million years. This new date agreed with the appearance of the new skull.

Can somebody explain me this?

Transilvanian, why are you referencing creation sites?

As it has already been explained to you, they post false information. Don't use them for science inquiries.

Hy again!

"The tuff is a rediposited layer of volcanic ash. Care must be taken to not date the material that it is mixed with. This led to the older dates"

Is this true? Is it true, that the tuffs usually contain, mixed, older material, and this was the reason, that tuff was dated older? Has somebody geological knowledges?
The tuff was dated with paleomagnetism and fission tracks too. Can these dating metods be "frauded" by the "few grains" of mixed older materials?

Transilvanian wrote:Hy again!

"The tuff is a rediposited layer of volcanic ash. Care must be taken to not date the material that it is mixed with. This led to the older dates"

Is this true? Is it true, that the tuffs usually contain, mixed, older material, and this was the reason, that tuff was dated older? Has somebody geological knowledges?
The tuff was dated with paleomagnetism and fission tracks too. Can these dating metods be "frauded" by the "few grains" of mixed older materials?

Give original references, not creationist sources. If you can't get the original references, the rule of thumb is that creationists lie.

It is not a creationist site. Is trying to explain the creationist claim.

campermon wrote:

pensioner wrote:But why don't some of these guys learn that carbon 14 dating is only good for Organic materials?

Yes. Also, C14 dating is only valid for some organic remains. i.e. you can't use it to date sea life.

So, the "use by" date on the prawns in my fridge may be way out? I was going to have them for my evening meal, think i will give them a miss.

First off can we call a spade a spade here. Therese claims derive from creationist misconceptions of actual facts.

For one the claim that C14 was found in dinosaur bones derives from Hugh Miller's fiasco to prove dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago. To do so he sent several samples of dinosaur bones to labs for testing and then ignored the fact that the lab reported that there was no collagen to test in the bones but there was a lot of what appeared to be shellac used for preservation. In other words yeah the C14 was from the preservative not the bone.

Other then that yeah contamination by bacteria radioactive elements in the surrounding material turning N14 back to C14 and other contaminants that are checked for before dating methods are used account for coal and carbon minerals like diamonds.

Not quite relevant to diamonds - but a good resource on carbon dating and creationism

Transilvanian wrote:Can somebody explain me this?

Yes.

Creationists lie.

Creation.com lies.
Answers in Genesis lies.
The Discovery Institute lies.

They pretty much have to lie to continue their existence, don't they?

Transilvanian wrote:It is not a creationist site. Is trying to explain the creationist claim.

The creationist claim is a lie, checking the original sources will reveal that. No exceptions.