Carbon 14's relatively short half life as compared to other isotopes, plus it's presence in the atmosphere and in living organisms gives us the ability to reliably and accurately date objects of known ages. This gives this particular test the ability to calibrate against known aged materials.

After having dug on the internet, and having emailed several professors and scientists, I finally have come to the conclusion that C-14's presence in the stratified layers and other deep earth minerals can only be explained for one reason, it has always been there.

To arrive at this conclusion, I first had to deal with these issues:

1- In Situ formation
2- Contamination
3- Background level
4- The C-14 dating method is used to date once-living-now-dead organisms
5- Maybe Isotopes decay at different rates under different conditions

What can the simple presence of this isotope mean when the above three conditions are ruled out? It means the age of the Earth is at it's maxium 100,000 years old.

Points to consider when dealing with C-14...

Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope. Basically, it is a Nitrogen atom that took on an extra neutron. Eventually, C-14 will revert back to it's Nitrogen state.

IN dealing with the above three points, here are the problems that answer them.

1- Neutron bombardment is required to support this point. Also, sufficient neutron bombardment is required to sustain C-14 production greater than C-14 decay. (This was confirmed by an email to a scientist, whose research will be published late this year, thus is not my own idea)

2- Sample contamination. This covers a broad area, but is simply ruled out because there is too much evidence that demonstrates that C-14 is present. Also, by claiming this, you therefore negate all tests performed via Radiometric dating, as eliminating contamination is the #1 priority of Radiometric labs. Also, tests tend to be performed across multiple labs, in order to collaborate results.

3- Background C-14 levels (atmospheric C-14) ar present on a daily basis, but to bring in this point, is to negate the use of the machines used to perform radiometric dating. This is similar to point #2 above.

4- The equation used to arrive at a "date" applies to once-living-now-dead organisims. But the decay rate of Carbon 14 is a known scientific value.

5- If this is the case then we therefore cannot use Radiometric dating as the data generated would not be reliable.

Basically, Carbon 14 isotopes are and have always been found in places where they are assumed to not belong and in measurable levels above what is to be expected for background radiation.

All 5 points above result in the negation of the radiometric methods scientists currently use to establish the age of materials.

New C14 appears to be generated in-situ, in some circumstances, as a result of nearby radioactive decay of Uranium.

Link

Also, your conclusion ignores the fact that radiocarbon dating gives accurate ages for historical artifacts (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) where the age is known independantly.

He also ignores the fact that while C-14 is the most popular target of dating, there is a whole suite of radiometric dating tools that all corroborate with each other. People who date objects don't use C-14 exclusively, they use C-14 AND other radioactive element to insure that spurious results in one element don't mis date the sample.

Not only that, as you say, dates from radiometric dating also corroborate many dates of historical sites mentioned in the bible.

Drewser My physics is a bit rusty but would that not make it an isotope of Nitrogen. An element is defined by the number of Protons not Neutrons.

anyone P.S. how do you put the source of the quote into the embedded box like the post from ThinkPlease .

[quote=chance,Mar 8 2005, 10:24 PM]
Drewser My physics is a bit rusty but would that not make it an isotope of Nitrogen. An element is defined by the number of Protons not Neutrons.

When an energetic neutron strikes an atom of nitrogen-14 (seven protons and seven neutrons) it knocks out a hydrogen atom (one proton and one electron) and produces an atom of carbon-14 (six protons and eight neutrons).

I'm glad you understand this.



Can you name the professors and/or give us your web sources?



Good. We will see below just how well you handled them.



I'm confused. Is this the age of the earth then? How do you 'rule out the three conditions'?



Hmm, doesn't sound like you've ruled anything out yet. Please explain. Are you saying that neutron capture no longer occurs?



I don't think you understand the concept of contamination. As you say, it is a broad area, but you only talk about laboratory contamination. How about the rest? Are you saying that contamination never occurs?



Background values in marble or diamonds have little or nothing to do with atmospheric C14. That's part of the point here. Why would anyone use a method that depends upon atmospheric carbon when the materials have never been exposed to the atmosphere?



This statement says very little. We are fairly certain of these facts and they don't really help your position.



I thought you were going to handle the issues above... Since you haven't, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion.



Not at all. By the way, what is the expected background level? Do you realize that only when C14 is above the background, are the numbers meaningful?

You totally missed the point of the OP.

I would recommend that interested parties start with the June 1970 CRSQ "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates" by John Whitelaw. He noted that of all those published dates, only three were listed as having no measurable C-14 (the vast majority should have been like this, if the earth is billions of years old). The abstract is here:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum7_1.html

Here’s an online article by Baumgardner:

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE...Baumgardner.pdf

Finally, Russell Rotta's September CRSW article "Evolutionary Explanations for Anomalous Radio Carbon in Coal?", refutes the sister decay hypothesis mentioned by OC1.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstr...stracts41-2.htm

Rotta showed in a long, detailed analysis that “The concentrations observed in coal are at least a factor of 100,000 more than what could be generated by neutron activation within the coal, and this is the best case. There is just not enough C-14 generated by the low-probability radium decays, spontaneous fission or neutron activation of the coal. The anomalous concentrations of C-14 in coal cannot be explained by any of these generating processes.”

BTW, Rotta also cited evolutionists who admit that contamination is a toothless excuse, since the examples of in situ carbon-14 are so abundant.

Carbon-14 is a very compelling argument against an old earth, in fact it is my personal favorite!

Fred

The link you posted only delt with coal deposits. C-14, on the otherhand, has been found in virtually all of the layers of geological strata, including fossils. Also, since C-14 has also been found in diamonds, the only C-14 in-situ formattion that would be acceptible would be neutron bombardment.

I did mention known dated materials being dated by C-14. I was not discussing the problems with C-14 dating, Instead I was pointing out that a maximum age can be derived by the presence of C-14.

I am not ignoring anything. The point you failed to realize is that conditions do not exist which support the existence of C-14's existence in deep or shallow layers. Also, if there are problems associated with C-14 (and C-14 is found in materials in all layers), then there is also problems with the other dating methods as well. This is a major implication. Since all the radiometric methods depend upon isotopes and decay rates, any issues found in one will have the same issues in another. One of the points I am attempting to make, is that if you raise a point with one method, most likely it will affect the others.

In fact, consider this point. C-14 measurements are used in conjunction with atmospheric C-14 measurements to determine the age of once-living-now-dead organisms. Since C-14 is found in fossils, why then is the formula not used on fossils, wouldnt the date derived refute the other radiometic dates generated, isnt this the corroboration you were talking about? Seems more like a contradiction.

I am not refuting the accuracy of C-14 dating. As I said, it is the only method which is able to be calibrated against known age materials.

If so, it is because the OP was not quite clear on what it was attempting to do.



Well, the abstract does not say this at all. It is but a series of assertions. Perhaps you could summarize the article here?



Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Obviously it is hard to prove, but in many cases we can suspect contamination of some kind.



I have not seen a compelling argument yet for this. The RATE publications so far offer very little in the way of a solid argument. If you have other information, I'd like to hear about it.

I sure can. But why take my word for it. Do the research yourself. From what I understand, isn't that how the scientific community SHOULD work? IF you build your work from my work, then your work is tainited with the results of mine, but if you arrive at the same conclusion from your own research, then our conclusions are in collaboration.

I can give you an example of a professor who obvisouly doesn'tt understand C-14 dating at all...
Age of Diamonds

"Carbon dating has shown that the carbon in these precious gems is at least three billions years older than Earth's plant and animal life. So where did the carbon come from? "

When I attempted to get answers to my questions from many professors, my emails were not responded to. I even sent an email to Geochron labs, and did not get a reply.



I meant five conditions, and five points... I added the last two points after typing in the statement about three points, etc. each condition has a coresponding point.



Again, the points are numbered according to the five conditions which they correspond with. Im saying there is insufficient neutron bombardment.




I am saying there is too much evidence to support any type of contamination. Also, I am saying there is not enough neutron bombardment to support C-14 production inrelation to it's decay in deep layers. (related to point #1)

Uranium238 decay rate: 4.468 * 10^9 years
Carbon14 decay rate: 5730(5568) years

Uranium does not decay fast enough to support in-situ formation of C-14. Diamonds do not allow intrusion of external C-14.

(from point #3)

You totally misunderstood, again. The formula for deriving a date for once-living-now-dead organisms only applies to such. But, a maximum date can be arrived at given C-14's presence and the decay rate of C-14. C-14 extraction methods have nothing to do with the date formula for organism-bound C-14. Actually, C-14's presence in diamonds has a profound impact on dates derived by all methods. Who said the levels found in diamonds is a background level? You have not established how C-14 got there... According to the other collaborated dating methods, diamonds are approx. 3 billion years old. How long do you suppose C-14 would last inside a diamond?

(from point #3)

C-14 measurement methods have nothing to do with atmospheric C-14 dating calculations. Atmospheric C-14 measurements are used in conjunction with meterial measurments of once-living-now-dead organisms. We are testing for C-14, not calculating the age of the material based on Atmospheric levels. Isotope production does not depend upon atmospheric exposure.

Other methods use the date equation used here:
Radiometric/Geologic time

What is interesting, is that the simple equation assumes that all the stable daughter atoms were produced by the decay. Why then is C-14 not used to date diamonds or other layers, since it's daughter is Nitrogen? Diamonds also contain a measurable amount of nitrogen...


(from point #4)

Read the above, you apparently misunderstood what I was explaining. The decay rate for C14 used in conjunction with the measured amount of C-14 in a material can yield a maximum age for the material tested (eventually, C-14 should decay back to it's parent atom Nitrogen). If this is not the case, then C-14 measurements are useless, but yet the dating method for once-living-now-dead works just fine. C-14's decay rate maintains my position.



I did handle all of the points (in a general manner). You simply failed to understand each individual point. If you want to address a single point, then address it, and we can discuss it.



The expectyed background level using the AMS detection system is 0, but with blank specimen cups yields anywhere between 0.03 pmc - 0.015 pmc (+/-.007).



I sure do! Do you?

Contamination is not a good arguement, especially in the case of diamonds, as it will not allow any external contamination. Also as mentioned elsewhere, you bring the crediblity of the Radiometric labs into question. Also, since C-14 dating is reliable in other known aged materials, contamination can be ruled out in the majority of deeper materials as contamination is an exception, not a rule as you are attempting to make it out to be.

Azar,

Earth Science Course



In the case of diamonds, Nitrogen is included when it is formed. Therefore, making the same assumptions as the above educational couse provides (this is the same assumption that applies to ALL dating methods), the age of a diamond can be determined by the same calculation...

Age = # of half-lives x half-life. Half lives is a direct relation in the case of C-14 (as the daugher is N-14).

1:1 (50% C14) ratio is 1 half life
3:1 (25% C14) is 2 half lives
7:1 (12.5%) is 3
15:1 (6.25%) is 4
31:1 (3.125%) is 5
63:1 (1.5625%) is 6
127:1 (.78125%) is 7
255:1 (.390625%) is 8
511:1 (.1953125%) is 9
1023:1 (.09765625%) is 10

example: 10 * 5,568 is 55,680 years (10 half lives)

We don't use this formula for dating diamonds, yet C-14 and Nitrogen are found in measureable amounts.

You do understand, first of all, that using a technique that is based on C14 in the atmosphere on a diamond is utterly meaningless. Will you grant that much?

As to contamination in diamonds, you are wrong. Contamination can occur with ANY sample in the way it interacts in the ground to the way it is sampled, to the way it is transmitted and then in the way the sample is prepareed and analyzed. I do not trust any sample that is not handled properly by qualified people for this reason. I don't care if it IS a diamond that is impervious to in situ contamination.

And yes, I bring the credibility of the labs into question. If I am in charge of quality control, that is my job. All labs make mistakes. Just as you and I do. The problem is identifying mistakes and correcting them and we do this in many ways including changing labs sometimes.

Sorry, but I've been doing research for decades. I want to verify YOUR sources.



Actually, no. It would be a colossal waste of time for me to reproduce everyone else's research. I have no problem trusting credible scientists.



Which is EXACTLY why I want to check your references.

Most of your arguments seem to revolve around this point:



If there is a steady source of C14 in the lower crust, I would say that it could be there indefinitely. In fact, the data seem to show that in many areas this is what gives us a fairly constant background value.

Evidence from many other lines tells us that the earth is much older than 50 or 60ky, so the only real alternative is that there is some background source. And the fact that some of the samples show no C14 indicate likewise because in this case we are not necessarily dating the age of the earth, but some other event.

In the case of diamonds, we don't really know exactly when they formed relative to the kimberlite that brought them to the surface, so exactly what are we measuring when we 'date' a diamond? I can guarantee you that it is something less than the age of the earth.

You seem to think that there is no viable source of neutron radiation in these samples. What do you base this on? You have not told us. It would really help your position to do so.



If the blanks yielded C14 numbers, this is certain evidence of a background value that is supported by some process. Or it still could be contamination.



Yes. And what that means is that the signal is what is important and can be validly used for dating. The noise is has virtually no importance as to the age of a specimen.

Well, there you are: a source for background values of C14.



Not sure what you mean here, but basically if you have small amounts of N and small amounts of neutron radiation, you have a source for background C14. The number is so low that it used to be undetectable, but now we know that it can exist in values that have no significant effect on the signal part of the C14 content.



Correct. At 10 half lives we are approaching the detection limit of our apparatus. Did you ever wonder why actual dates derived from these methods are in the range of 50-60ky?



Actually, we don't even use the technique, much less the formula. Radiocarbon dating of diamonds is a silly exercise.

I'm still confused on why creationists have a problem with C14 in coal/oil. If a nuclear reaction 93 million miles away (ie the Sun) can create C14 in our atmosphere what is stopping the same thing from happening coal/oil when it is in contact with rock containing Uranium and other radioactive isotopes? If it happens so easily in our atmosphere what is stopping inside the earth?