Explain C-14 in coal and diamonds.
Posted on 04/25/2017 10:41:08 AM PDT by fishtank
Explain C-14 in coal and diamonds.
lol
There are plenty flood mythologies all over the world, in numerous cultures.
The terms used in the Bible for “Earth and Heaven” are sometimes for a specific culture, and sometimes not literally for all of the Earth and the entire Universe.
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/heaven-earth.html
There is plenty of evidence of very large floods in the area during mankind’s existence.
God says the earth is young, that's why there's C-14 in diamonds.
Who's the liar? God,
or Algore, CSagan, BNye, or NdGT?
http://www.icr.org/rate/
The RATE Project In 1997, a group of young-earth creationists met in San Diego, California, to discuss the age of the earth. Their goal was to clarify the chronology of earth history and search for a fundamental correction to the usual assumptions of deep time. They were skeptical of the evolutionary timescale that dominates modern geology. These scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rock strata and they recognized multiple weaknesses.
If you read Genesis literally, there is no 6000 year timeline.
The problem with that criticism of carbon 14 dating is that a low level of Carbon 14 is being continually created by cosmic rays.
https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
So, the very low levels of carbon 14 in oil and coal are accounted for.
It is another reason why carbon 14 is not useful for dating things more than 10-15K years old.
You do understand the concept of a half-life, don't you? That means that even after millions of years, there will be trace amounts of C-14 left in a sample.
Wait...
I thought God made it that way to fool all those smart scientists, atheists and sinners?
If you read Genesis literally, there is no 6000 year timeline.
Exactly. Another interesting argument that I have read is that the Universe might be 6,000 years old from God’s viewpoint. If God created the Universe with the big bang, then his view, as starting there, could correspond to 6,000 years from the view of someone now on earth.
http://www.iam777.org/time.htm
http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/12old.earth.html
and there is also this:
http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add “modern” 14C to coal are:
Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.
Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.
And this:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34531-problem-with-carbon-14-radiometric-dating/
#1. The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error. In other words, the readings are consistent with zero C14 content. In fact, the experiments cited by the creationists appear to be attempts to establish the measurement error of there equipment. Older carbon dating techniques directly detected decays of C14 atoms. The problem: If the material is too old, the small amount of C14 present may not decay in the measurement interval. Newer, more accurate techniques use mass spectroscopy. Mass spectroscopy, like any man-made measurement, is not perfect. In particular, given a pure sample of C12, I suspect a mass spectrometer would indicate that a non-zero amount of C14 present. It is nigh impossible to measure exactly zero.
#2. Contamination. It doesn’t take much contamination to spoil a sample with near-zero quantity of C14. Creationists pounce on this explanation as meaning all carbon 14 readings are suspect. False. While that same level of contamination (if this is the explanation) will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small — so long as the sample is not too old. The contamination is additive, not proportional.
#3. Alternate source of C14 production. Natural diamonds are not pure carbon. The most common contaminant is nitrogen, 0.1% in gem-quality diamonds. Nearby radioactive material could trigger exactly the same C14 production process from nitrogen as occurs in the upper atmosphere, albeit at a much reduced rate. Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section. By either mechanism, this is essentially internal contamination.
You’re all wrong. The universe is uncountable trillions of years old. In fact it’s as old as anyone thinks it is. If a man can become a woman because he thinks so then the universe can be as old as anyone thinks it is...
There. We don’t need any more scientific research. We’ll just tailor experiments that prove what we want to prove. Voila all questions solved. All we need is a meter kick and we can claim anything. Or we could just invent unverifiable theological nonsence like String or Multiuniverse theory and pretend it’s science. Cool.
The existence of civilizations whose records go back that far (like China) and which do not mention any total destruction of the populace...
https://www.google.com/search?q=noah%27s+flood+china&;
One of the challenges all methods have is that they assume a generally “static” earth/cosmos.
i.e. we know that so much decays every year, but that is assuming an environment like the one we live in today.
ICR must have had fun at the March For Science.
I’ll go with the Hindu timeline which is cyclical, includes the Big Bang, and mentions that this manifestation of this universe is 4.32 billion years old. Oh, and the Hindus believe in a multiverse. You are in just one of many manifestations of reality.
Amen, fishtank. There are a multitude of assumptions in any dating method. But nobody that reads this today has been around for those supposed billions of years. Therefore their beliefs are just as much faith-based as ours. They look at the evidence through the prism of their worldview and beliefs. We look at the evidence through the prism of our worldview and beliefs.
Even the most “simple” single-celled creature is stupendously complex. It’s downright laughable to believe that such complexity could magically spring to life from lifeless chemicals. In fact, the formation of a single usable protein via random processes has been likened to a solar system full of blind men all simultaneously solving the Rubik’s Cube. And the formation of this magic first cell via random processes has been likened to a tornado tearing through a junkyard producing a fully functional 747. If the natural is eliminated as impossible, that only leaves the supernatural.
Scientists have tried to create life from lifeless chemicals for a long time and they’ve failed miserably. Miller-Urey cheated, using conditions that not even they believe ever existed, and they still couldn’t even create usable building blocks for proteins. All life amino acids have a left-handedness. The Miller-Urey amino acids were equally right-handed and left-handed and could’ve never been used by life.
Additionally, all those billions of transitional forms which MUST be present for evolution to be true simply aren’t there. In fact, there’s pretty much not a single undisputed such specimen.
Interestingly, gelatinous heme was found in the thigh bone of a t-rex fossil not too long ago. As in wet and wiggly. But rather than question the 65 million year timeline, the “scientists” just said, “Obviously, under certain conditions, heme can remain in a gelatinous state for 65 million years.” That’s more dogma than science.
What would we expect to see if the Bible is true, including Noah’s Flood? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth. And there would tend to be a sifting where the more simple life forms would be at the deepest layers because they couldn’t escape. The more intelligent and mobile creatures would be in the more shallow layers.
Just because some features can be explained as quick-forming by catastrophic events, such as the Channeled Scablands in the Pacific Northwest, it does not mean that all things in geology can be shoehorned into such.
You don’t need a ‘YOUNG EARTH’ to prove creationism.
When God first pronounced the ‘First Day’ there the Earth wasn’t even spinning around the Sun! That didn’t happen until day two or three (can’t remember right now).
Since the earth was not spinning around on Day 1 .... it is clearly evident that God’s Day 1 WAS NOT A INCREMENT OF TIME, but a first phase of the creation process!
All you people who demand that the earth is only 6,000 years old give make Creationism look like a joke!
Get over it! The Bible is not a text Book on how God created the earth ... but only the briefest of summaries!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.