C14 dating of fossils

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby stcordova » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:03 pm

The various types of neutron reactions that produce C14 are well known and well documented.


Really? So then you ought to be able to give an answer to the requisite Uranium concentration. :mrgreen:
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Thorton » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:18 pm

LOL! It's nice to see you're still as childish and as scientifically clueless as you ever were Sal. How can the scientific world ever withstand your mighty Creationist onslaught? :lol:

How long before you start changing the wording in people's posts without their knowledge or permission like you got caught doing at UD and your old Young Cosmos blog?
Thorton
 

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby stcordova » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:27 pm

Thronton,

For the sake of argument even if one assumes I'm all the bad things you say I am, it doesn't answer the question of Uranium concentration.

If Uranium is the cause of a C14 date, then Uranium must have a requisite concentration. So what is the requiste concentration?

Thornton hasn't given an answer, so I'm asking others:

Please help poor Thornton on the questions of Uranium

Thronton has been asked to enlighten, but his bulb isn't burning so bright right now.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Paul Giem » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:55 pm

Brotheroflogan,

You asked,
I hate to do this, but can I ask you to respond to Thorton's accusations of mis-citing sources?

I haven't bothered to respond to Thorton because I do not believe he is arguing in good faith, and without him being self-critical, there is no point continuing the discussion. It will predictably degenerate into a shouting match.

In a normal discussion that is a search for truth, he would acknowledge that I did not self-publish, and would acknowledge that carbon-14 has been found in material that should not have any if the standard timescale is correct, then set about trying to explain why that carbon-14 was not residual from the life of the fossil (besides "it's too old and can't have any carbon-14). I would acknowledge (which I am here) that I misspelled Beukens' name (a regrettable but human tendency--I am quite aware of how many times my own name has been misspelled), and we would discuss the possible explanations of carbon-14 in fossil material.

But when he tries to pretend that he has not made a mistake when he obviously has, I know that I am dealing with someone who cares more about winning the argument than finding truth. In that case, he can spew inaccuracies and half-truths faster than I can correct them, and since I am duty-bound to acknowledge errors when I make them, I have to either research my answers carefully so that I don't make mistakes, or wind up acknowledging a bunch of errors when he acknowledges none, thus allowing him to "win" the debate. I just don't find that interesting.

It's not even that he deliberately lies. It's just that he is careless with the truth. When he said "self-published" he meant that it was published by my side, or that it was self-written, or something like that, and the fact that he used the wrong word shouldn't count against him. And who's to say that he used the wrong word? Words mean what he meant them to mean. So he couldn't be wrong. It's a postmodern defense, in a scientific argument.

Even if I catch him in a flat-out misstatement, such as "Origins is a woo woo YEC rag self published by the Biblical Creation Society" (It isYLC, not necessarily, or mostly, YEC, and is published by the Geoscience Research Institute--see who has the copyright to my article), he is not going to admit he was wrong. He will either ignore it, or double down. I wish I were wrong.

But since you asked, I will point out the problems with his answers. First, on Aerts-Bijma et al, notice that he says,
In fact, the fossil CO2 gas was used to test the instrument background level and produced a C14/C value consistently around 1 x 10e-16

What Thorton has forgotten is that pMC, or percent modern carbon, needs a measurement of of the 14C/C ratio of modern carbon-14 with which to compare the sample. The paper doesn't say directly what their measurement of the modern 14C/C ratio is, but they do state (p. 224) that 65,000 years corresponds to 5 x 10^-17 14C/C. Thus we can estimate the modern fraction with
pMC = 14C/C_sample / 14C/C_modern * 100% = 2^(-age/half-life) , and thus
14C/C_modern = 14C/C_sample / 2^(-age/half-life)
using 65,000 years for the age, 5568 years (the "conventional" half-life) for half-life, and 5 x 10^-17 for the 14C/C ratio of the sample, we have
14C/C_modern = 1.63 x 10^-12, probably accurate to no more than 1 or 2 significant figures. If one uses the more precise half-life, 5730 years, one gets 1.3(0) x 10^-12. The latter value is more in line with another estimate (1.2 x 10^-12, corresponding to 13.6 decays per minute per gram of carbon), which is what I think I actually used. Estimating from the graph on p. 223, we have, by my estimation, 1.1 to 1.6 x 10^-16 for the 14C/C ratio. However, others may estimate differently, which is why I had the star in the table, so you could look it up yourself.
100% * 1.1 x 10^-16 / 1.2 x 10^-12 = ~0.09%, and
100% * 1.6 x 10^-16 / 1.2 x 10^-12 = ~0.13% ,
which are in the table. One can criticize my values as being perhaps 10% or 20% off, but they are nowhere near as far off as Thornton would have you believe. But look it up. The reference is now on the internet:
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1997/NucInsMPhRBAertsB/1997NuclInstrMethPhysResBAertsBijma.pdf

Thornton's comments about Beukens' article are also not completely accurate. He said,
Giem completely ignored the issue of contamination, cherry-picked the high contaminated sample value from Table 1 and ignored all the other lower values. Don't believe me, go read the paper yourself.

Note that I am supposed to have ignored all the other values in Table 1. You can look up the table yourself:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/1280/1285
Table 1
Material--------------------------------------------14C content (pMC)-----------Apparent age (yr BP)
CO2 from natural gas---------------------------------0.077 +/- 0.005-----------57,360 +/- 540
Marble-------------------------------------------------------0.076 +/- 0.009-----------57,690 +/- 920
Wood fragment (Yukon)---------------------------------0.152 +/- 0.025-----------52,140 +/- 1310
Fossilized redwood (Axel Heiberg Island)-----------0.211 +/- 0.018-----------49.490 +/- 680
Now, if you will look at my article,
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
you will notice that behind 0.211 I have fossil wood, behind 0.152 I have wood, behind 0.076 I have natural gas, and behind 0.076 I have marble, all with the same (unfortunately misspelled) reference. So how does it look to you? Did I "ignore all the other values in table 1", or is Thorton not very careful about the truth?

Thorton did make a quote, but failed to see its significance:
I measured this contamination by preparing and analyzing samples that are geologically very old. Most old materials, however, are not free of intrinsic 14C contamination because such samples can easily be contaminated during or during their long period of interment or during conservation after excavation or retrieval. As it is impossible to predict this contamination, many samples had to be analyzed to determine which were best suited for this purpose. Table 1 shows the current results of this contamination study.

Notice that these samples were specifically chosen because they were "best suited" for Beukens' purpose; they had low level of "intrinsic 14C contamination". That is, they were not random samples of fossil wood or whatever, but rather were the least 'contaminated' samples he could find. They were cherry-picked. I'm not blaming him; I would have done the same were I in his shoes. But what we have are not unbiased measurements.

Finally, you will note that Thorton said,
Giem completely ignored the issue of contamination
He failed to read my paper, which had a whole section entitled
CONTAMINATION DURING SAMPLE PROCESSING EXPLAINS SOME, BUT PROBABLY NOT ALL, THE RESULTS

One may argue that I didn't account well enough for contamination, but the assertion that I "completely ignored the issue of contamination" is simply untrue.

Unless I badly miss my guess (which I would be delighted to do), Thorton will not apologize for any of these errors, but will either double down or change the subject. That's why I am not dialoguing with him at present. But since you asked, that's my answer.
Paul Giem
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:23 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Thorton » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:04 pm

Let’s see:

YEC medical researcher decides to” prove” his Biblical belief the Earth is young. Searches through the scientific literature for values to cherry pick, makes up his own numbers when that’s not good enough, ignores the perfectly good scientific explanation for the occasional C14 outlier, ignores the fact there are lots of organic samples with zero C14, ignores the millions of other pieces of evidence the Earth is way older than 50,000 years, writes up his nonsense and claims it’s “peer-reviewed” (by other YECs) , declares victory over the evil materialistic science establishment.

Still the YECs wonder why they get laughed at. :D
Thorton
 

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby brotheroflogan » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:37 pm

Dr. Giem,

I really really appreciate you taking the time and effort to explain that to me. My confidence in you has increased.
brotheroflogan
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:08 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby brotheroflogan » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:44 pm

Thorton wrote:Let’s see:

YEC medical researcher decides to” prove” his Biblical belief the Earth is young. Searches through the scientific literature for values to cherry pick, makes up his own numbers when that’s not good enough, ignores the perfectly good scientific explanation for the occasional C14 outlier, ignores the fact there are lots of organic samples with zero C14, ignores the millions of other pieces of evidence the Earth is way older than 50,000 years, writes up his nonsense and claims it’s “peer-reviewed” (by other YECs) , declares victory over the evil materialistic science establishment.

Still the YECs wonder why they get laughed at. :D


It is so easy to mock. So hard to do one's own research. Thorton, don't you want to be respected for your own work, rather than be known for tearing other people down? Even if YEC is totally wrong, it appears that you aren't engaged in a meaningful activity. Is there anything in your life that you care about? I really think that your mockery is motivated by an unmet need for fulfillment, relationships or self esteem. Dr. Giem has earned my respect even though I am not a YEC. You have not earned my respect. Yet.
brotheroflogan
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:08 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Thorton » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:31 pm

brotheroflogan wrote:It is so easy to mock. So hard to do one's own research.


Hate to break the news to you BoL but Giem didn’t do any research. He read through the hard work of others and cherry-picked the snippets he could spin and misrepresent to push his own YEC fairy tale. He’s effectively spitting in the face of all those researchers who did do the work, basically telling everyone in the radiocarbon community that they’re incompetent or worse. Real scientists have nothing but distain for such YEC charlatans.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that he’s never submitted this amazing scientific discovery of his to any real technical journals for review and publication? After all, if his young Earth claims are correct it would overturn virtually everything we know about physics and geology and biology and genetics and paleontology and a few dozen other sciences. But no, Mr. Pretend Scientist only displays his work on Creationist web sites, YouTube videos, and the occasional talk to the rubes in the church basement.

If I seem harsh it’s because as a member of the professional science community I'm sick and tired of having to deal with the lies of these Creationist bottom feeders. They drag down the scientific literacy level of the country every time they open their mouths in public. I for one plan to keep confronting their brand of willful ignorance wherever and whenever I can.
Thorton
 

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby tjguy » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:50 am

From this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... n-diamonds

More peer reviewed evidence of C14 - this time in diamonds.

Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.(R.E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.)

R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years. ....

The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument. Yet this begs the question as to why then did the Precambrian graphite contain on average more carbon-14 to yield younger ages than the diamonds? And why did the diamonds have such different carbon-14 contents to yield different apparent radiocarbon “ages”? Because the same instrument was used to analyze all the diamonds and the graphite, the results should surely have all been affected by the same “machine background.” Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions of the RATE radiocarbon project that natural diamonds, which are related to the earth’s early history, show evidence of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young.
tjguy
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:22 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Thorton » Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:37 am

tjguy wrote:From this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... n-diamonds

More peer reviewed evidence of C14 - this time in diamonds.


Thanks for yet another example of the lies and dishonesty spread by the professional Creationist community.

Here is the actual paper

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X07002443

Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds

Abstract: To examine one component of the instrument-based background in the University of California Keck Carbon Cycle AMS spectrometer, we have obtained measurements on a set of natural diamonds pressed into sample holders. Natural diamond samples (N = 14) from different sources within rock formations with geological ages greatly in excess of 100 Ma yielded a range of currents (∼110–250 μA 12C− where filamentous graphite typically yields ∼150 μA 12C−) and apparent 14C ages (64.9 ± 0.4 ka BP [0.00031 ± 0.00002 fm] to 80.0 ± 1.1 ka BP [0.00005 ± 0.00001 fm]). Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values – 69.3 ± 0.5 ka–70.6 ± 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.


All the scientists were doing is measuring the instrument background level which is the lowest reading the instrument is capable of. The reading represent the noise floor of measurements, not an actual valid value for the sample.

Here's an analogy. In a local garage there is a floor scale used for recording vehicle weights. Its specified range is 100 to 20,000 lbs. I decide I want to test the lower limit. I put on known test weights of 2000. 1000, 500, 100 lbs and get accurate readings. I then put on test weights of 10 lbs and the scale reads 95. My cat walks on the scale and the scale still reads 95. I put a feather on the scale and the scale still reads 95.

All I've done is determine the 'noise floor' of the scale is 95 lbs. That doesn't mean the cat and the feather actually weight 95 lbs.

Creationists like those AIG boobs deliberately misrepresent what the experiment was doing and what the results mean all the time. Lying to the public to support their YEC claims is what they do. It's a pity that honest and well meaning folks like yourself get conned by the deception but getting conned you are.
Thorton
 

PreviousNext

Return to Creation Science

cron