The scam of C14

[Splint]

What makes me irritated are the misinterpretations and mischievous use of data from radioactive decay dating processes, especially that of carbon 14.

My apologies to the many long standing members and frequenters of TWeb as I guess this topic has been thrashed out at length as the following quote attracted no response. (And I’m still relatively new to TWeb)

You see, I read one of Jorge’s posts and began to wonder. This appears to be a pretty damning argument against an old earth.

Yes, I think so. I'll select one of these arguments from a list that Humphreys has :

"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old."

So, with limited time and resources, I began researching.

I soon realised that it is very hard to unearth recent mainstream scientific/geological information that suggests that there is a problem with finding C14 in strata that is millions or billions of years old. As far as I can tell, if C14 is found, it is of no concern. It may have been a problem in the past when the mechanisms were not understood and proved, but certainly is not a problem now.
(By the way, vast amounts of information about the supposed problem can be found from YEC sources)

Let me take portions of the above post and make comment.

Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.

This is not telling the whole truth, so much so, that it is basically a whole untruth .
It is known that C12 is transformed into C14 by surrounding radioactive material. Coal deposits, diamonds and so forth will therefore contain quantities of C14, not because of their supposed young age but because of a natural, radioactive contamination process. This is known. It is accountable. It is of no concern.

But what is of concern is a glitch in the YEC argument. Relative to the YEC timeframe (in comparison with that of radioactive decay processes), deposits of carbon (coal, diamonds) must have formed at more or less the same time throughout the world. In this case, the quantity C14 in these deposits should be relatively the same. Not so. The amount of C14 in ancient deposits varies greatly in accordance with locality and the nature of contiguous minerals.

Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it…………….

Hmmmmm! Wonder how they have striven to eliminate it when the “natural source of carbon” has already been subject to radiation, thus contaminated, miles under ground????????

, and are unable to account for it.

Absolute piffle.

Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples…….

Why bother about external contamination when the core material has already been contaminated by underground radiation?????

…..under contract to creationists…….

No comment!

and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon

Same process as above. Diamonds may be extremely hard, but that does not make them impenetrable.

These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

The evidence is contrived. It is wrong.

What is missing in this “YEC untruth” is the fact that dating is rarely done by one method alone. Specific dating methods for specific ages are used and cross checked as much as possible as we all know.

I noticed during this brief research, that YEC’s tend to concentrate on acknowledged inaccuracies to try and refute specific processes and thus the integrity of mainstream science.

Since Jorge posted the above quote, I’ll throw out a challenge to him.

Using 10 different processes, measure the weight (not mass) of your brain at sea level and at 25 degrees Celsius.

Firstly, no matter the process, 100% accuracy will never be achieved. A fair degree of accuracy should be achievable, depending of-course, on Jorge’s knowledge and skill base.
Secondly, let’s suppose that 9 final results correlated with a reasonable degree of accuracy but the remaining one was way off – an anomaly.
From the 9, Jorge would be able to know the weight of his brain without doubt.
But with YEC philosophy, Jorge must dismiss this result even though the evidence is overwhelming, and instead, be none the wiser. (Errr! Sorry.) All because of one misused, inappropriate or fumbled process or intentionally misinterpreted results thereof which may prove to a Young Earther that measuring the weight of Jorge’s brain is impossible.

Does not make sense.

Scam.

Cheers

Splint

[geochron]

"It is known that C12 is transformed into C14 by surrounding radioactive material. "

Isn't 14C in carbon-rich deposits produced from nitrogen rather than carbon? That's what I'd assumed, anyway. There's siginificant amounts of nitrogen in diamonds, for instance. (14C isn't something I've used professionally, so I could well be wrong.)

[aniso]

Using 10 different processes, measure the weight (not mass) of your brain at sea level and at 25 degrees Celsius.

I don't know if we have a method sensitive enough to do this...

[aniso]

"It is known that C12 is transformed into C14 by surrounding radioactive material. "

Isn't 14C in carbon-rich deposits produced from nitrogen rather than carbon? That's what I'd assumed, anyway. There's siginificant amounts of nitrogen in diamonds, for instance. (14C isn't something I've used professionally, so I could well be wrong.)

Good point. This is the main reservoir of 14C id 14N (I think) in the atmosphere that turns up in radiocarbon dating. However, there apparently is some nitrogen in the mantle and, perhaps, the lower crust. The second article here discusses nitrogen in carbonatites on the Kola Peninsula.

At any rate, I'm probably more convinced of contamination being the source of 14C in diamonds. The detection limits are so low that even the minutest amounts of 14C could be transfered to the sample. This is particularly my concern when dealing with YECs. I guess the point is that this is a proven atmospheric-based technique, so why would one use it on a diamond, anyway? Do we really have any idea of the carbon isotope systematics in the lower crust?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...286/5449/2424d

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../286/5449/2488

[Barry Desborough]

My apologies to the many long standing members and frequenters of TWeb as I guess this topic has been thrashed out at length as the following quote attracted no response. (And I’m still relatively new to TWeb)

You see, I read one of Jorge’s posts and began to wonder. This appears to be a pretty damning argument against an old earth.

Good post.

It's sad, but there is, as you hinted: The 'Jorge effect'. Even if one day, when the pigs are migrating overhead and Jorge posts something of significance to science, it might well go unnoticed. I know, ideally, we are supposed to look at the arguments and the data whoever presents them to us, but Jorge's deserved reputation would prevent this from happening. I would love to be proved wrong, but Jorge consistently fails to discuss Lake Suigetsu, one of the clearest and most powerful sets of evidence for an old earth, and a valuable source of data for calibrating the C14 dating method.

In certain cases, the rule against 'arguing by weblink' should be suspended when certain creationist canards are brought up time and again. Here's a good resource on C14 dating and creationist arguments.

[dtyler]

It is known that C12 is transformed into C14 by surrounding radioactive material. Coal deposits, diamonds and so forth will therefore contain quantities of C14, not because of their supposed young age but because of a natural, radioactive contamination process. This is known. It is accountable. It is of no concern.

As has been pointed out, C12 is not transformed into C14. Rather atmospheric nitrogen is transformed into C14, which then combines with oxygen to form CO2 and from thence into plant and animal matter. Researchers had expected to be able to remove contamination but this goal has been elusive. Contamination processes explaining what we find are NOT known; they are NOTaccountable and they ARE of serious concern.

But what is of concern is a glitch in the YEC argument. Relative to the YEC timeframe (in comparison with that of radioactive decay processes), deposits of carbon (coal, diamonds) must have formed at more or less the same time throughout the world. In this case, the quantity C14 in these deposits should be relatively the same. Not so. The amount of C14 in ancient deposits varies greatly in accordance with locality and the nature of contiguous minerals.

When we are agreed on the data needing to be explained, this might be worth discussing. Your assumptions about YEC thinking are not correct.

Why bother about external contamination when the core material has already been contaminated by underground radiation?????

Please explain the mechanism you are announcing here. What underground radiation are you talking about? Can you direct me to any literature discussing C14 contamination by underground radiation?

What is missing in this “YEC untruth” is the fact that dating is rarely done by one method alone. Specific dating methods for specific ages are used and cross checked as much as possible as we all know.

In practice, other dating methods covering the same time-frame as C14 dating are cross-checked and validated by reference to C14.

I noticed during this brief research, that YEC’s tend to concentrate on acknowledged inaccuracies to try and refute specific processes and thus the integrity of mainstream science.

If you are familiar with Kuhn's thinking on paradigm shifts in science, you will be aware that this is the way science proceeds. The inaccuracies eventually get to the state where "tweaking" existing theory does not satisfy and new theory is sought. Time will tell whether the evidence for a significant background level of C14 is the trigger for new theory.

[grmorton]

What makes me irritated are the misinterpretations and mischievous use of data from radioactive decay dating processes, especially that of carbon 14.

My apologies to the many long standing members and frequenters of TWeb as I guess this topic has been thrashed out at length as the following quote attracted no response. (And I’m still relatively new to TWeb)

You see, I read one of Jorge’s posts and began to wonder. This appears to be a pretty damning argument against an old earth.

So, with limited time and resources, I began researching.

I soon realised that it is very hard to unearth recent mainstream scientific/geological information that suggests that there is a problem with finding C14 in strata that is millions or billions of years old. As far as I can tell, if C14 is found, it is of no concern. It may have been a problem in the past when the mechanisms were not understood and proved, but certainly is not a problem now.
(By the way, vast amounts of information about the supposed problem can be found from YEC sources)

The other thing the YECs ignore is something I have posted occasionally on this topic. They could find it if they would but do research (David Tyler above fails to do sufficient research to know of this.

Hal Gluskoter', Ron W. Stanton', Romeo M. Flores', Peter D. Warwick ,
Adsorption of Carbon Dioxide and Methane in Low-Rank Coals and the
Potential for Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide," AAPG Convention Abstracts 2002, p. a64

Early studies that compared the adsorption of both carbon dioxide and methane in coals were done, principally, on bituminous coal samples from the United States and Canada. At normal reservoir temperatures, these coals were found to adsorb approximately twice the volume of carbon dioxide as methane. This two-to-one ratio has been widely reported in the literature and has approached the status of conventional wisdom. In contrast, new adsorption. isotherms determined on 13 samples of low-rank coals (lignite and sub-bituminous) from the Northern Great Plains and Texas demonstrate that
these coals can adsorb from 6 to 18 times more carbon dioxide than
methane.

There is a statistically significant correlation between the carbon
dioxide/methane adsorption ratios to the rank of the coals; and lignites
have the highest adsorption ratios. However, the amounts of carbon
dioxide adsorbed by the coals in our suite of samples do not correlate
with coal rank parameters. such as calorific value and moisture. The
methane adsorption volumes do correlate with rank. Although low-
rank coals generally have much lower adsorption potential for methane than
coals of higher rank, they should not be overlooked as potential sites for
the sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. The low-
rank coals may adsorb as much, or more, carbon dioxide than has been
reported for the bituminous coals. In addition to sequestration of the
carbon dioxide, injection of carbon dioxide into unmineable, low-rank
coal beds may also enhance the extraction of methane."

© source where applicable

When one pulls coal from the mine, unless it is totally isolated from the modern atmosphere--with it's C14 content, the C14O2 will adsorb to the coal and cause it to appear as if it has residual C14. YECs like David T. never tell you this. They only read the literature looking for things with support their world view; they never read the literature to find something wrong with their worldview.

[Tiggy]

I posted this little write up I did a week or so ago on another thread - looks like a good time to repost here

Here is a quick overview of C14/C12 calibration – pay particular attention to points 5) and 6) below. C14 dating results are independently calibrated by at least six different methods, and produce results accurate to within a few percent going back at least 50,000 YBP (years before present). C14 dating does not extend far back enough to date fossils, although there are other radiometric decay series that are used with considerable accuracy back hundreds of millions of years.

Overview of Radiocarbon Calibration and Dating

1. Natural processes in the biosphere produce small amounts of radioactive carbon C14 to go along with natural C12
2. Living things ingest carbon with the current C14/C12 ration
3. When things die, the C14 begins to decay and the ration of C14/C12 in the sample decreases.
4. C14 decays with a half life of 5730 years.
5. By measuring the C14/C12 ration in the sample, we can estimate when the living thing died if we know the original C14/C12 ratio.
6. The C14/C12 ratio is known to have varied at times in the past, so we must independently calibrate the C14 dating results.

One way to calibrate is by lake varves. A varve is a seasonal layer put down in a lake due to biological activity (pollen, etc.) that can be accurately counted to give a yearly date. Samples of dead biological material (twigs, leaves) that rest in the layers can be accurately dated by layer count. C14 readings on the same material are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn. This has been done for many different varve sources. The most famous is lake Suigetsu in Japan, with an annual varve count going back over 29,000 YBP

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/C...igetsu2000.gif

Another way to calibrate is by dendrochronology – tree ring counting. Tree rings are seasonal growths, and by matching overlapping tree ring patterns dates can be accurately measured back to 11,000 YBP. C14 readings on the same tree samples are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn. Many forests have been subject to dendrochronology studies. Trees from the Black Forest in Germany have extended the dates back over 11,800 YBP

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/C...ntcal_1998.gif

Another way to calibrate is by ice core samples. Ice cores show regular seasonal patterns that can be counted to show yearly dates. Samples of dead biological material (twigs, leaves) that rest in the core layers can be accurately dated by layer count. C14 readings on the same material are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn. Ice core samples from glaciers in Greenland have extended dates back over 50,000 YBP

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/C...ariaco2004.gif

There are other similar, equally independent ways of calibrating C14/C12 ratios using speleotherms (cave stalactite growths), coral growths, marine core samples, etc. When all are taken together, they provide an accurate calibration of C14 dating looking like this

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/C...alpal_2001.gif

The multiple independent ways of calibrating C14 that all agree to within a few percent should put to rest any bogus creationist claims that radiocarbon dating doesn’t work.

The calibration curves shown above come from CalPal - the University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package. It's one of the premier C14/C12 research facilities in the world.

Radiocarbon dating is an extremely well known and well researched branch of science. It is one of the backbones of archaeology, especially paleoarchaeology. The scientist who pioneered it, Willard Frank Libby, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960 for his work. Today there are over 130 labs worldwide providing radiocarbon dating services, doing millions of dollars in business. The science even has its own peer-reviewed journal, Radiocarbon, to keep up on the latest developments.

Creationists groups like AIG and ICR provide morons like Jorge with C&P fodder as they try to claim C14/C12 dating is innacurate and invalid, but they can't deal with the multiple independent lines of C14 calibration.

They can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 ratios being 100x different
They can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 decay rate being not constant
They can lie about trees growing 10 rings a year instead of 1
They can lie about all the ice core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
They can lie about all the ocean core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
They can lie about all the lake varve samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
They can lie about all the cave deposits being off by greater than a factor of 10.

But what they can't begin to rationalize away is how all these independent calibration methods agree with each other almost exactly.

Even if we accept Jorge's bellyaching about low level background C14 contamination being some sort of problem for dates older than 70,000 YBP, please note that all C14 dates up to 50,000 YBP are still accurate.

That pretty much blows Jorge's '6000 year old earth' YEC claims out of the water, doesn't it.

- Tiggy

[aniso]

As has been pointed out, C12 is not transformed into C14. Rather atmospheric nitrogen is transformed into C14, which then combines with oxygen to form CO2 and from thence into plant and animal matter. Researchers had expected to be able to remove contamination but this goal has been elusive. Contamination processes explaining what we find are NOT known; they are NOTaccountable and they ARE of serious concern.

But then, according to YEC logic, where there are concordant dates by multiple 14C runs and by comparison with other methods, it is not of serious concern.

Who is it that expected to be able to remove contamination effects? As far as I know, chronologists make take extreme care to minimize the effects, but they fully understand that contamination is a potential problem with every analysis.

Please explain the mechanism you are announcing here. What underground radiation are you talking about? Can you direct me to any literature discussing C14 contamination by underground radiation?

So you are saying that the uranium mines we see in operation all over the world are imaginary? Or perhaps that the uranium doesn't become radioactive until it is liberated? Check out the crustal abundances of uranium sometime, and thorium while you are at it.

In practice, other dating methods covering the same time-frame as C14 dating are cross-checked and validated by reference to C14.

Or vice versa. What is the point here.

If you are familiar with Kuhn's thinking on paradigm shifts in science, you will be aware that this is the way science proceeds. The inaccuracies eventually get to the state where "tweaking" existing theory does not satisfy and new theory is sought. Time will tell whether the evidence for a significant background level of C14 is the trigger for new theory.

Hmm, have you ever analysed the recolonization theory this way? Or ID? How about Doug's revelation that there never was an ice age and glacial till is all in situ? Why weren't you bringing this up during that discussion?

[Tiggy]

But with YEC philosophy, Jorge must dismiss this result even though the evidence is overwhelming, and instead, be none the wiser. (Errr! Sorry.) All because of one misused, inappropriate or fumbled process or intentionally misinterpreted results thereof which may prove to a Young Earther that measuring the weight of Jorge’s brain is impossible.

What you are describing is the basic YEC argument technique against ANY science that supports ToE

1. Comb the scientific literature, find a single outlier among the hundreds of thousands of pieces of otherwise corroborating positive data.
2. Don't investigate the cause for the anomaly and reject any scientific reasons for the outlier.
3. Scream bloody murder that the single piece of outlier data somehow negates the other hundred thousand pieces of positive evidence.

It's old, it's boring, it's bland - but it still seems to work among the scientifically illiterate YEC mouth breathers (like Jorge) who are desperate for anything to prop up their literal Bible beliefs.

- Tiggy

[Splint]

Hi geochron, aniso, BD, dtyler, grmorton and Tiggy.

Much appreciated especially for your links and info, as this will save me time in research. I need some time especially to sort out if I misinterpreted information on 12C to 14C by radioactivity. Not making excuses, but with a young family and work (If only I could give the work a miss. I have too much else to do!) time is precious. Be damn boring if it wasn’t.
I’m also away from home during the next week end. So please be patient as I hope to post again on this topic next week.

Cheers and thanks again

Splint

[Monkey Boy]

In practice, other dating methods covering the same time-frame as C14 dating are cross-checked and validated by reference to C14.

How are lake varves, ice cores, and tree rings cross-checked and validated by reference to C14? How is it possible to use C14 to validate that you have counted the number of (varves|ice layers|tree rings) accurately?

The fact the C14 dates generally agree with these other dating methodologies is proof of the accuracy of all of them. Only a YEC need construct bizzare conspiracy theories to explain this rather obvious conclusion.

If you are familiar with Kuhn's thinking on paradigm shifts in science, you will be aware that this is the way science proceeds. The inaccuracies eventually get to the state where "tweaking" existing theory does not satisfy and new theory is sought. Time will tell whether the evidence for a significant background level of C14 is the trigger for new theory.

I'm continual amazed at your foolish optimism in the face of such blatant and contradictory data. You can't even provide a shred of empirical evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old yet you continue your blather about Kuhnian paradigm shifts as if some fancy philosopher name-dropping could rescue your theory from the dustbin of history. What a joke you are.

[Cyrus Johnson]

"It is known that C12 is transformed into C14 by surrounding radioactive material. "

Isn't 14C in carbon-rich deposits produced from nitrogen rather than carbon? That's what I'd assumed, anyway.

That's right.

There's siginificant amounts of nitrogen in diamonds, for instance. (14C isn't something I've used professionally, so I could well be wrong.)

Yes. In fact the vast majority of natural diamonds (98%) are Type 1a, which contain nitrogen as an impurity, clustered in small groups of atoms. If there is enough contamination, the diamond has a yellow color. The nitrogen in some diamonds is scattered rather than clustered (Type 1b). Being present in diamond does not protect the N from normal radiological reactions.

[Tiggy]

How about it you YECs out there? How about you, Jorge 'the Eel' Fernandez?

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why all the many completely independent means of C14 calibration precisely agree with one another?

And why they all point to an age much older than 6000 YBP?

- Tiggy

[Monkey Boy]

How about it you YECs out there? How about you, Jorge 'the Eel' Fernandez?

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why all the many completely independent means of C14 calibration precisely agree with one another?

And why they all point to an age much older than 6000 YBP?

Good question Tiggy. Can't wait to see the answer.