Answers to Creationist Attacks on C-14 Dating

[_spotlight]

A short excellent article explaining the errors in creationist attacks on C-14 dating.

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-cre ... -14-dating

[_LittleNipper]

I would submit to you that this excellent article may have created more questions then it answered? https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... the-bible/

[_Philo Sofee]

A short excellent article explaining the errors in creationist attacks on C-14 dating.

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-cre ... -14-dating

Niiiiiiiice link amigo! Thanks for finding that

[_spotlight]

I would submit to you that this excellent article may have created more questions then it answered? https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... the-bible/

Really? Let's see.

The first item brought up in your AiG piece is a criticism of the idea that the production rate of C-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and is in equilibrium with the decay rate. This is addressed in the 4rth question in the article I linked. It was also shown how this backfires on creationists.

When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C-14 dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before 1000 BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. ... So, despite creationist claims, C-14 before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C-14 dating errs on the side of making objects from before 1000 BC look too young, not too old.

The next item brought up in your AiG piece is the claim that the magnetic field of the earth has always been decaying since creation. Funny how the scientists manage to substantiate their "assumptions" with facts and evidence while the creationists fail to do this. Were you there? How do you know the magnetic field strength has been getting weaker throughout history? But I digress. This is addressed in the 6th and 7th questions in the article I linked.

The next item brought up in your AiG piece was the alleged dilution of C-14 due to the assumed flood of Noah. Again this is answered indirectly in the 4rth question in the article I linked. If a flood had happened and there was no C-14 around pre-flood (presumably due to some canopy shielding the earth that magically allowed the light to pass through anyhow) then this would show up in C-14 data from tree ring samples since they go back further than when this assumed flood allegedly occurred.

The last item brought up in your AiG piece, the RATE group findings, is dealt with in the 3rd question in the article I linked.
Also see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
for more specifics.

[_LittleNipper]

I would submit to you that this excellent article may have created more questions then it answered? https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... the-bible/

Really? Let's see.

The first item brought up in your AiG piece is a criticism of the idea that the production rate of C-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and is in equilibrium with the decay rate. This is addressed in the 4rth question in the article I linked. It was also shown how this backfires on creationists.

When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C-14 dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before 1000 BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. ... So, despite creationist claims, C-14 before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C-14 dating errs on the side of making objects from before 1000 BC look too young, not too old.

The next item brought up in your AiG piece is the claim that the magnetic field of the earth has always been decaying since creation. Funny how the scientists manage to substantiate their "assumptions" with facts and evidence while the creationists fail to do this. Were you there? How do you know the magnetic field strength has been getting weaker throughout history? But I digress. This is addressed in the 6th and 7th questions in the article I linked.

The next item brought up in your AiG piece was the alleged dilution of C-14 due to the assumed flood of Noah. Again this is answered indirectly in the 4rth question in the article I linked. If a flood had happened and there was no C-14 around pre-flood (presumably due to some canopy shielding the earth that magically allowed the light to pass through anyhow) then this would show up in C-14 data from tree ring samples since they go back further than when this assumed flood allegedly occurred.

The last item brought up in your AiG piece, the RATE group findings, is dealt with in the 3rd question in the article I linked.
Also see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
for more specifics.

Consideration of C-14 http://scienceagainstevolution.information/v10i10f.htm
Consideration for the degeneration of the magnetic field strength http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field-young/

[_spotlight]

Consideration of C-14 http://scienceagainstevolution.information/v10i10f.htm

Taking these one at a time. Are we throwing Jello against the wall to see if any of it sticks Little Nip?

Perhaps we should not even dignify this with a response, but we do get emails from evolutionists asserting that carbon dating proves evolution. There must be many ignorant evolutionists out there.

And because of the existence of this article there must be some ignorant creationists out there as well. C-14 dating is sufficient to disprove an earth created 6,000 years ago.

But our high schools are apparently filled with kids who have been told by their science teachers that carbon dating proves dinosaurs are millions of years old.

Well, as wrong as that would be, it is still more correct than stating that the earth was created 6,000 years ago because it says so in a book of myths. I guess having really dumb students allows really dumb teachers to infiltrate the education system somewhere. I'm guessing in the Bible belt.

Note that your author agrees that C-14 has been calibrated back 5,000 years. What this proves is that the flood of Noah did not affect C-14 dating! That's right. If it had happened and affected C-14 dating in the manner that creationists claim then this tight agreement for the last 5,000 years would be off the mark. Your authors are too ignorant to understand that apparently. For the signal to be as weak as it is for supposed pre-flood debri it could not have recovered to be as strong as it is observed to be in the last 5,000 years. That would require a discontinuity that is not possible. Remeber that 30,000 year to equilibrium figure? Well I guess not when it isn't convenient huh?

Knowing these correction factors allows carbon 14 measurements to yield very accurate ages, back to 4 or 5 thousand years. But beyond 5,000 years, we have to guess what the correction factors are, so the ages are only as good as our guesses.

Incorrect! We have three independent tree genealogies that agree with one another and provide consistent C-14 calibration back beyond your supposed date of creation of the earth.

When the plant or animal dies, it stops eating carbon-containing food,

Keeping it simple are we for the target audience?

If you had a good high school science course, you already know all of that. Here’s what they didn’t teach you in high school.

I guess high school is as far as the target audience made it with their education.

According to a NASA web site,

You just lost the attention of the flat earthers with that comment. They are your brothers in educational attainment.

No matter how you slice it, there isn’t much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Um no. There is a lot of atmosphere so there can be a lot of carbon dioxide. Certainly enough to keep the biosphere alive. Plants need it to survive you know. It is the primary component that provides the mass that makes up plant growth. This ignorant comment is like saying that relative to all that exists in the universe the quantity of intelligent life is practically non-existent. Therefore we can sweep it under the rug. Does the Quran create this level of idiocy as well or is it just the Bible that accomplishes this level of assault upon the intelligent capacity of our species?

But we don’t know what the correction factors are for dates older than 5,000 years because we have no historical data to use for calibration.

Odin, was this written by VenomFangX?
This is a repitition of the previous lie. I thought Christians weren't supposed to lie. Again to repeat myself since the target audience apparently sufferes from short term memory loss three separate and independent tree genealogies from opposite sides of the planet provide calibration data that goes back before the supposed date of creation of the earth and they provide calibration of C-14 and they agree with one another. Stop the lies please. You aren't fooling anyone who made it past high school.

If it is true that the earth has been around for 4.6 billion years, and if the sun has been shining on the nitrogen in the atmosphere for all that time, the amount of carbon 14 should not be changing. The fact that the carbon 14 ratio is changing does not prove the second assumption (i.e. that the Earth is old) is incorrect. The changing carbon 14 ratio merely proves that at least one of the evolutionists’ two assumptions is incorrect.

I go to great lengths to provide the best dog food for my puppy. The least you could do is provide the best reading material for your brain. If this were dog food my puppy would be dead.
It is not an assumption that C-14 production is constant. Hence the calibration with tree ring data and with lake varves at Suijetsu. ->

How long will the author continue to lie?

The section about carbon dating dinosaurs is problematic for young earth creationists. If the dinosaurs are less than 7,000 years old then their remains would have abundant C-14 signals well above background noise. The fact that this is not the case while tree ring data goes back beyond 10,000 years with a strong signal proves that dinosaurs were not alive in the last 10,000 years.

The reality is that one would have to know the 14C/12C ratio in the environment at the time of the death of the sample. The fact is that we can only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 years or so using historical records.

The final repetition of the lie. Again tree ring data exists that refutes all of this nonsense. Lake varves exist that do the same. And again if the C-14 content had been unusually low during the early creationist version of earth's history then the last 5,000 years would have a C-14 signal much lower than what we observe to be the case. Remember again that it'd take 30,000 years to establish equilibrium. We would not observe the slight discrepency between the formation rate of C-14 creation and its dissapearance if that were the case. We'd see a huge disparity between the two if the earth were only 6,000 years old.

I'm afraid you guys are as much in la la land as the flat earthers.

[_The CCC]

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

[_spotlight]

Hi Little Nip,
I'll be less snarky in my reply to your 2nd reference not because it is any less ridiculous than the first reference (it is far more ridiculous) but because I believe this guy actually believes his own nonsense which I feel is not possible in the case with the first author.

Your link provided no models or math to substantiate anything that was asserted. Perhaps you could provide a sketch of the mechanism that links the behavior of the molten core with a putative flood upon the surface?

The validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 I suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and after the Genesis flood.[9] The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth's surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards.

The mass of the Earth's core is about 33% of the total mass of the planet. The oceans are 0.02% of the planets mass. How does the author envision a flood having such a huge affect upon the behavior of the core and by what mechanism?

[_LittleNipper]

Consideration of C-14 http://scienceagainstevolution.information/v10i10f.htm

Taking these one at a time. Are we throwing Jello against the wall to see if any of it sticks Little Nip?

Perhaps we should not even dignify this with a response, but we do get emails from evolutionists asserting that carbon dating proves evolution. There must be many ignorant evolutionists out there.

And because of the existence of this article there must be some ignorant creationists out there as well. C-14 dating is sufficient to disprove an earth created 6,000 years ago.

But our high schools are apparently filled with kids who have been told by their science teachers that carbon dating proves dinosaurs are millions of years old.

Well, as wrong as that would be, it is still more correct than stating that the earth was created 6,000 years ago because it says so in a book of myths. I guess having really dumb students allows really dumb teachers to infiltrate the education system somewhere. I'm guessing in the Bible belt.

Note that your author agrees that C-14 has been calibrated back 5,000 years. What this proves is that the flood of Noah did not affect C-14 dating! That's right. If it had happened and affected C-14 dating in the manner that creationists claim then this tight agreement for the last 5,000 years would be off the mark. Your authors are too ignorant to understand that apparently. For the signal to be as weak as it is for supposed pre-flood debri it could not have recovered to be as strong as it is observed to be in the last 5,000 years. That would require a discontinuity that is not possible. Remeber that 30,000 year to equilibrium figure? Well I guess not when it isn't convenient huh?

Knowing these correction factors allows carbon 14 measurements to yield very accurate ages, back to 4 or 5 thousand years. But beyond 5,000 years, we have to guess what the correction factors are, so the ages are only as good as our guesses.

Incorrect! We have three independent tree genealogies that agree with one another and provide consistent C-14 calibration back beyond your supposed date of creation of the earth.

When the plant or animal dies, it stops eating carbon-containing food,

Keeping it simple are we for the target audience?

If you had a good high school science course, you already know all of that. Here’s what they didn’t teach you in high school.

I guess high school is as far as the target audience made it with their education.

According to a NASA web site,

You just lost the attention of the flat earthers with that comment. They are your brothers in educational attainment.

No matter how you slice it, there isn’t much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Um no. There is a lot of atmosphere so there can be a lot of carbon dioxide. Certainly enough to keep the biosphere alive. Plants need it to survive you know. It is the primary component that provides the mass that makes up plant growth. This ignorant comment is like saying that relative to all that exists in the universe the quantity of intelligent life is practically non-existent. Therefore we can sweep it under the rug. Does the Quran create this level of idiocy as well or is it just the Bible that accomplishes this level of assault upon the intelligent capacity of our species?

But we don’t know what the correction factors are for dates older than 5,000 years because we have no historical data to use for calibration.

Odin, was this written by VenomFangX?
This is a repitition of the previous lie. I thought Christians weren't supposed to lie. Again to repeat myself since the target audience apparently sufferes from short term memory loss three separate and independent tree genealogies from opposite sides of the planet provide calibration data that goes back before the supposed date of creation of the earth and they provide calibration of C-14 and they agree with one another. Stop the lies please. You aren't fooling anyone who made it past high school.

If it is true that the earth has been around for 4.6 billion years, and if the sun has been shining on the nitrogen in the atmosphere for all that time, the amount of carbon 14 should not be changing. The fact that the carbon 14 ratio is changing does not prove the second assumption (i.e. that the Earth is old) is incorrect. The changing carbon 14 ratio merely proves that at least one of the evolutionists’ two assumptions is incorrect.

I go to great lengths to provide the best dog food for my puppy. The least you could do is provide the best reading material for your brain. If this were dog food my puppy would be dead.
It is not an assumption that C-14 production is constant. Hence the calibration with tree ring data and with lake varves at Suijetsu. ->

How long will the author continue to lie?

The section about carbon dating dinosaurs is problematic for young earth creationists. If the dinosaurs are less than 7,000 years old then their remains would have abundant C-14 signals well above background noise. The fact that this is not the case while tree ring data goes back beyond 10,000 years with a strong signal proves that dinosaurs were not alive in the last 10,000 years.

The reality is that one would have to know the 14C/12C ratio in the environment at the time of the death of the sample. The fact is that we can only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 years or so using historical records.

The final repetition of the lie. Again tree ring data exists that refutes all of this nonsense. Lake varves exist that do the same. And again if the C-14 content had been unusually low during the early creationist version of earth's history then the last 5,000 years would have a C-14 signal much lower than what we observe to be the case. Remember again that it'd take 30,000 years to establish equilibrium. We would not observe the slight discrepency between the formation rate of C-14 creation and its dissapearance if that were the case. We'd see a huge disparity between the two if the earth were only 6,000 years old.

I'm afraid you guys are as much in la la land as the flat earthers.

Nothing is more correct than FACTS. And teaching error for the sake of eliminating GOD from an equation is the most arrogant of the secular "science" tendencies.

[_spotlight]

None of the "facts" you've presented establishes a young earth model, just the opposite.