Carbon-14 and fossil dating

[Raccoon1010]

I recently did a thought study of carbon-14 and learned some things. First off carbon-14 comes from solar flares. It forms carbon-14 by adding two protons followed by electrons which bind with the nucleus of carbon in the body. It also forms in plant life and animals when struck by solar flare radiation.

If bones from dinosaurs are deposited in the earth then when did they get their carbon -14? They date the carbon-14 by measuring the Planck energy of the emissions which decay over time given by the decay process (). It could be in the plants and animals from long ago and ingested by the dinosaurs or strike the bones after death at any point up to the time of dating the fossil. So carbon-14 dating proves nothing in my mind and is a contaminated sample type. Particle decay - Wikipedia

References:

"Prehistoric trees hint an immense solar storm hit Earth 14,300 years ago. Researchers discovered a radical spike in carbon-14, evidence of a massive flare that dwarfs the largest measured solar flare event."Prehistoric trees hint an immense solar storm hit Earth 14,300 years ago

The carbon-14 atoms created by cosmic rays combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis (carbon exchange). Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. How Carbon Dating Works

The only other dating method for dinosaurs is the earth layers and attempting to date the dinosaur from which layer of earth it is deposited in. There are unproven theories about how old certain earth layers are within the earth layers at excavation sites. But dinosaurs have been found deposited vertically in layers suggesting that the layers formed rapidly, which is evidence that the layer theory is incorrect. Flood Buried Dinosaurs with a Bang

And what about soft tissue in the bone marrow of the T-Rex, discovered by chance when someone looked into the bone. Soft Tissue Discovered in Bone of a Dinosaur

All this disproves scientists claims about Carbon-14 dating of fossils and earth layer dating. How long will the scientific community deny evidence that proves their bizarre mechanisms of study wrong?

There is also stories in different cultures of dragons and serpents, and also in the bible. And where did they get those ideas from if they weren't recent history for those civilization times? Natural History of Dragons | AMNH

 

[Chains Broken]

I'm not a Young Earth Creationist but I'm pretty sure they can't use Carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils because of the speed it decays at.

 

[marks]

I'm not a Young Earth Creationist but I'm pretty sure they can't use Carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils because of the speed it decays at.

As I understand carbon dating methods, they rely on the natural processes such as the levels of carbon 14 present having been the same in ancient times as they are today. That's a big assumption!

Much love!

 

[Raccoon1010]

As I understand carbon dating methods, they rely on the natural processes such as the levels of carbon 14 present having been the same in ancient times as they are today. That's a big assumption!

Much love!

Yes I listed the problems I saw, and there are probably others. Whenever I read a scientific article describing the age of dinosaurs I'm always amazed at the incorrect statements made by what are called "experts" in their field. I think the problem is that having multiple degrees from Universities might be rare, mixing biology and physics, etc. Do we have an under-educated "expert" problem?

 

[marks]

Yes I listed the problems I saw, and there are probably others. Whenever I read a scientific article describing the age of dinosaurs I'm always amazed at the incorrect statements made by what are called "experts" in their field. I think the problem is that having multiple degrees from Universities might be rare, mixing biology and physics, etc. Do we have an under-educated "expert" problem?

I think it's a faith issue. They don't believe God's Word, and have to come up with something else.

Much love!

 

[Raccoon1010]

I think it's a faith issue. They don't believe God's Word, and have to come up with something else.

Much love!

Yes that could be one explanation. I'm not totally convinced that faith is the issue with everyone, there are churches of science that openly confess both faith and science, which makes me conclude that they just don't understand enough and perhaps don't have to time to understand all the facts in the evidence of various areas. There are of course other possible explanations as to why they deny the bible certainly.

 

[marks]

Yes that could be one explanation. I'm not totally convinced that faith is the issue with everyone, there are churches of science that openly confess both faith and science, which makes me conclude that they just don't understand enough and perhaps don't have to time to understand all the facts in the evidence of various areas. There are of course other possible explanations as to why they deny the bible certainly.

Yes, I think you are right.

Much love!

 

[BlessedPeace]

Young earth creationism is indefensible.

The hypothesis is God conforms to a box manifest by man.

 

[ScottA]

What do you think: If one begins to believe along a path of error, is error, variations, and points of confusion to be found along the way?

Or, how about this: Would God let a fool go his way--like a snowball?

The circumstances that we are all born into offer only two options: 1) The word from God, and 2) many words of conjecture and assumption from men. As such, the real question is: How will you be found?

 

[lforrest]

I recently did a thought study of carbon-14 and learned some things. First off carbon-14 comes from solar flares. It forms carbon-14 by adding two protons followed by electrons which bind with the nucleus of carbon in the body. It also forms in plant life and animals when struck by solar flare radiation.

If bones from dinosaurs are deposited in the earth then when did they get their carbon -14? They date the carbon-14 by measuring the Planck energy of the emissions which decay over time given by the decay process (). It could be in the plants and animals from long ago and ingested by the dinosaurs or strike the bones after death at any point up to the time of dating the fossil. So carbon-14 dating proves nothing in my mind and is a contaminated sample type. Particle decay - Wikipedia

References:

"Prehistoric trees hint an immense solar storm hit Earth 14,300 years ago. Researchers discovered a radical spike in carbon-14, evidence of a massive flare that dwarfs the largest measured solar flare event."Prehistoric trees hint an immense solar storm hit Earth 14,300 years ago

The carbon-14 atoms created by cosmic rays combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis (carbon exchange). Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. How Carbon Dating Works

The only other dating method for dinosaurs is the earth layers and attempting to date the dinosaur from which layer of earth it is deposited in. There are unproven theories about how old certain earth layers are within the earth layers at excavation sites. But dinosaurs have been found deposited vertically in layers suggesting that the layers formed rapidly, which is evidence that the layer theory is incorrect. Flood Buried Dinosaurs with a Bang

And what about soft tissue in the bone marrow of the T-Rex, discovered by chance when someone looked into the bone. Soft Tissue Discovered in Bone of a Dinosaur

All this disproves scientists claims about Carbon-14 dating of fossils and earth layer dating. How long will the scientific community deny evidence that proves their bizarre mechanisms of study wrong?

There is also stories in different cultures of dragons and serpents, and also in the bible. And where did they get those ideas from if they weren't recent history for those civilization times? Natural History of Dragons | AMNH

So let's say archaeologists carbon date an organic sample. They must assume a baseline for C14 concentration when the sample was first grown. Then they take that assumption for the baseline, also assuming no further ionization? They extrapolate how old the sample is based on the halflife of C-14.

So if we question the assumptions it raises two concerns for me.

1.Inital C14 concentration. Chemical reactions do not cause ionization, so if you for example ate food with a certain C14 content wouldn't cells you form from that be the same concentration? What about Plants that take CO2 from the air?
Does atmospheric CO2 contain a consistent and higher concentration of C14 because it mixes with air in the higher levels of the atmosphere where gamma rads are higher?

2. Shielding, does being exposed to the sun or being buried in the ground away from the sun affect additional C14 generation?

 

[Wick Stick]

I'm not a Young Earth Creationist but I'm pretty sure they can't use Carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils because of the speed it decays at.

Yeah, this.

Scientists 50+ years ago tried to use carbon dating on fossils, but they no longer do that because carbon dating has only proven reliable for organic matter up to about 50,000 years in age.

This topic seems to be about 40 years late.

 

[Raccoon1010]

So let's say archaeologists carbon date an organic sample. They must assume a baseline for C14 concentration when the sample was first grown. Then they take that assumption for the baseline, also assuming no further ionization? They extrapolate how old the sample is based on the halflife of C-14.

So if we question the assumptions it raises two concerns for me.

1.Inital C14 concentration. Chemical reactions do not cause ionization, so if you for example ate food with a certain C14 content wouldn't cells you form from that be the same concentration? What about Plants that take CO2 from the air?
Does atmospheric CO2 contain a consistent and higher concentration of C14 because it mixes with air in the higher levels of the atmosphere where gamma rads are higher?

2. Shielding, does being exposed to the sun or being buried in the ground away from the sun affect additional C14 generation?

An investigation from the JPL website says that air does contain Carbon-14: Study: Urban Greenery Plays a Surprising Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Also my conclusion was that Carbon-14 was created by high-energy proton-electron pairs released during solar CME's which is a coronal mass ejection. They can get up to like 500MeV which is highly penetrating and can pass into the earth and along the way it has a "chance" of elastic scattering and binding with a normal Carbon nucleus. Carbon has 12 proton-neutron pairs. An addition of 2 more pairs is needed for Carbon-14. Therefore I don't see why bones in the earth could not have a chance of binding.

 

[lforrest]

An investigation from the JPL website says that air does contain Carbon-14: Study: Urban Greenery Plays a Surprising Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Also my conclusion was that Carbon-14 was created by high-energy proton-electron pairs released during solar CME's which is a coronal mass ejection. They can get up to like 500MeV which is highly penetrating and can pass into the earth and along the way it has a "chance" of elastic scattering and binding with a normal Carbon nucleus. Carbon has 12 proton-neutron pairs. An addition of 2 more pairs is needed for Carbon-14. Therefore I don't see why bones in the earth could not have a chance of binding.

Additional binding would throw off the estimate for age, potentially making a sample appear younger. But nothing could make the sample appear to be older than it actually is except the assumed baseline.

If for example there used to be something in place to block solar radiation, but it is no longer there. Or the sun has entered a time of greater activity then that would translate to a bad baseline assumption for C-14 concentration entering the food chain.

 

[Raccoon1010]

Additional binding would throw off the estimate for age, potentially making a sample appear younger. But nothing could make the sample appear to be older than it actually is except the assumed baseline.

If for example there used to be something in place to block solar radiation, but it is no longer there. Or the sun has entered a time of greater activity then that would translate to a bad baseline assumption for C-14 concentration entering the food chain.

The assessment that it couldn't be older I question for myself since the skeletal sample was contaminated either from any time in the past to the present. It is unclear the extent of exposure due to the CME's impact regions on the earth, and various penetration depths. It would be fairly randomized and any food source the dinosaur consumed might have a different C-14 signature. Including air absorption into the body. In the assessment, I couldn't conclude with any certainty that any animal would have the same concentration of C-14. Therefore my assessment that there was a common baseline related to concentrations would be speculative.

One might measure the frequency of the C-14 radiation emitted by the dinosaur. And thereby assess the lifetimes of various C-14 decaying atoms. Then in the electron-volt based spectrograph, there might be different energies. And each C-14 atom might have a different origin in time. The starting point of the creation of the C-14 would determine the electron volts (eV) of the emission. The decay process for isotopes follow and inverse natural exponential math. Which is a type of diminishing curvature on the time-energy decay graph.

 

[lforrest]

The assessment that it couldn't be older I question for myself since the skeletal sample was contaminated either from any time in the past to the present. It is unclear the extent of exposure due to the CME's impact regions on the earth, and various penetration depths. It would be fairly randomized and any food source the dinosaur consumed might have a different C-14 signature. Including air absorption into the body. In the assessment, I couldn't conclude with any certainty that any animal would have the same concentration of C-14. Therefore my assessment that there was a common baseline related to concentrations would be speculative.

One might measure the frequency of the C-14 radiation emitted by the dinosaur. And thereby assess the lifetimes of various C-14 decaying atoms. Then in the electron-volt based spectrograph, there might be different energies. And each C-14 atom might have a different origin in time. The starting point of the creation of the C-14 would determine the electron volts (eV) of the emission. The decay process for isotopes follow and inverse natural exponential math. Which is a type of diminishing curvature on the time-energy decay graph.

Contamination from other sources of ionization may occur but that should only increase counts. There should be no natural means for the counts to be lower than predicted on the decay graph.

So if you did carbon dating on a sample you could say something is at least a certain age corresponding with the graph. But it could be older due to contamination.

 

[marks]

Young earth creationism is indefensible.

The hypothesis is God conforms to a box manifest by man.

I see it to be a matter of believing what He said.

Exodus 20:8-11 KJV
8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How long was the day of rest commanded to Israel? An age? Or a 24 hour day? That's the kind of day creation was completed according to.

Much love!

 

[lforrest]

I see it to be a matter of believing what He said.

Exodus 20:8-11 KJV
8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How long was the day of rest commanded to Israel? An age? Or a 24 hour day? That's the kind of day creation was completed according to.

Much love!

I agree, the Spirit convicted me against twisting creation days to be some vague period of time.

 

[lforrest]

@marks What do you think about the Canopy theory for Gen 1:6:"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

How would a canopy affect ionizing cosmic radiation making it to earth?

 

[lforrest]

@dev553344

 

[marks]

@marks What do you think about the Canopy theory for Gen 1:6:"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

How would a canopy affect ionizing cosmic radiation making it to earth?

I thinks guys like Kent Hovind and Walt Brown have the right idea, that there was water under the crust, and above the atmosphere. I think the atmospheric layer shielded the earth from the cosmic radiation until after the flood. So that pre-flood life absorbed a much lower amount of radiation, which looks like older age when compared to the modern assumptions of radiation exposures.

Have you read Emmanuel Velikovsky? He's got some interesting ideas about all this also.

Much love!