Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating

"Geoff" <gebobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6PadneqT1NUZHXzeRVn-hg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Craig A. Feinstein" <cafeinst@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1138850940.086781.172670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Here is a disproof of the carbon-14 dating methodology, given by Rabbi
> > Avigdor Miller in his book, Sing You Righteous:
> >
> > We all know that Carbon 14 is a product of cosmic ray bombardment of
> > Nitrogen 14 and Carbon 12 in the atmosphere. The C-14 combines with
> > oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is absorbed by living organisms. A
> > constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 is established in the lifetime of each
> > living organism. When the organism dies, it no longer absorbs carbon
> > dioxide and the C-14 decays by emitting beta particles to N-14. The
> > organic remains are dated by comparing the ratio of C-14 to C-12. The
> > organisms with lower ratios of C-14 to C-12 are considered older than
> > those with higher ratios, since they must have been around longer to
> > lose more C-14 isotopes.
> >
> > Here is the problem according to Rabbi Miller: This methodology assumes
> > that the earth is very old and that therefore the present proportion of
> > C-14 in the earth's atmosphere was already in existence aeons ago,
> > i.e., has been at equilibrium proportion before life came about. But
> > the earth is not very old, only 5,766 years old as of today, so it
> > started out without C-14 isotopes (which everyone admits is the result
> > of cosmic-ray action.) Therefore, it took time to build up enough C-14
> > to establish the present ratio. The earth's supply of C-14 has
> > increased steadily in 5766 years; the further back in history, the less
> > C-14 found. Therefore, the low proportion of C-14 in organic materials
> > of ancient times is not due to the measured breakdown of this isotope,
> > but is due to the simple fact that the proportion of C-14 was low in
> > the first place.
> >
> > I would love to see someone try to refute this disproof of the carbon
> > dating methodology. I doubt anyone in this newsgroup will be able to do
> > so - why do I think so? Because the universe is only 5,766 years old.
>
> I think it's pretty easy to disprove if we analyze an artifact with a
known
> age. If the Rabbi's hypothesis were true, then we would get a different
> result than if C14 levels were constant.
>
>

Exactly.  This is the method used to calibrate C-14 dates for the variation
in C-14 formation (due to long-term changes in the Earth's magnetic field,
solar radiation, etc).  The main source material is organic matter from
archaeological sites of known age, and from ancient timber which can be
dated by tree-ring analysis.  Beyond this range, C-14 dates are more
approximate.

There is also the problem of explaining all the other radioactive isotope
dating methods.  The rabbi needs to ask himself, "Why would Gunderscored
create the world with all the long-half-life isotopes present, but leave out
all the ones that have half-lives less than about 70 million years?  Who is
He trying to fool?  And more importantly, why?"

Also, where did all the people who built the oldest pyramids come from?
Traditional Genesis chronology says the Flood happened only a few
generations before the construction.  So who built the pyramids, whose dates
can be established from other historical records?

-- 
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... > Here is a disproof of the carbon-14 dating methodology, ... > oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is absorbed by living organisms. ... > dioxide and the C-14 decays by emitting beta particles to N-14. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... > Here is a disproof of the carbon-14 dating methodology, ... > oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is absorbed by living organisms. ... > dioxide and the C-14 decays by emitting beta particles to N-14. ... C14 has a half-life of 5730 years. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... >> Here is a disproof of the carbon-14 dating methodology, ... >> Avigdor Miller in his book, ... >> oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is absorbed by living organisms. ... >> lose more C-14 isotopes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... > Here is a disproof of the carbon-14 dating methodology, ... > oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is absorbed by living organisms. ... > dioxide and the C-14 decays by emitting beta particles to N-14. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 60 Minute Question : Saturns Rings
    ... > clarification about carbon dating. ... difference is in the neutrons--C-12 has six, C-13 has seven, and C-14 ... The C-14 can still decay once inside the organism, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)