Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating

Craig A. Feinstein wrote:
> 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

No it doesn't. It assumes that
1) C14 is produced in the atmosphere by the same process we observe
today
2) The radioactive half-life of C14 is the same as we can measure in
the laboratory today (and incidentally, if it varies substantially over
time we can throw away most of what we have learned about physics)
3) Plants in the past absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere in the same way
as they do today.
None of these hev anything to do with the age of the earth.

> and that therefore the present proportion of
> C-14 in the earth's atmosphere was already in existence aeons ago,.

No it doesn't. It assmes that although the process by which C14 is
produced is the same as it is today, it can vary because the level of
solar radiation can vary - something we can observe today. This is why
carbon-dating is calibrated against other methods, in particular
tree-ring dating. This shows amongst other things an 11 year cycle in
levels of solar activity, which is in line with measurements of the
level of solar activity over the past century or so.

> i.e., has been at equilibrium proportion before life came about.

Quite specifically, it doesn't.

>But
> the earth is not very old, only 5,766 years old as of today,

If this is the case, please explain why
1) Radiocarbon measurements show fluctuations in solar activity which
match the observed solar cycle.
2) Radiocarbon dating methods correlate well with tree-ring dating
strectching back 10,000 years.
3) The radiocarbon and tree-ring dating methods can be matched to
historical events of known age.

Otherwise this is simply an unfounded assertion.


>so it
> started out without C-14 isotopes (which everyone admits is the result
> of cosmic-ray action.)

What do you mean "everyone admits"? This is what science tells us.

>Therefore, it took time to build up enough C-14
> to establish the present ratio.

Nonsense. The level of C14 in the atmosphere needs to be replenished as
C14 decays. It's radioactive. That's what radioactive isotopes do.

> The earth's supply of C-14 has
> increased steadily in 5766 years; the further back in history, the less
> C-14 found.

So now you have thrown out of the window everything physics has learned
about radioactivity.
Perhaps you could explain how a nuclear reactor works?

>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.

.... a conclusion which can only be drawn if we reject the findings of
several centuries of research and development...


>
> I would love to see someone try to refute this disproof of the carbon
> dating methodology.

There, I've done it.
Now explain to me where my argument is flawed, or withdraw your
assertion that it is "dispproved".

>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.
> 
> Craig

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... >> Here is a disproof of the carbon-14 dating methodology, given by Rabbi ... >> 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. ... C14 has a half-life of 5730 years. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... Nitrogen 14 and Carbon 12 in the atmosphere. ... oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is absorbed by living organisms. ... constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 is established in the lifetime of each ... been checked against dendrochronology and various other dating methods. ...
    (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, ... > Nitrogen 14 and Carbon 12 in the atmosphere. ... > oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is absorbed by living organisms. ... > constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 is established in the lifetime of each ...
    (talk.origins)