Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating


Craig A. Feinstein wrote:
jcon wrote:
Craig A. Feinstein wrote:
jcon wrote:
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 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.

Craig

As creationist "logic" goes, this is actually pretty good. The problem
is that the time dependence of such a scenario is very different.

Assuming a more or less equilibriated C14/C12 ratio, the amount of
C14 falls exponentially once the organism dies, so

Ratio(age) = Ratio(equil)*exp(-age/tau)

where Ratio(equil) is the equilibrium ratio (when production and decay
rates are equal), and tau is the decay time constant
(=half-life/ln(2)).

Based on what I have read, there seems to be no dispute about this.


In the Rabbi's scenario, the amount of C14 would start at
zero, and grow towards equilibrium as

Ratio(t) = Ratio(equil)*(1-exp(-t/tau))

How do you know this?


A PhD in physics and a career that involves radioactive materials
helps.

This is a standard equation for isotopic equilibrium in the presence
of some sort of constant activation process. It's important in places
like nuclear reactors and particle accelerators.

It can be derived very quickly by anyone with a basic knowledge of
math. Oh, what the heck....

At any given time, net rate of isotope prodoction (dR/dt) is the
activation rate minus the decay rate, where the latter depends
on the amount that is there.

dR/dt = A - R/tau

Moving around some terms:

dR/(R-A*tau) = -dt/tau


Right here is the fallacy in your argument. According to Rabbi Miller
in the next paragraph of his book, A is not constant.


*My* argument doesn't have a fallacy. "A" will be constant if the
rate of cosmic radiation is constant. If God went to the trouble
of creating the universe with all the light from distant stars in place
(including images of exploding supernovae that never existed in
the first place), why would be bugger around with the rates
of cosmic radiation?

I suspect that you will say that God dicked around with the
cosmic radiation in just such a way that ever calibration of
C14 comes out right... but the earth is 6000 years old.
If so, you need a model for how that works. Since neither you
nor the Rabbi seem to know any math or science, I won't hold
my breath.

Look, a lot of people, including me, have taken their time to
try to politely explain to you the problem with this "theory",
and it's all been a waste, so do the following: find a mirror
look at it, and say "I am looking at a very stupid person".

Please don't waste any more of my time.

-jc


Integrating gives

ln(R-A*tau) = -t/tau + K

or

R - A*tau = C*exp(-t/tau)

Solving for R=0 at t=0 -> C= -A*tau, so

R = A*tau*(1-exp(-t/tau))

And we identify A*tau as the equilibrium ratio. Note this assumes the
equilibrium value is small. The equation is a bit more complicated if
a significant portion of the material is activated.

It should also be pointed out that in this scenario, we're
only about half way to reaching equilibrium for C14.


where "t" is the time since the begining of the earth. Once
something died, decay would start from this ratio (ie,
t=(5766-age)), so

Ratio(age) = Ratio(equil)*(1-exp(-(5766-age)/tau))*exp(-age/tau)

If you get Excel and plot this back to a few thousand years,
you'll see that the time dependence is very different, and
since C14 dating has been cross referenced back several
thousand years, this doesn't work at all.

And of course, this has nothing to do with the age
of the Earth, which is determined by different means.

Still, kudos to the Rabb!. This is much better than
"half lives all changed during the flood.". I look forward to
the next attempt.I

-jc

I'm glad that you admit there is something to his logic, even if you do
not agree with the conclusion. While the other posts don't seem to be
bothered by this, I think it's pretty clear that the rabbi was onto
something.


Careful. I said "as creationist logic goes, this is pretty good".
That's like saying "That dog dances pretty well...for a DOG".

For instance, as of yet, no posters have been able to demonstrate
conclusively and clearly that the world is more than 5766 years old.
Sure, they'll say there's mountains of evidence to the contrary. At
first I thought they had clear and conclusive evidence when they
started talking about tree rings, but then when I asked for pictures of
trees with a number of rings larger than 5766, I was told that the
scientists assembled lots of the rings of trees together from different
overlapping times like a jigsaw puzzle and were able to deduce the age
of the oldest tree from this information, sort of like how they do
genome sequencing. This seemed reasonable at first. However, there is a
problem with this approach:

The only "problem" is that it gives a conclusion you don't like.
One has to throw out so much science to believe the Earth
is 6000 years old, that it's silly to talk about the little that is
left over.

I assume you're just at troll, and you're not really this stupid, so
I'm not going to spend a lot more time on this issue.

-jc


Tree rings are not discrete quantities like DNA, so this methodology
cannot be as reliable as genome sequencing. The methodology of deciding
which rings overlapp is not clear-cut and can be subject to human
interpretation. Given that probably only a handful of people handle the
actual evidence, it is not unreasonable that the scientists could have
"forced" some of the links on the jigsaw puzzle or "denied" some of the
true links. Note that I am not saying that they did this, only that
they could have done this. So I am not so impressed so far.

Since everyone posting here is convinced that the tree rings prove that
the world is more than 5766 years old, I would like to know how you all
were convinced of this? Did you just believe what the experts told you
or did you do the observations and counting yourselves? If you believed
what the experts told you, then you are doing exactly what you are
accusing me of doing - arguing from authority.

Craig

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... Nitrogen 14 and Carbon 12 in the atmosphere. ... constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 is established in the lifetime of each ... organic remains are dated by comparing the ratio of C-14 to C-12. ... of cosmic-ray action.) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... Nitrogen 14 and Carbon 12 in the atmosphere. ... constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 is established in the lifetime of each ... organic remains are dated by comparing the ratio of C-14 to C-12. ... has been at equilibrium proportion before life came about. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... Nitrogen 14 and Carbon 12 in the atmosphere. ... constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 is established in the lifetime of each ... organic remains are dated by comparing the ratio of C-14 to C-12. ... has been at equilibrium proportion before life came about. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
    ... Nitrogen 14 and Carbon 12 in the atmosphere. ... constant ratio of C-14 and C-12 is established in the lifetime of each ... organic remains are dated by comparing the ratio of C-14 to C-12. ... trees with a number of rings larger than 5766, ...
    (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)