c14 #2

by uncle_onion 3 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  uncle_onion

  The thesis said:

  Carbon Dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.

  Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

  ??????????

  UO
• 

  Abaddon

  Lovely, another nice distortion.

  A half-life is exactly that. It is the amount of time that it takes for HALF of an element to decay into another element.

  Thus, if you have even a small sample with 1,000,000 atoms of C14 in it (that's not a lot of atoms) you have;

  ->500,000
  ->250,000
  ->125,000
  ->62,500
  ->31,250
  ->15,625
  ->7,812
  ->3,905
  ->1,953
  ->976

  At this point C14 dating becomes dodgy, but there's loads and loads of C14 left;

  ->488
  ->244
  ->122
  ->61
  ->30
  ->15
  ->7
  ->3
  ->1
  ->0

  So a sample with a million atoms to start off with has no C14 left in it after about 100,000 years. You probably lose a million atoms a day from old skin peeling off. Thus the claim that C14 in coal means everything is wrong is crap, as big lumps of atoms have far, far more atoms in them and it takes geological amounts of time for them all to go pop!
• 

  uncle_onion

  But what I have read says that c14 can not be detected aftre 1000 years no matter what it is and no matter how big it is?

  BTW thanks everyone for their comments.

  UO
• 

  Abaddon

  WHat you've read is a load of hookey.

  Carbon-14 can be detected (given sensitive enough instruments) if there is any left.

  Currently we can go back 60,000 years or so with C-14 with reasonable accuracy. Contamination is the only major problem, and that always, repeat ALWAYS makes things younger. As I think Amazing pointed out, the Kenewick Man example's extremities (his arms and legs) which were more exposed to contamination came up younger than his torso.

  However, the 'atom countdown' I have given in my initial responce (each line being a little under 6,000 years) is absolutely accurate.

  The number of atoms halfs each half-life period. Thus a sample far older than 60,000 years might show traces of C-14, but it wouldn't be measurable.