by Lloyd » Wed May 01, 2024 4:43 am
254350
I'm just throwing this out there. The data may be useful eventually.
C14 LEVELS CHANGED BY ANCIENT CATACLYSMS
C-14 Dating May Be Wrong Before 2OOO B.C.
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archiv ... e-2ooo-b.c
... One explanation is that sometime prior to 2,000 B.C., the atmosphere contained no measurable C-14. After that, there apparently was a major atmospheric change that resulted in a build-up of C-14 in the atmosphere over several centuries. That would mean that two organisms that died less than one thousand years apart could show a C-14 age difference as great as 40,000 years if one organism died just before C-14 began to appear and the other died after it approached present levels.
_In a critical transition period a radio carbon year could well refer to a month or less of actual time. That would ex plain why so much C-14 time passes over so little peat and sediment at deeper levels.
_This brings into new focus a few C-14 dates previously considered too freakish to warrant serious attention. A frozen musk ox found at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, had scalp muscle tissue 24,000 years old and hair 17,200 years old ac cording to C-14 dating. At least three other frozen animals, two mammoths and a mastodon, have been found with parts of their bodies with C-14 ages far different from other parts or from surrounding plant life that perished with or shortly after the animals.
_Given the data from the peat and sediment accumulations this should come as no surprise. Since hair is constantly replaced, it provides an up-to-the-minute readout of the C-14 level in the food supply at the death of the animal. But slower-growing body parts such as bone or muscle tissue might be several years out of date. That lag during a period of rapidly rising C-14 could cause a bone of a 10-year-old mastodon to appear thousands of years older than its hair.
_Rampart Cave, located at the lower end of Grand Canyon, offers another example of the possible time-inflating capacity of C-14. The cave contains almost 200 cubic yards of stratified animal dung deposits, mostly from the extinct Shasta ground sloth. 4
_From about 13,000 to 11,000 radio carbon years ago (a span of 2,000 years) the sloths deposited a layer of dung about 70 centimeters thick, by far the most dung of any comparable previous period. Given the size of the Shasta sloth, three to four hundred pounds, that's not much about one cubic foot per year, or less than one week's elimination from one healthy adult ground sloth. Could that really be? For a layer 70 centimeters thick, 200 years would seem far more reasonable than 2,000. 5
_Brown's conclusions do not purport to entirely destroy the credibility of C-14 before 2,000 B.C. Though C-14 dates as such may be wrong, he considers the C-14 sequence to be probably correct. This would mean that a specimen found to be 30,000 years old by C-14 is probably as old as all others indicating 30,000, and older than one 10,000 C-14 years old, if only by a few real years.
_DEVELOPMENT CAN BE TRACED
The development of early civilizations, then, can still be traced with C-14. So far, C-14 sequence reveals that the earliest civilization began in the Mideast and from there spread throughout the globe. Genesis 11:8 says: "So the Lord scattered them abroad from there [Babylon, or present-day Iraq] over the face of all the earth" (R.S.V.). Rightly understood, C-14 may prove a valuable asset to creationists.
_Since pre-Flood organic material has an infinite C-14 age—50,000 years or more—Brown concludes that there was probably an undetectable concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere before the Flood. But with the Flood could have come cataclysmic changes, bringing a rapid rise in C-14 concentration and a precipitous drop in C-14 from 50,000 to 4,000 radiocarbon years in comparatively few actual years.
_In a later issue of Origins, Brown describes a triple impact that the Flood could have had on C-14 levels.6 First, the mere burying of a major portion of the earth's carbon-bearing plant life could in itself account for most of the expected change in C-14 concentration, even if C-14 were produced at the same rate before the Flood as after. An analogy might explain. With five drops of red food coloring (C-14), the smaller the cake (regular carbon), the redder it would be (the higher the proportion of C-14). In burying quantities of regular carbon, the Flood had the effect of diminishing and therefore "reddening" the cake, that is, of increasing the proportion of C-14 in the air and living matter.
_Second, the Flood may have brought with it a drier atmosphere, thus permitting a rise of atmospheric C-14. Genesis 2:5, 6, suggests that pre-Flood atmosphere had nearly 100 percent humidity. In the upper atmosphere, such humidity would restrict the production of C-14. Flood water could have come partly from this vapor shield, leaving behind a drier atmosphere more open to C-14 production.
_Third, the geomagnetic field belting the earth may have been stronger before the Flood, also reducing pre-Flood C-14 levels. Put together, these factors could place a specimen up to 66,000 radiocarbon years beyond its real age, if C-14 age could be extended that far. And 66,000 is far more than we'd ever have to subtract from the oldest C-14 date to accommodate a flood less than five thousand years ago.
_Notes:
1 R. H. Brown, "C-14 Age Profiles for Ancient Sediments and Peat Bogs," Origins (1975), 2 (1):6-18.
2 Herbert C. Sorenson, "Carbon-14 Dating and the Bristlecone Pines," THE MINISTRY, February, 1975, pp. 36, 37.
3 Ibid.
4 Austin Long and Paul S. Martin, "Death of American Ground Sloths," Science (1974), 186 (4164):638-640; Paul S. Martin, "Sloth Droppings," Natural History, August-September 1974, pp. 74-81.
5 R. H. Brown, "Can We Believe Radiocarbon Dates?" Creation Research Society Quarterly (1975), 12(l):66-68.
6 R. H. Brown, "The Interpretation of C-14 Dates," Origins (1976), 3(1
C14 IN FOSSILS
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... -diamonds/
_The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
_So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
... _Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
_So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
... _This chart shows the percentage of radiocarbon that remains in 40 samples from various layers throughout the geologic column. (This percentage, technically known as percent modern carbon [pMC], shows the ratio of radiocarbon in the rocks and fossils compared to the amount we find in living things).
_This finding is consistent with the belief that rocks are only thousands of years old, but the specialists who obtained these results have definitely not accepted this conclusion. It does not fit their presuppositions. To keep from concluding that the rocks are only thousands of years old, they claim that the radiocarbon must be due to contamination, either from the field or from the laboratory or from both. However, when the technician meticulously cleans the rocks with hot strong acids and other pre-treatments to remove any possible contamination, these “ancient” organic (once-living) materials still contain measurable radiocarbon.
_Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.14 15 These results have been confirmed by other investigators.16 So even though these diamonds are conventionally regarded by evolutionary geologists as up to billions of years old, this radiocarbon has to be intrinsic to them.
... _It should be noted that radiocarbon “ages” of up to 50,000 years don’t match the biblical time frame, either. The Flood cataclysm was only about 4,350 years ago. However, these young radiocarbon “ages” are far more in accord with the Bible’s account than the uniformitarian timescale. The discovery that diamonds have 55,000-year radiocarbon “ages” may help us unravel this mystery.
OLDEST TREE
Oldest Living Tree Located In Sweden
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... in-sweden/
_National Geographic News reports on the 13-foot (4m) conifer found in Sweden back in 2004. The tree itself (a Norway spruce) isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.
_The tree itself isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.
_A team at Umeå University led by Leif Kullman says the tree’s old age is due to its ability to clone itself. Each time a trunk dies off—around every 600 years, according to Kullman—the roots sprout a new trunk to replace the dead one. The oldest continuously standing trees are thought to be bristlecone pines from the western United States, the oldest of which is thought to be 5,000 years old—just over half the age of Kullman’s tree.
254350
I'm just throwing this out there. The data may be useful eventually.
[color=#FF0000]C14 LEVELS CHANGED BY ANCIENT CATACLYSMS[/color]
C-14 Dating May Be Wrong Before 2OOO B.C.
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1977/09/c-14-dating-may-be-wrong-before-2ooo-b.c
... One explanation is that sometime prior to 2,000 B.C., the atmosphere contained no measurable C-14. After that, there apparently was a major atmospheric change that resulted in a build-up of C-14 in the atmosphere over several centuries. That would mean that two organisms that died less than one thousand years apart could show a C-14 age difference as great as 40,000 years if one organism died just before C-14 began to appear and the other died after it approached present levels.
_In a critical transition period a radio carbon year could well refer to a month or less of actual time. That would ex plain why so much C-14 time passes over so little peat and sediment at deeper levels.
_This brings into new focus a few C-14 dates previously considered too freakish to warrant serious attention. A frozen musk ox found at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, had scalp muscle tissue 24,000 years old and hair 17,200 years old ac cording to C-14 dating. At least three other frozen animals, two mammoths and a mastodon, have been found with parts of their bodies with C-14 ages far different from other parts or from surrounding plant life that perished with or shortly after the animals.
_Given the data from the peat and sediment accumulations this should come as no surprise. Since hair is constantly replaced, it provides an up-to-the-minute readout of the C-14 level in the food supply at the death of the animal. But slower-growing body parts such as bone or muscle tissue might be several years out of date. That lag during a period of rapidly rising C-14 could cause a bone of a 10-year-old mastodon to appear thousands of years older than its hair.
_Rampart Cave, located at the lower end of Grand Canyon, offers another example of the possible time-inflating capacity of C-14. The cave contains almost 200 cubic yards of stratified animal dung deposits, mostly from the extinct Shasta ground sloth. 4
_From about 13,000 to 11,000 radio carbon years ago (a span of 2,000 years) the sloths deposited a layer of dung about 70 centimeters thick, by far the most dung of any comparable previous period. Given the size of the Shasta sloth, three to four hundred pounds, that's not much about one cubic foot per year, or less than one week's elimination from one healthy adult ground sloth. Could that really be? For a layer 70 centimeters thick, 200 years would seem far more reasonable than 2,000. 5
_Brown's conclusions do not purport to entirely destroy the credibility of C-14 before 2,000 B.C. Though C-14 dates as such may be wrong, he considers the C-14 sequence to be probably correct. This would mean that a specimen found to be 30,000 years old by C-14 is probably as old as all others indicating 30,000, and older than one 10,000 C-14 years old, if only by a few real years.
[color=#0000FF]_DEVELOPMENT CAN BE TRACED[/color]
The development of early civilizations, then, can still be traced with C-14. So far, C-14 sequence reveals that the earliest civilization began in the Mideast and from there spread throughout the globe. Genesis 11:8 says: "So the Lord scattered them abroad from there [Babylon, or present-day Iraq] over the face of all the earth" (R.S.V.). Rightly understood, C-14 may prove a valuable asset to creationists.
_Since pre-Flood organic material has an infinite C-14 age—50,000 years or more—Brown concludes that there was probably an undetectable concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere before the Flood. But with the Flood could have come cataclysmic changes, bringing a rapid rise in C-14 concentration and a precipitous drop in C-14 from 50,000 to 4,000 radiocarbon years in comparatively few actual years.
_In a later issue of Origins, Brown describes a triple impact that the Flood could have had on C-14 levels.6 First, the mere burying of a major portion of the earth's carbon-bearing plant life could in itself account for most of the expected change in C-14 concentration, even if C-14 were produced at the same rate before the Flood as after. An analogy might explain. With five drops of red food coloring (C-14), the smaller the cake (regular carbon), the redder it would be (the higher the proportion of C-14). In burying quantities of regular carbon, the Flood had the effect of diminishing and therefore "reddening" the cake, that is, of increasing the proportion of C-14 in the air and living matter.
_Second, the Flood may have brought with it a drier atmosphere, thus permitting a rise of atmospheric C-14. Genesis 2:5, 6, suggests that pre-Flood atmosphere had nearly 100 percent humidity. In the upper atmosphere, such humidity would restrict the production of C-14. Flood water could have come partly from this vapor shield, leaving behind a drier atmosphere more open to C-14 production.
_Third, the geomagnetic field belting the earth may have been stronger before the Flood, also reducing pre-Flood C-14 levels. Put together, these factors could place a specimen up to 66,000 radiocarbon years beyond its real age, if C-14 age could be extended that far. And 66,000 is far more than we'd ever have to subtract from the oldest C-14 date to accommodate a flood less than five thousand years ago.
_Notes:
1 R. H. Brown, "C-14 Age Profiles for Ancient Sediments and Peat Bogs," Origins (1975), 2 (1):6-18.
2 Herbert C. Sorenson, "Carbon-14 Dating and the Bristlecone Pines," THE MINISTRY, February, 1975, pp. 36, 37.
3 Ibid.
4 Austin Long and Paul S. Martin, "Death of American Ground Sloths," Science (1974), 186 (4164):638-640; Paul S. Martin, "Sloth Droppings," Natural History, August-September 1974, pp. 74-81.
5 R. H. Brown, "Can We Believe Radiocarbon Dates?" Creation Research Society Quarterly (1975), 12(l):66-68.
6 R. H. Brown, "The Interpretation of C-14 Dates," Origins (1976), 3(1
[color=#FF0000]C14 IN FOSSILS[/color]
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/
_The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
_So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
... _Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
_So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
... _This chart shows the percentage of radiocarbon that remains in 40 samples from various layers throughout the geologic column. (This percentage, technically known as percent modern carbon [pMC], shows the ratio of radiocarbon in the rocks and fossils compared to the amount we find in living things).
_This finding is consistent with the belief that rocks are only thousands of years old, but the specialists who obtained these results have definitely not accepted this conclusion. It does not fit their presuppositions. To keep from concluding that the rocks are only thousands of years old, they claim that the radiocarbon must be due to contamination, either from the field or from the laboratory or from both. However, when the technician meticulously cleans the rocks with hot strong acids and other pre-treatments to remove any possible contamination, these “ancient” organic (once-living) materials still contain measurable radiocarbon.
_Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.14 15 These results have been confirmed by other investigators.16 So even though these diamonds are conventionally regarded by evolutionary geologists as up to billions of years old, this radiocarbon has to be intrinsic to them.
... _It should be noted that radiocarbon “ages” of up to 50,000 years don’t match the biblical time frame, either. The Flood cataclysm was only about 4,350 years ago. However, these young radiocarbon “ages” are far more in accord with the Bible’s account than the uniformitarian timescale. The discovery that diamonds have 55,000-year radiocarbon “ages” may help us unravel this mystery.
[color=#FF0000]OLDEST TREE[/color]
Oldest Living Tree Located In Sweden
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/oldest-living-tree-in-sweden/
_National Geographic News reports on the 13-foot (4m) conifer found in Sweden back in 2004. The tree itself (a Norway spruce) isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.
_The tree itself isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.
_A team at Umeå University led by Leif Kullman says the tree’s old age is due to its ability to clone itself. Each time a trunk dies off—around every 600 years, according to Kullman—the roots sprout a new trunk to replace the dead one. The oldest continuously standing trees are thought to be bristlecone pines from the western United States, the oldest of which is thought to be 5,000 years old—just over half the age of Kullman’s tree.