How can Carbon14. remain in coal and much other fossil material for an alleged umpteen millions of years?
THE ONLY RADIOMETRIC METHOD WHICH CAN BE USED FOR DIRECTLY DATING ORGANIC (FOSSIL) MATERIAL IS CARBON 14. THIS METHOD IS CONSIDERED MORE RELIABLE THAN OTHER METHODS AND IS FAIRLY ACCURATE FOR AGES UP TO SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS.
AT THE OBSERVED, RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATE THE TOTAL LIFE OF CARBON 14. IS LIMITED TO AROUND 50,000 YEARS. SO ANY OLDER MATERIAL SHOULD NOT CONTAIN ANY MEASURABLE AMOUNT OF CARBON 14. HOWEVER, COAL FROM EVERY SOURCE TESTED, PLUS MUCH OTHER FOSSIL MATERIAL, HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTAIN CARBON 14. THIS INDICATES THAT COAL CAN ONLY BE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, RATHER THAN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS CLAIMED BY EVOLUTIONISTS.
SURELY THIS MEANS THAT SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS ARE MUCH YOUNGER THAN THE TIMESPAN REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION?
Answers:
Ah-ah-ah! Those creationists will try ANYTHING.
OK, let's use our brains here.
Carbon 14 is created when cosmic rays hit the nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, and that carbon falls down, gets picked up by plants, which gets eaten by animals and so on. What happens to the carbon 14 that does not get picked up by plants? Can it not leach into the ground?
Also, carbon 14 can be produced by having nitrogen exposed to normal radio-active decay of uranium, radon, or whatever that accumulates in the ground. In fact, as the attached link indicates, the coal with the higher than expected level of carbon 14 were in area where uranium deposit existed, coal found away from such deposits had virtually no carbon 14 at all.
So, the statement "coal from EVERY source tested" is WRONG and misleading.
First, yeah there must be some measurable amount otherwise C14 won't work.
However, its a half life sort of thing, atoms are really small and plentiful.
Like a hanful having Avogadros number or so 6.023 times 10^23
or 6,023,0000000000000000000 or so.
Actually there are many different types of radioactive dating. Carbon 14 is the best for fossils, but you can use others:
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)
You need to move this question to its rightful spot in the religion category.
You have been caught (or are trying to catch us) in a good debate trick--treating words with different meanings as if they were identical. In your first paragraph, you set up the premise of "accurate" measurement. In your second thought, you claim that it should not be measurable at all.
Being detectable and being accurately measurable are not the same. Therefore, your argument fails due to inconsistency.
A very good question. However, it should be noted that radiocarbon dating isn't used on fossil fuels, or materials older than 60,000 years old because of the intrinsic nature of C14 you mentioned. After that age it becomes wholely unreliable for dating purposes. However, there will always be a certain amount of C14 in all large reservoirs of organic material due to the nature of it's formation and decomposition. So, it will be detectable, but will no longer be able to serve as an accurate measurement of age - the scale no longer follows linear or predictable function.
n + N14 <--> C14 + p
n = neutron
p = proton
Everytime a C14 atom decays through beta decomposition (the emission of a neutraon) it returns to an N14 atom. In large organic reservoirs like, coal and oil deposits, there is enough carbon present that the neutron will eventually reach another beta decayed particle to reform C14. Currently work is underway to develop a predictable model using N14 ratios to extend what we know of C14 radiodating. But, N14 is much harder to detect than it's radioactive counterpart N15.
While this does present a hurdle in our understanding of dating accuracy for very, very old deposits by radiospectrum dating, it doesn't mean that the deposits are much younger than believed. The age of deposits is determined by their location in the Earth's strata (how far below the surface), which is fairly accurate for things that are very old. The uncertainty factor for strata dating is about +/- 100,000 years, which is very small considering we are talking about organic deposits from 100,000,000 years ago or more! So that really works out to about 1% uncertainty at the most extreme.
These are very important questions though. They should always be asked and they should always be investigated if we are ever to truly understand ourselves and our planet.
Wow, this took me a total of 14 seconds to find.
"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment."
Note, of course that Creationists aren't doing any of this research. They never do. Real scientists do research. Religious charletans just sit back and live off the money they make deluding the ignorant.
what happens if u got low white cell count? just 1 point less than what it should be?
what is a 'major' dimension on a technical drawing?
Whats a brief over view of Steve Hawkins book as its to complicated to read?
Can someone tell me POTENTIAL uses for genetic screening?
who was the former president of America.?
why is it that spiders do not stick to their own webs?
help for a frustrated mum wanting to help son !?
Are daddy long legs really the most posionous creature on the planet?
AT THE OBSERVED, RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATE THE TOTAL LIFE OF CARBON 14. IS LIMITED TO AROUND 50,000 YEARS. SO ANY OLDER MATERIAL SHOULD NOT CONTAIN ANY MEASURABLE AMOUNT OF CARBON 14. HOWEVER, COAL FROM EVERY SOURCE TESTED, PLUS MUCH OTHER FOSSIL MATERIAL, HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTAIN CARBON 14. THIS INDICATES THAT COAL CAN ONLY BE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, RATHER THAN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS CLAIMED BY EVOLUTIONISTS.
SURELY THIS MEANS THAT SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS ARE MUCH YOUNGER THAN THE TIMESPAN REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION?
Answers:
Ah-ah-ah! Those creationists will try ANYTHING.
OK, let's use our brains here.
Carbon 14 is created when cosmic rays hit the nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, and that carbon falls down, gets picked up by plants, which gets eaten by animals and so on. What happens to the carbon 14 that does not get picked up by plants? Can it not leach into the ground?
Also, carbon 14 can be produced by having nitrogen exposed to normal radio-active decay of uranium, radon, or whatever that accumulates in the ground. In fact, as the attached link indicates, the coal with the higher than expected level of carbon 14 were in area where uranium deposit existed, coal found away from such deposits had virtually no carbon 14 at all.
So, the statement "coal from EVERY source tested" is WRONG and misleading.
First, yeah there must be some measurable amount otherwise C14 won't work.
However, its a half life sort of thing, atoms are really small and plentiful.
Like a hanful having Avogadros number or so 6.023 times 10^23
or 6,023,0000000000000000000 or so.
Actually there are many different types of radioactive dating. Carbon 14 is the best for fossils, but you can use others:
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)
You need to move this question to its rightful spot in the religion category.
You have been caught (or are trying to catch us) in a good debate trick--treating words with different meanings as if they were identical. In your first paragraph, you set up the premise of "accurate" measurement. In your second thought, you claim that it should not be measurable at all.
Being detectable and being accurately measurable are not the same. Therefore, your argument fails due to inconsistency.
A very good question. However, it should be noted that radiocarbon dating isn't used on fossil fuels, or materials older than 60,000 years old because of the intrinsic nature of C14 you mentioned. After that age it becomes wholely unreliable for dating purposes. However, there will always be a certain amount of C14 in all large reservoirs of organic material due to the nature of it's formation and decomposition. So, it will be detectable, but will no longer be able to serve as an accurate measurement of age - the scale no longer follows linear or predictable function.
n + N14 <--> C14 + p
n = neutron
p = proton
Everytime a C14 atom decays through beta decomposition (the emission of a neutraon) it returns to an N14 atom. In large organic reservoirs like, coal and oil deposits, there is enough carbon present that the neutron will eventually reach another beta decayed particle to reform C14. Currently work is underway to develop a predictable model using N14 ratios to extend what we know of C14 radiodating. But, N14 is much harder to detect than it's radioactive counterpart N15.
While this does present a hurdle in our understanding of dating accuracy for very, very old deposits by radiospectrum dating, it doesn't mean that the deposits are much younger than believed. The age of deposits is determined by their location in the Earth's strata (how far below the surface), which is fairly accurate for things that are very old. The uncertainty factor for strata dating is about +/- 100,000 years, which is very small considering we are talking about organic deposits from 100,000,000 years ago or more! So that really works out to about 1% uncertainty at the most extreme.
These are very important questions though. They should always be asked and they should always be investigated if we are ever to truly understand ourselves and our planet.
Wow, this took me a total of 14 seconds to find.
"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment."
Note, of course that Creationists aren't doing any of this research. They never do. Real scientists do research. Religious charletans just sit back and live off the money they make deluding the ignorant.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.