It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

6000 year old earth

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This explains it quite well - if all living things have the same ratio, and this is proven, and carbon 12 is always the same, and carbon 14 always changes at the same rate, thus changing the ratio... It seems quite valid. I didn't realize this is how it was done


That's why listening to the radiometric dating deniers is so exacerbating. This science is based on mathematical formulas and proofs and math doesn't lie.




posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'd guess plenty don't know exactly how it works.... I know I had no idea, I assumed it was just a measurement of one isotope, which even within your description is most definitely not a way you could ever assume the age of something.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Sure


Nuclear bombs generate large numbers of high energy neutrons, which can in turn transmute nitrogen 14 into carbon 14 in exactly the same way as naturally occurring secondary cosmic rays. By 1965, atmospheric 14C concentrations were double their pre "atomic age" values.


From physics.info...

Now if the concentration of 14C doubles in twenty years due to some event, maybe it's not stable through millennia, where other events occur.

As for rock dating:

Uranium information isn't as widely available as students of science would benefit from, because knowledge of how uranium works, how it's found, how it's mined and how radioactive it is tends to be restricted, as demonstrated by these guys.

Finding a rock with some uranium complex and determining its age through the ratio of lead to uranium is not scientific because pure uranium is found that has no lead in it at all, and pure lead is found too.
For a correlation to be drawn scientifically from the ratio of uranium to lead to the age of a rock, all rocks containing this uranium complex should be considered, which isn't the case.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

For instance shows how unstable elements stabilize into other elements slowly.

The presence of the stable elements doesn't imply that they are a product of radioactive decay, and the presence of radioactive elements outside of these complexes indicates that said radioactive elements didn't all appear on the same day.

To clarify: if a rock has a lot of lead and some uranium, possibly some or all of the lead used to be uranium, maybe. Not an accurate datation technique, lead is found by itself and so is uranium.
edit on 45731v2016Thursday by wisvol because: syntax



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

One question might be.. How can we assume the decay rate of something so old? As in, how do we know it started with just about x amount of uranium, and with z amount of lead? Since nothing on this earth is new, it's all very old. How can we assume the original amounts of uranium and lead in anything ?



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Is it assumed uranium turns into lead, or that uranium 238 turns into lead 206?

Is this the same question? I don't know much about all of this - is a pure rock or lump of uranium specifically uranium 238?



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Interestingly enough, the link reminds us that 14C can also be a result of Nitrogen modification instead of adding nucleides to carbon, and probably happens more often given that electrons hit carbons more often than protons.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


206 Pb is stable and also has unstable isotopes made from different elements, indistinctly including Uranium, stabler lead, & c.

Uranium formation in itself is fascinating and the fact that it takes place constantly invalidates the idea that a ratio of possibly uranium-based lead would be a way to date it: lead exists on its own in all its isotopes as does carbon and everything else.

Turning rare metals into lead. The antithesis of fun chemistry.

How is uranium formed? Or any heavy metal, actually?

Stars from far away a long time ago? The time to get it here it would be lead again.


edit on 44435v2016Thursday by wisvol because: mistyped

edit on 44506v2016Thursday by wisvol because: (no reason given)



Or possibly stars not that far away not that long ago, granted.

Possibility isn't enough to declare the datation method scientific by any stretch: seeing a possibility or even two does not mean other possibilities don't exist.
Uranium made today, depending on how it's made, and from what, can contain all sorts of other elements, and not be even one billion years old.
edit on 45217v2016Thursday by wisvol because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
Interestingly enough, the link reminds us that 14C can also be a result of Nitrogen modification instead of adding nucleides to carbon, and probably happens more often given that electrons hit carbons more often than protons.


And even more interesting is that you don't understand this nearly as much as you seem to think you do. 14C is only derived from Nitrogen, never from 12C. there are 3 isotopes of Carbon, 12C, 13C and 14C with only 14C being radioactive and the other 2 are stable isotopes. You seem to be under the impression that 12C becomes 14C when bombarded by cosmic rays but that is impossible.

You can not add weight to an atom via cosmic ray bombardment. 14C is only derived from N. It is also important to note that atmospheric fluctuations are taken into account when calibrating and even more importantly, 14C is never the sole determinate of a date. It's quite simple to calibrate for accuracy by cross referencing 14C data with dendrochronology.

While 14C dating loses effectiveness at the 50-60 KA mark because of the miniscule amount of 14C remaining in samples due to its relatively short half life of 5730 years, the window for accuracy can be extended to ~ 100 KA via mass spectrometry.

To sit on your pretty pink pony and look down your nose at posters regarding a science you clearly don't understand anywhere near as well as you try to play it off is amusing to say the least. I just hope that people who may be swayed by such BS engage in due diligence and look up the information for themselves.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Is 12 c only derived from 14 c?



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




And even more interesting is that you don't understand this nearly as much as you seem to think you do. 14C is only derived from Nitrogen,


Is that so?




14C is only derived from N.


Oh really?

Thanks for sharing your science again, there Peter.

And to think until now I had considered isotopic formation to be mostly done by nuclear variation.

Surely this also explains uranium formation, since by the same token, unstable elements are only derived from stable elements of similar weight.

Oh, that kind of science.

Carry on then



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

No, 12C is the standard element from the periodic table we all learn in Chemistry with 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. It is the 4th most abundant naturally occurring element by mass in the known universe after Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen. 13C is a stable isotope and 14C is the radioactive isotopecontaining 8 neutrons and 6 protons which decays at a predictable rate of 5730 years for its half life. When cosmic rays hit the troposphere and stratosphere, they interact with 14N in the following way- n + 14N → 14C + p transforming the 14N into 14C.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

I don't know what uranium has to do with transformation of stable nitrogen atoms into unstable carbon atoms. perhaps you could enlighten us all with your own scientific wizardry instead of using a lot of words to say nothing. If I'm incorrect, please elucidate me with your citations because you are attributing statements and claims that I have not made.


edit on 17-3-2016 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
it isn't so difficult, really. the Bible plainly states "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." that doesn't specify a starting point or ending point, and is a singular thought unrelated to the second verse.

each of the 6 days of creation were marked as sunrise and sunset, and would be a relative day as we know it, because there's no reason the authors would use a "day" measured differently than how everyone would understand a "day". also the original language describes "restoration" and not "creation from nothing".

genealogical record seems to indicate the history of "us" as described in the Bible would fall around 4000 BC, making "us" roughly 6000 years old, incidentally lining up with Sumerian written history and timelines.

what is hidden between the lines and in subtext in multiple locations...is the "pre-Adamite world". believing we were the first race on the planet is just naive, if one is following the Bible as their source.

as others have pointed out, the 1 day = 1000 years is simply a metaphor about time being meaningless to a creature that understands infinity, it isn't a literal comparison or mathematical formula.

this is the simple version.

year ? = in the beginning
year ?? = destruction of planet, as discovered in Gen 1:2 forward
year 4000 BC - 6 days of restoration, reintroduction of humans as "us"



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Hmm, so how do know how much carbon an old human bone should have.. Or could have gained, etc? I mean relating 14c to 12c makes sense as long as we can be sure of the original amount of 12c, how is that determined? Also how do we know the original amount of nitrogen, which turns into 14c?

It seems there's at least 3 elements in play here, and we look for ratios between two of them, assuming there was a very specific amount of 12c before.

Why are all of these things assumed to be constants?

We know exactly how much nitrogen, 12 and 14c was present in various life forms thousands of years ago?

Dinosaurs bone was a bad example as carbon dating isn't used for that anyways.
edit on 17-3-2016 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Since 14C levels in living things have doubled in twenty years during the 1940s and 1960s because of fission bombings (apparently), by adding protons to stable carbon, and the sun does the same through thermonuclear fusion, wouldn't you say the Nitrogen to Carbon reaction, although also occurring as you have quoted me pointing out, is definitely not the only way to make 14C?

I mean that would invalidate your statement and your ad hominem would stand on its own again, but on the other hand it's also factual.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: flitzanu




"in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."


Translating BR1SYT and BR1 (בראשית and ברא) by "in the beginning" and "created" while they are based on the same letters is a stretch.

The interesting thing being the other three letters: שית because they're detailed in the same chapter, first ש is given as the difference between mayim and shamayim (water and sky), and the other two are given as hey I'm getting off topic, there's a guy who says 14C is only made from Nitrogen, someone please "elucidate him" for me ok?



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'd guess plenty don't know exactly how it works.... I know I had no idea, I assumed it was just a measurement of one isotope, which even within your description is most definitely not a way you could ever assume the age of something.


Yea. It's likely that many deny it because they don't know completely how it works. The problem is that their ego refuses to let them acknowledge that they don't understand the concept as fluidly as they think they do so as to learn and educate themselves.
edit on 17-3-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar

Since 14C levels in living things have doubled in twenty years during the 1940s and 1960s because of fission bombings (apparently), by adding protons to stable carbon, and the sun does the same through thermonuclear fusion, wouldn't you say the Nitrogen to Carbon reaction, although also occurring as you have quoted me pointing out, is definitely not the only way to make 14C?

I mean that would invalidate your statement and your ad hominem would stand on its own again, but on the other hand it's also factual.



From your own citation braniac-

In earth's upper atmosphere, on the edge of what is commonly called outer space, light atomic nuclei from unknown sources outside of our solar system traveling at speeds approaching the speed of light called cosmic rays rain down continuously. These highly energetic nuclear bullets wreak havoc on the atoms in the upper atmosphere: tearing electrons from their orbitals and setting them free, knocking neutrons and protons from the tight confines of the nucleus and setting them free, generating x‑rays and gamma rays as they decelerate, and creating exotic particles like muons and pions directly from their excessive kinetic energy. These secondary cosmic rays are also highly energetic and will ionize atoms, transmute nuclei, and generate x‑rays themselves. A secondary cosmic ray neutron of sufficient energy striking a common nitrogen 14 nucleus can force it to eject a proton.

147N + 10n → 146C + 11p

This is the process by which all of the carbon 14 on the Earth is produced.


Just to reiterate-

This is the process by which all of the carbon 14 on the Earth is produced.


Let me repeat something I stated earlier, variables in the testing methods are well known and understood. We aren't carbon dating materials that are recent enough to be affected by nuclear detonation that have occurred since 1945. Organisms that were already deceased do not continue to absorb 14C. Your position has zero merit on the efficaciousness of radiocarbon dating. Again, as I stated earlier, 14C is never the sole source of a date. there are controls in place to test against. Dendrochronology is one, ice cores are another. You're welcome to remain willfully ignorant if that's the path you choose but none of what you have said has invalidated anything I have stated, nor has it done so to the testing method.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar





From your own citation braniac-

No, my citation was part of the same website.

Isotopic formation from same weight elements is not the only way to form isotopes, or uranium would not exist.




Dendrochronology is one, ice cores are another.


Dendrochronology is valid as far a a tree's life, which isn't billions or millions of years.

ICe cores determine loosely how many different times water was frozen:


Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years per meter at 100 m depth, 600yr/m at 200 m, 7000yr/m at 400 m, 5000yr/m at 800 m, 6000yr/m at 1600 m, and 5000yr/m at 1934 m.[24]


Also not applicable to million and billion year claims.




You're welcome to remain willfully ignorant if that's the path you choose but none of what you have said has invalidated anything I have stated, nor has it done so to the testing method.


Your opinion isn't what I'm going for. However, since someone else asked for answers, thanks for providing yours and assuring us of their objectivity, I'll provide mine so those who aren't convinced of either have basis for comparison.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar

No, my citation was part of the same website.

Isotopic formation from same weight elements is not the only way to form isotopes, or uranium would not exist.


I'm not talking about uranium, I was discussing 14C so I don't see why Uranium keeps being brought up to debunk the efficacy of 14C dating. Your citation is very clear on how 14C is created on Earth.


Dendrochronology is valid as far a a tree's life, which isn't billions or millions of years..



But it is valid for calibrating analysis of 14C dating, which is what I am discussing. If you take a sample from a tree of known age and test it using 14C methodology and get the same results, then you're getting correct answers. It's quite simple.



ICe cores determine loosely how many different times water was frozen:


Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years per meter at 100 m depth, 600yr/m at 200 m, 7000yr/m at 400 m, 5000yr/m at 800 m, 6000yr/m at 1600 m, and 5000yr/m at 1934 m.[24]
.


I would be happy to comment on this if you could cite your quote.


Also not applicable to million and billion year claims..



And not once did I say they were applicable to ancient dates. I was simply correcting misinformation regarding 14C dating.



Your opinion isn't what I'm going for. However, since someone else asked for answers, thanks for providing yours and assuring us of their objectivity, I'll provide mine so those who aren't convinced of either have basis for comparison.


There's no comparison though. You're comparing two different tests that are used for vastly different things. 14C is only used on organic matter and has a maximum window of 100KA if mass spectrometry is used and 50-60 KA if standard ratio comparisons are used. If you're using U-Pb analysis you can't use it to date rocks younger than 1MA but it is accurate within a known margin of error out to at least 4.5 BA Two different tests for different types of material.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join