Let's see how carbon-14 dating is being carried out on fossilized materials.

Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called “radioactive decay.” Since this process presently happens at a known measured rate, scientists attempt to use it like a “clock” to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed.

Carbon-14 Dating:
(Isoptope of carbon exist in three phases 14C, 13C & 12C).
Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands of year range and not millions. Radioactive means that 14C will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. During this process (called “beta decay”) a neutron in the 14C atom will be converted into a proton. Once 14C is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray, it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere ( 12C behaves like 14C and also combines with oxygen) to form carbon dioxide (CO2 ). Because CO2 gets incorporated into plants (which means the food we eat contains 14C & 12C), all living things should have the same ratio of 14C & 12C in them as in the air we breathe.

How the Carbon-14 Dating Process Works
Once a living thing dies, the dating process begins. As long as an organism is alive it will continue to take in 14C; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Therefore, part of the dating process involves measuring the amount of 14C that remains after some has been lost (decayed). Scientists now use a device called an “Accelerator Mass Spectrometer” (AMS) to determine the ratio of 14C to 12C, which increases the assumed accuracy to about 80,000 years. Two critical questions before dating:
1. How fast does 14C decay?
2. What was the starting amount of 14C in the creature when it died?
The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. Since the half-life of 14C is known (how fast it decays), the only part left to determine is the starting amount of 14C in a fossil. If scientists know the original amount of 14C in a creature when it died, they can measure the current amount and then calculate how many half-lives have passed. Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon-12 (12C). Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies. All living things take in carbon (14C and 12C) from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms. Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C. When an organism dies, this ratio (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change.

A Critical Assumption
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use wouldn't be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay). In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to be accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium). If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.

Dr. Libby choose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14 C / 12 C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of 14C is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

Magnetic Field of the Earth
This another factor that can affect the 14C, The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past. The cause for the long term variation of the 14C level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon.

This history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed. The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old. Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.

Other factor which skeptics may not agree on is the Genesis Flood but the global flood would've buried many 14C that cause coals, oil e.t.c.

14C dating is the best dating but with wrong assumption of nonequillibrium, if the assumption is wrong definitely we will have wrong concluding dating.

Again, magnetic field of earth goes against billions years because if Carl Friedrich could notice it in 1845 and today it's ten times weaker than what he observed in 1845 then if earth is billions years the magnetic field would have faded out.

Your academic intelligence is extremenly beneficial to christianity unlike those that'll have their own waste away in godlessness.Kudos!

Thank you.
All these scientific calculations are contrived to challenge the biblical facts on God, but they have always failed. Only those who confirmed the biblical facts will pass the text of time.
Before creation, there was no earth as written in Genesis 1.

OP is completely wrong.

First of all, radiocarbon dating has never been used to determine the age of the earth. Because of its rate of decay, carbon 14 dating is only useful for objects that are less that 50,000 years old, and the earth is far, far, older than that. The age of the earth is was determined through dating of lead, argon, radium and other isotopes that don't suffer from the problems OP described.

Secondly, scientists are well aware that the ratio of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is not constant. They also know about problems of contamination and possible errors arising from poor sample collection that can affect other elements used for dating. Luckily the science of radio isotope dating has advanced greatly since it was first introduced. We can now estimate the ratio of atmospheric carbon 14 in past through other means and use that information to calibrate the dating method to improve accuracy. For the other isotopes, the sample preparation methods are also much better now. Also the margin for error increases the older the sample is, and that is always taken into account when drawing conclusions.

Third, scientists always try to confirm their findings through more than one independent method. For instance, you discover the ruins of an ancient city, you can date it by carbon dating artefacts found there. But you can also identify the city and use historical methods to find out when it existed. If both dates agree, then you can say how old the city is with some confidence.

In dating the earth, scientists have combined the hundreds of different measurements by different teams worldwide using different isotopes, and virtually all of them have given the same date: slightly more than 4.5 billion years. This also agrees with the measured ages of moon rocks, and meteorite samples. The age of the sun, measured using helioseismology (a totally unrelated method) is slightly more, but still very much in line with what is expected.

Also you can use the rate of genetic mutations in living things to estimate when the common ancestor of all living things lived (the molecular clock method). This tell us that the last common ancestor lived around 3.6 billion years ago i.e. very soon after when the newly formed earth would have cooled down enough to support life.

OP is a good example of what happens when you post about things you know little about without bothering to study the subject matter. Ignorance is no excuse for posting nonsense. And the same goes for those of you agreeing with him.

@Evil Brain

Try to read message and digest it before you reply. Where did you see it in my Op that carbon-14 is being used for dating earth?

It was stated clearly in my Op that Carbon-14 is use to date once living things because all living things absorb carbon-14 and carbon-12 through food and breathing it can't be used to date ROCK. The title read "why earth could not as old as billion years" I didn't say 14C is used to date earth.

Scientist aware carbon-14 is not constant but ignore the nonequilibrium by Libby and the result derive from 14C dating are still hold as true til date.

What you fail to notice is that nobody says scientist didn't use many method of dating but the assumption in their work to calibrate the instrument uses to arrive at specific figure is what is in question not the method. the method and calculation might be correct but give wrong concluding figure.

Dr. Libby the founder of radiocarbon dating in his early work believe that for 14C to reach equilibrium it will take 30,000years but today 14C is still out of equilibrium which means earth isn't yet up to 30,000years then compare to another result that gives billion years. Definitely if you study those methods you will see a critical assumption because most of them(scientists) believe in EVOLUTION so earth must be old to support their claim.

I believe you know that dealing with the PAST needs some kind of assumption because nobody was there and to witness the event.

What's this debate? Every foolish man knows that doG created the earth in 6 nights. A few years ago. He even wrote a book about it.

alfaman1: What's this debate? Every foolish man knows that doG created the earth in 6 nights. A few years ago. He even wrote a book about it.

Is this how to give a meaningful reply as am intellectual being?

Just pray that NASA curiosity rover souldn't find any life on mars but if they find any small organism we have alot to discuss about it.

Emusan:

Is this how to give a meaningful reply as am intellectual being?

Just pray that NASA curiosity rover souldn't find any life on mars but if they find any small organism we have alot to discuss about it.

who pays the piper, dictates the tune... so the possibility of hidding such a a small organism to maintain the evolution hypothesis might be great...

hisblud:

who pays the piper, dictates the tune... so the possibility of hidding such a a small organism to maintain the evolution hypothesis might be great...

Smart reply.So on point.

*bookmarked!!!!!!!!*

Emusan: @Evil Brain

Try to read message and digest it before you reply. Where did you see it in my Op that carbon-14 is being used for dating earth?

It was stated clearly in my Op that Carbon-14 is use to date once living things because all living things absorb carbon-14 and carbon-12 through food and breathing it can't be used to date ROCK. The title read "why earth could not as old as billion years" I didn't say 14C is used to date earth.

Scientist aware carbon-14 is not constant but ignore the nonequilibrium by Libby and the result derive from 14C dating are still hold as true til date.

What you fail to notice is that nobody says scientist didn't use many method of dating but the assumption in their work to calibrate the instrument uses to arrive at specific figure is what is in question not the method. the method and calculation might be correct but give wrong concluding figure.

Dr. Libby the founder of radiocarbon dating in his early work believe that for 14C to reach equilibrium it will take 30,000years but today 14C is still out of equilibrium which means earth isn't yet up to 30,000years then compare to another result that gives billion years. Definitely if you study those methods you will see a critical assumption because most of them(scientists) believe in EVOLUTION so earth must be old to support their claim.

I believe you know that dealing with the PAST needs some kind of assumption because nobody was there and to witness the event.

Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14
C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Carbon dating was presented to the world by Willard Libby in 1949, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Since its introduction it has been used to date many items, including samples of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Shroud of Turin, enough Egyptian artifacts to supply a chronology of Dynastic Egypt,[2] and Ötzi the Iceman.[3]

The dating technique is based on the fact that carbon is found in various forms, including the main stable isotope (12
C) and an unstable isotope (14 C) in all organic matter. Through photosynthesis, plants absorb both forms from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it contains a ratio of 14C to 12C, but, as the 14
C decays with no possibility of replenishment, the ratio decreases at a regular rate. This rate is known as the half-life of 14C. The measurement of 14C decay provides an indication of the age of any carbon-based material (a raw radiocarbon age).[4] However, over time there are small fluctuations in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, fluctuations that have been noted in natural records of the past, such as sequences of tree rings and cave deposits. These records allow for the fine-tuning, or calibration, of the indications derived from measuring the carbon ratio. A raw radiocarbon age, once calibrated, yields a calendar date.

One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites.

Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by the 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[41] This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[41] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).

A variety of sample processing and instrument-based constraints have been postulated to explain the upper age-limit. To examine instrument-based background activities in the AMS instrument of the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California, a set of natural diamonds were dated. Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 Ma yielded14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Where does the 5,000 year limit come from when the same method you describe is been used to date material 60,000 years old which is much more 'older' than the 30,000 years you talk about as equilibrium.

Following, u two are making sense

mkmyers45:

Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14
C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Carbon dating was presented to the world by Willard Libby in 1949, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Since its introduction it has been used to date many items, including samples of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Shroud of Turin, enough Egyptian artifacts to supply a chronology of Dynastic Egypt,[2] and Ötzi the Iceman.[3]

The dating technique is based on the fact that carbon is found in various forms, including the main stable isotope (12
C) and an unstable isotope (14 C) in all organic matter. Through photosynthesis, plants absorb both forms from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it contains a ratio of 14C to 12C, but, as the 14
C decays with no possibility of replenishment, the ratio decreases at a regular rate. This rate is known as the half-life of 14C. The measurement of 14C decay provides an indication of the age of any carbon-based material (a raw radiocarbon age).[4] However, over time there are small fluctuations in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, fluctuations that have been noted in natural records of the past, such as sequences of tree rings and cave deposits. These records allow for the fine-tuning, or calibration, of the indications derived from measuring the carbon ratio. A raw radiocarbon age, once calibrated, yields a calendar date.

One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites.

Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by the 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[41] This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[41] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).

A variety of sample processing and instrument-based constraints have been postulated to explain the upper age-limit. To examine instrument-based background activities in the AMS instrument of the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California, a set of natural diamonds were dated. Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 Ma yielded14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Where does the 5,000 year limit come from when the same method you describe is been used to date material 60,000 years old which is much more 'older' than the 30,000 years you talk about as equilibrium.

Mr. Too know we've seen you, the conutless words you put up here and the OP what make the different?

The blind glass you put-on couldn't allow you to see clearly where it was written that Dr. Libby's work ignored the descripancy of nonequillibrium which is later true.

In a simplest form nonequillibrium means the production rate of carbon14 is not equall the removal rate of carbon14 which it has been found out to be true but at the initial work of Dr. Libby he noticed that for carbon14 to reach equillibrium it will take 30,000yrs but ignore this and proceded to assume ratio 14/12---Is it clear to you now?

My question is if carbon14 is it out of equillibrium till today and it will take carbon14 30,000yrs to reach this equillibrium, does earth old or young?

Emusan:

Mr. Too know we've seen you, the conutless words you put up here and the OP what make the different?

The blind glass you put-on couldn't allow you to see clearly where it was written that Dr. Libby's work ignored the descripancy of nonequillibrium which is later true.

In a simplest form nonequillibrium means the production rate of carbon14 is not equall the removal rate of carbon14 which it has been found out to be true but at the initial work of Dr. Libby he noticed that for carbon14 to reach equillibrium it will take 30,000yrs but ignore this and proceded to assume ratio 14/12---Is it clear to you now?

My question is if carbon14 is it out of equillibrium till today and it will take carbon14 30,000yrs to reach this equillibrium, does earth old or young?

Tree-ring dating gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

Dr Libby's experiment is based on the fact that the rate of removal and deposition is the same but the evidence for the earth’s having a progressively stronger magnetic field in the past is based on reliable historical measurements and “fossil” magnetism trapped in ancient pottery.

So how do you make you calculations when the best estimates indicate that the earth’s magnetic field was twice as strong 1,400 years ago, and possibly four times as strong 2,800 years ago?

Emusan:

Is this how to give a meaningful reply as am intellectual being?

Just pray that NASA curiosity rover souldn't find any life on mars but if they find any small organism we have alot to discuss about it.

ode xtians ... if NASA find life on Mars, then evolution is even more supported as it has been hypothesized that life formed on Mars and got to earth by meteors. So if NASA finds life on mars, which is likely, then earth bound creation of life is destroyed....am not counting on it sha

Emusan: In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium). If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.

Dr. Libby choose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14 C / 12 C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of 14C is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

Magnetic Field of the Earth
This another factor that can affect the 14C, The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past. The cause for the long term variation of the 14C level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon.

This history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed. The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old. Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.

Other factor which skeptics may not agree on is the Genesis Flood but the global flood would've buried many 14C that cause coals, oil e.t.c.

14C dating is the best dating but with wrong assumption of nonequillibrium, if the assumption is wrong definitely we will have wrong concluding dating.

Again, magnetic field of earth goes against billions years because if Carl Friedrich could notice it in 1845 and today it's ten times weaker than what he observed in 1845 then if earth is billions years the magnetic field would have faded out.

another mumu post.

if earth's magnetic field goes by 10% in less than 200 years, then at this rate, the earth will be 2000 years. do you even realize that before posting mumu things here.

@ OP.. See your problem? you base all your argument from one book. Hmmmmm that sounds familiar

Slap Dr in front of Libby and immediately, everything he says has to be correct. Do the right thing by quoting other books and also quote counter arguments from other books for a comprehensive research then draw your conclusion.

ooman:
ode xtians...

Must you be abusive before you comment? Anyway that's how you've been taught in your religion.

if NASA find life on Mars, then evolution is even more supported as it has been hypothesized that life formed on Mars and got to earth by meteors.

After life originated from land &ocean have been refuted, now it is space. Don't you know that cell is not life but it carries life itself. Life is immaterial!

You still believe in this your RM & NS hmmm....if I ask now why evolution of ape to man has not occured...ooman will say it takes a long time....but if I ask is evolution ever occur..ooman will say it happens around him....

Just go and defend yourself in '@Deepsight' thread.

So if NASA finds life on mars, which is likely, then earth bound creation of life is destroyed....am not counting on it sha

Why?

ooman:
another mumu post.

Hmmm...

if earth's magnetic field goes by 10% in less than 200 years, then at this rate, the earth will be 2000 years. do you even realize that before posting mumu things here.

Ooman you too funny, who says the 10% is constant over the years and did everything about earth has been in a regular condictions since its birth?

I believe you do know that?

Area_boy: @ OP.. See your problem? you base all your argument from one book. Hmmmmm that sounds familiar

Which book?

Slap Dr in front of Libby and immediately, everything he says has to be correct. Do the right thing by quoting other books and also quote counter arguments from other books for a comprehensive research then draw your conclusion.

Now that Dr. Libby's work has been refuted atheist begin to reject his work as usual like Miller-Urey remember Libby is an atheist not creationist.

Anyway it's normal atheist behavious, now natural selection is getting old but 'puntuated equilibrium' is the next on evolution.

Why art thou unstable like the moring star your great father?

The OP is just an ignorant young earth creationist that relies on the LIES and STUPIDITY of peusdo scientist that cal themselves creation scientist. . .Can the OP show us any peer reviewed scientific method opf dating from his lying creation scientist tht shows that the earth is 6000 years old?. . .

All these crazy looneys of yours know that the earth isnt 4 billion years old and they haven't shown us and won Nbel peace prices already, eh?. . .Keep deluding yourself. .

mazaje: The OP is just an ignorant young earth creationist that relies on the LIES and STUPIDITY of peusdo scientist that cal themselves creation scientist. . .Can the OP show us any peer reviewed scientific method opf dating from his lying creation scientist tht shows that the earth is 6000 years old?. . .

All these crazy looneys of yours know that the earth isnt 4 billion years old and they haven't shown us and won Nbel peace prices already, eh?. . .Keep deluding yourself. .

Very soon you will claim you become an atheist not on any scientific evidence but always try to defend any scientist reseachs.

You disown your faithful evolution birth ape-to-mazaje just because you have seen the future of evolution. I won't say much!

Emusan:

Very soon you will claim you become an atheist not on any scientific evidence but always try to defend any scientist reseachs.

You disown your faithful evolution birth ape-to-mazaje just because you have seen the future of evolution. I won't say much!

When you distort science only becaus you want to promote your own belief in ancient mythology then i will definately call you out on it. . .I am never ashamed to say I don't know unlike you that keep lying andtwisting stuffs just so that your belief in ancient lies and mythology can be promoted and sustained. . .

Still waiting for the OP to address my observations...

mkmyers45: Still waiting for the OP to address my observations...

The OP does not know what he is yapping about so do not expect any reasonably rejoinder to your observations. . .

Emusan:

Which book?




Now that Dr. Libby's work has been refuted atheist begin to reject his work as usual like Miller-Urey remember Libby is an atheist not creationist.

Anyway it's normal atheist behavious, now natural selection is getting old but 'puntuated equilibrium' is the next on evolution.

Why art thou unstable like the moring star your great father?

Everyone can read, but not all will comprehend. You need comprehension lessons

mkmyers45: Still waiting for the OP to address my observations...

still waiting....

mkmyers45:

Tree-ring dating gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

What are you trying to prove here?
Do you mean carbon-14 dating ratio is correct or what?

Dr Libby's experiment is based on the fact that the rate of removal and deposition is the same but the evidence for the earth’s having a progressively stronger magnetic field in the past is based on reliable historical measurements and “fossil” magnetism trapped in ancient pottery.

Yes! then if the magnetic field is stronger in the past than it is now, why did Libby conclude carbon-14 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium?
This equilibrium is the major discrepancy in Libby's work not the dating method.

So how do you make you calculations when the best estimates indicate that the earth’s magnetic field was twice as strong 1,400 years ago, and possibly four times as strong 2,800 years ago?

Thank God you even mention of a strong magnetic field in past than now, then what makes the difference? I said about 200 years ago you said about 1,400 years. how many 200 years generations do we have in 1,400 years?


You never get my point up till now...hmmmmmm

Double post

Emusan:
What are you trying to prove here?
Do you mean carbon-14 dating ratio is correct or what?

I was making a point....

Yes! then if the magnetic field is stronger in the past than it is now, why did Libby conclude carbon-14 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium?

This equilibrium is the major discrepancy in Libby's work not the dating method.

Now did he? Can you point to me in your works where he did?

Thank God you even mention of a strong magnetic field in past than now, then what makes the difference? I said about 200 years ago you said about 1,400 years. how many 200 years generations do we have in 1,400 years?


You never get my point up till now...hmmmmmm

Dont make me laugh...Do you even know the impact of “fossil” magnetism on your whole argument? Do you full grasp the concept of magnetic pole reversals or do we go by your logic and assume that in just 168 years the earth's magnetic field have gotten 0.0595238095238095% weaker per year? of course we then extrapolate back and we have 1680+5 years for 100% depletion wont we?

mkmyers45:
I was making a point....

What point?

Now did he? Can you point to me in your works where he did?

Go back to the OP

Dont make me laugh...Do you even know the impact of “fossil” magnetism on your whole argument? Do you full grasp the concept of magnetic pole reversals or do we go by your logic and assume that in just 168 years the earth's magnetic field have gotten 0.0595238095238095% weaker per year? of course we then extrapolate back and we have 1680+5 years for 100% depletion wont we?

Even ooman did the samething....how can I describe that?(I mean this your interpolation) did I say this 10% is constant over the years?

See what I said in my Op

emusan:
Again, magnetic field of earth goes against billions years because if Carl Friedrich could notice it in 1845 and today it's ten times weaker than what he observed in 1845 then if earth is billions years the magnetic field would have faded out.

what does the bold tell you?
Please always read and digest message before you jump into conclusion.

My question is, did magnetic field fading up or not?