Carbon Dating Questions
- mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29570
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
Carbon Dating Questions
If all matter was created at the Big Bang, then why does C14 date with different times? Aren't they all the same age?
- inho
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3286
- Location: in a galaxy far, far away
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
No. Carbon atoms have different ages.
No atoms were created at big bang, they were formed much later. Atoms are not eternal, they die and born in fusion and fission reactions.
No atoms were created at big bang, they were formed much later. Atoms are not eternal, they die and born in fusion and fission reactions.
- mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29570
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole? - Scientific American
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
How did the big bang create the universe? « Why-Sci
Where did the matter in the universe come from? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.
How did the big bang create the universe? « Why-Sci
The big bang theory describes the creation of everything in the universe. According to this theory, all the matter in the universe came into existence at the same time during an event known as the big bang, which happened about 13.7 billion years ago.
Where did the matter in the universe come from? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
The next question to ask is: where did all the antimatter go? For each particle created in this fashion, there is exactly one antiparticle. In this case, there should have been exactly as much antimatter as there is matter. If that were true, when the universe had cooled somewhat each particle would have found an antiparticle and combined to form a boson (this process is called annihilation of the particles). Actually, this was the fate of most of these pairs--something like 10 billion particles annihilated for every one that survived. The survival of even such a small fraction was enough to form all of the matter in our universe. At some point during this process, something else must have happened to cause the survival of more particles than antiparticles (we call this the particle-antiparticle asymmetry).
- stillwater
- captain of 100
- Posts: 342
- Location: SLC
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
Matter does not equal carbon atoms. The first matter that condensed was hydrogen and helium. More massive atoms with more protons and neutrons are formed via nuclear fusion and then expelled in supernovae, a process that we have observed happening through spectography and telescopes. Hence, carbon wasn't formed at the time of the big bang even though the matter that would later fuse into carbon was.
- captainfearnot
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1966
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
Saying that all matter was present in (or created by) the Big Bang is not the same as saying that all atoms have always existed. The sun is constantly turning hydrogen into helium. Hence, there are helium atoms in the sun that were created only this morning.
By "matter" this article is referring to the elementary particles from which all atoms would eventually be formed.
By "matter" this article is referring to the elementary particles from which all atoms would eventually be formed.
- mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29570
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
Good grief, I just deleted my laborious reply to the OP, while talking to my wife about something else. My intention was to modify the post and thought I had replicated it, instead.
- Arenera
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2712
- brlenox
- A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
- Posts: 2615
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
I’ll attempt to quickly reproduce it.
Here is a short run down on how C-14 dating works.
C-14, which is a radioisotope of carbon, is created in the atmosphere by bombardment of cosmic rays. Once created there is a 50% probability that it will have decayed to its carbon daughter product within 5.7 K years (i.e., no longer radioactive), which is the half-life of C-14. For large amounts of C-14 created at roughly the same time, only 50% of this amount will remain as C-14, after 5.7 K years. Again, the half-life decay rate in operation.
Here is a description of how C-14 is created in the atmosphere, located at: http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... on-141.htm
The way the C-14 dating works, is that the C-14 is converted, along w/other atmospheric carbon into CO2 (carbon dioxide). The amount of C-14 in C02 in the atmosphere reaches a relative steady percentage, that doesn’t greatly vary over time.Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.
Living organisms, such as trees will ingest this atmospheric CO2, including the set amount of C-14 incorporated into the CO2. When the organism dies, this ingestion stops, and the set amount of C-14 starts to decay.
Dating is accomplished by measuring the residual C-14 and good estimates of the age of when the tree died can be made. These dates have to be corrected for more absolute dates, however. And the maximum age that can be dated for a dead organism, is roughly 50 to 60 K years BP (before present, i.e., 1950), because the C-14 still present can no longer be accurately measured.
Sea shells cannot be RC dated because they contain recycled carbon that has long since lost all of its atmospheric C-14. This is called ‘dead carbon’.
Edited because I forgot the K (thousand) in the C-14 half-life, etc.
Last edited by larsenb on September 12th, 2017, 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Arenera
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2712
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
I was tempted with the nitrogens, but there was something strange so I didn't.
- brlenox
- A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
- Posts: 2615
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
Well I am embarrassed to admit it but I was really hot into an einsteinium for a while until I found out she was a relative.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3064
- Location: Augusta, GA
- Contact:
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
C14 is created all the time by neutrinos from the sun. The rate of neutrinos from the sun varies.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... image7.png
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... image7.png
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
That doesn't mesh w/the information I posted above from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... on-141.htmdavedan wrote: ↑September 12th, 2017, 6:45 pm C14 is created all the time by neutrinos from the sun. The rate of neutrinos from the sun varies.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... image7.png
Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 8960
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
I don't remember the particulars, but C14 dating really isn't as good as its cracked up to be.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4066
- Location: Vineyard, Utah
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
I believe that lithium was also among the first atoms to condense, but nothing heavier. Therefore everything around us except hydrogen, helium, and lithium was formed in stars. Our bodies are the products of supernova.stillwater wrote: ↑September 12th, 2017, 10:04 am Matter does not equal carbon atoms. The first matter that condensed was hydrogen and helium. More massive atoms with more protons and neutrons are formed via nuclear fusion and then expelled in supernovae, a process that we have observed happening through spectography and telescopes. Hence, carbon wasn't formed at the time of the big bang even though the matter that would later fuse into carbon was.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4066
- Location: Vineyard, Utah
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
Radiocarbon dating is only useful for things younger than about 50,000 years because of the relatively short, 5,730 year half life of carbon 14.
There are at least ten different radiometric dating methods, with uranium-lead dating being the popular approach for really old items (potentially well over 4.5 billion years).
There are at least ten different radiometric dating methods, with uranium-lead dating being the popular approach for really old items (potentially well over 4.5 billion years).
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1596
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
My opinion is that the big bang lie was created to bring ex nihilo creation Christians into a belief that is sustained by the modern scientific theorist and the globalist community.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1596
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
A deception of mass proportions
Last edited by onefour1 on September 12th, 2017, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
Apologies. Forgot the K (thousand) in my C-14 half-life values in my post, above. I had to redo the post, and this slipped through cracks.brianj wrote: ↑September 12th, 2017, 8:28 pm Radiocarbon dating is only useful for things younger than about 50,000 years because of the relatively short, 5,730 year half life of carbon 14.
There are at least ten different radiometric dating methods, with uranium-lead dating being the popular approach for really old items (potentially well over 4.5 billion years).
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 8960
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
The sun mostly fuses hydrogen into helium; older stars make heavier elements, as they become red giants or white dwarfs. Anything higher than Nickel Iron requires more energy to fuse than it produces, meaning super massive stars going super nova as they collapse into black holes.brianj wrote: ↑September 12th, 2017, 8:19 pmI believe that lithium was also among the first atoms to condense, but nothing heavier. Therefore everything around us except hydrogen, helium, and lithium was formed in stars. Our bodies are the products of supernova.stillwater wrote: ↑September 12th, 2017, 10:04 am Matter does not equal carbon atoms. The first matter that condensed was hydrogen and helium. More massive atoms with more protons and neutrons are formed via nuclear fusion and then expelled in supernovae, a process that we have observed happening through spectography and telescopes. Hence, carbon wasn't formed at the time of the big bang even though the matter that would later fuse into carbon was.
Cosmic rays interacting with frozen gases in deep space produce B3, and other large molecules that are the building blocks of life. ... https://www.wired.com/2013/02/high-energy-cosmic-rays/
Last edited by BeNotDeceived on September 12th, 2017, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 8960
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1690
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
I don't proclaim myself to be an expert but I had teachers who were. I loved chemistry in college. I didn't always love my test scores but it was fun and fascinating to study. I'm so grateful for nice teachers too. We used to have discussions with them and they knew their stuff. One time we asked them about carbon dating.
The quickie answer for you is I remember clearly them telling us that the further back you go the less accurate carbon dating is. Specifically I remember the teacher saying something like anything beyond like a thousand years it gets skewed pretty fast at that point and then the gaps get really big after that between real and non real ages.
This is also reflected in genes too. A bunch of genetics people studying DNA compared what they think of how we think of time of genes and found through their study of Nicholai something the czar of Russia's family genes that scientists are off on timelines. This was interesting because they had solid dates and DNA still for this czar of Russia and how far back he lived. And when they tracked it they found that basically its similar to carbon dating too in that its a bit off from what we think it is. But sometimes scientists want to throw out the good data when their hypothesis is wrong instead of throw out the bad hypothesis. (Forgot which Nicholas/Nicholai but definitely the Czars of Russia line.)
Carbon dating still is useful and a good tool. So I'm not bashing it. It's just important to know where it's limits are.
The quickie answer for you is I remember clearly them telling us that the further back you go the less accurate carbon dating is. Specifically I remember the teacher saying something like anything beyond like a thousand years it gets skewed pretty fast at that point and then the gaps get really big after that between real and non real ages.
This is also reflected in genes too. A bunch of genetics people studying DNA compared what they think of how we think of time of genes and found through their study of Nicholai something the czar of Russia's family genes that scientists are off on timelines. This was interesting because they had solid dates and DNA still for this czar of Russia and how far back he lived. And when they tracked it they found that basically its similar to carbon dating too in that its a bit off from what we think it is. But sometimes scientists want to throw out the good data when their hypothesis is wrong instead of throw out the bad hypothesis. (Forgot which Nicholas/Nicholai but definitely the Czars of Russia line.)
Carbon dating still is useful and a good tool. So I'm not bashing it. It's just important to know where it's limits are.
- stillwater
- captain of 100
- Posts: 342
- Location: SLC
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
I think you mean more massive, which actually means the stars die and explode before they can get very old at all.BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑September 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm older stars make heavier elements, as they become red giants or white dwarfs.
- mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29570
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
Re: Carbon Dating Questions
On this we agree.BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑September 12th, 2017, 8:03 pmI don't remember the particulars, but C14 dating really isn't as good as its cracked up to be.