Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Monk Of Reason]

If you are seeing young carbon, and old carbon, how are you determining the age of the carbon that you find in the rocks surrounding a supposedly 6 million year old skeleton. How do you know if the carbon deposited near the bones were young or old when they were deposited?

Are you aware of what a half-life is? Do you know that depending how how far along the half life of a known element is, you can then determine its age?

And unless you are saying we should assume that things were "created" old (which there is profound lack of evidence) what would you normally assume?

 

[Looncall]

I do not see any evidence that radio-carbon dating is a reliable method of dating, when dealing with the ages of things that existed long ago. How can I be sure that the half-life of atoms of a radioactive nuclide decays at the same rate today as it did a million years ago, or even a thousand years ago?

The constancy of decay rates can be checked in several ways. One is observation of decay by means of light arriving from great distances (and therefore from long ago). Another is examination of isotopic ratios in the debris of fossil nuclear reactors.

In fact, radioactivity is so well understood that decay rates can be calculated.

The smug ignorance of the superstition-addled is not impressive.

 

[Sonofason]

Are you aware of what a half-life is? Do you know that depending how how far along the half life of a known element is, you can then determine its age?

And unless you are saying we should assume that things were "created" old (which there is profound lack of evidence) what would you normally assume?

I suppose then that you are suggesting that all carbon formed at the same time? If so, then all carbon ought to be showing the same age. Perhaps you can clear this up for me.

 

[Sonofason]

Will the true scientists please stand up.

 

[Sonofason]

The constancy of decay rates can be checked in several ways. One is observation of decay by means of light arriving from great distances (and therefore from long ago). Another is examination of isotopic ratios in the debris of fossil nuclear reactors.

In fact, radioactivity is so well understood that decay rates can be calculated.

The smug ignorance of the superstition-addled is not impressive.

You all are claiming a certain knowledge. I'd like to see your evidence.

 

[Looncall]

I suppose then that you are suggesting that all carbon formed at the same time? If so, then all carbon ought to be showing the same age. Perhaps you can clear this up for me.

Such determined ignorance!

Carbon-14, used in dating, is continuously formed in the upper atmosphere. Stable carbon is formed mainly in stars.

How about learning about things instead of snidely dismissing them?

 

[Looncall]

You all are claiming a certain knowledge. I'd like to see your evidence.

A useful starting point is:

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

As it happens, I have myself done research involving attempts to change decay rates. I assure you that any change is so insignificant that it makes no difference to dating techniques, at least not enough to give YECs any comfort,

Please abandon using PRATTs. You just make yourself look silly.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I suppose then that you are suggesting that all carbon formed at the same time? If so, then all carbon ought to be showing the same age. Perhaps you can clear this up for me.

Not all carbon formed at the same time. But when it does form it begins its half life shortly after its formation. We have old carbon and we have new carbon. They decay at the same rate regardless of age.

 

[McBell]

What is sad is that I waste so much time on you.

cry me a river.

Sadder still, you seem proud of your blatant double standards.

But since you have no idea what I am talking about, I shall let you continue your delusions.

 

[McBell]

I'd like to see your evidence.

:biglaugh:

One wonders how long it will take for you to flat out deny the evidence....


I bet not long.

 

[McBell]

Will the true scientists please stand up.

Wouldn't do any good.

You will still flat out deny what you dislike.

Your double standards and all....

 

[Looncall]

Not all carbon formed at the same time. But when it does form it begins its half life shortly after its formation. We have old carbon and we have new carbon. They decay at the same rate regardless of age.

The relevant point is that living things incorporate the isotope Carbon-14 (radioactive) and Carbon-12 (stable). At death, carbon is no longer incorporated, and , as the Carbon-14 decays, the ratio of the two isotopes continually changes and indicates the age of the remains.

It is remarkably simple. YECs make themselves look silly by trying to dismiss it.

 

[Sonofason]

Such determined ignorance!

Carbon-14, used in dating, is continuously formed in the upper atmosphere. Stable carbon is formed mainly in stars.

How about learning about things instead of snidely dismissing them?

Did I not ask you to clear up my understanding on the matter? Why be so arrogant in your response? Are you so dense as to think that when someone asks you a question that it is a sign of snide dismissal? Just answer the question. I don't care for your personal attacks. When I ask you a question, you answer it, and that's it. Just answer it, and then remain silent.

So back to the question. If Carbon-14 is in the atmosphere, I imagine it can remain in the atmosphere for either short periods of time, or long periods of time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

How do you know the Carbon-14 that was deposited with your so called 4 billion year old bones wasn't deposited until it was old carbon-14, instead of young carbon-14?

 

[Sonofason]

A useful starting point is:

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

As it happens, I have myself done research involving attempts to change decay rates. I assure you that any change is so insignificant that it makes no difference to dating techniques, at least not enough to give YECs any comfort,

Please abandon using PRATTs. You just make yourself look silly.

Two personal attacks now. I call on someone else with more intelligence to answer my questions. You, I will attempt to ignore.

 

[Sonofason]

Not all carbon formed at the same time. But when it does form it begins its half life shortly after its formation. We have old carbon and we have new carbon. They decay at the same rate regardless of age.

How do we know the carbon deposited with the bones is young when it is deposited with the bones? Or is it carbon that was in the bones already when it was deposited? And how do we know the age of the carbon if it was contained within the bones when it was deposited?

 

[Sonofason]

:biglaugh:

One wonders how long it will take for you to flat out deny the evidence....


I bet not long.

I will not accept, nor will I deny evidence I have not seen.
I will not accept, nor will I deny evidence I don't understand.

Wonder away.

 

[Sonofason]

Wouldn't do any good.

You will still flat out deny what you dislike.

Your double standards and all....

The only thing that I deny is having seen any convincing evidence. Just produce some convincing evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

The relevant point is that living things incorporate the isotope Carbon-14 (radioactive) and Carbon-12 (stable). At death, carbon is no longer incorporated, and , as the Carbon-14 decays, the ratio of the two isotopes continually changes and indicates the age of the remains.

It is remarkably simple. YECs make themselves look silly by trying to dismiss it.

Liars will say that I have dismissed evidence. The truth may be that I don't understand it. But you are clearly not patient enough to explain it. That's quite all right. It's utterly unimportant anyhow.

 

[LuisDantas]

Living beings exchange carbon with the environment while they are alive, and therefore their ratio of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is pretty much identical to that of the open environment.

Dead bodies, however, have no metabolism and end up trapping their carbon without exchanging it any more. Their C14 begins to decay without being substituted with random molecules from the outside, and therefore measuring its rate gives a good estimate of how long it was since the body died.

How do we know the carbon deposited with the bones is young when it is deposited with the bones?

If by "young" you mean "with typical ration of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon", it is because it is taken from the general environment.

Carbon-14 has a half-life of over 5700 years, so its decay is only significative when it is trapped inside an organism (due to its death) for at least a century or so.

Or is it carbon that was in the bones already when it was deposited?

Sorry, what do you mean?

And how do we know the age of the carbon if it was contained within the bones when it was deposited?

It is indeed because it was contained in the bones and therefore not flowing and mixing with random carbon.

Once trapped in the body, it will decay like any other, halving the amount of radioactive carbon molecules every 5730 years or so. The more ancient the body, the less radioactive carbon remains in proportion to the non-radioactive carbon.

The carbon does decay when the body was alive as well, but the cells and their carbon are constantly replaced, thereby limiting the overall decay. Even if the organism for some reason has little cell renewal, it is still built and grown out of environmental food that will have typical ratios of C14, and a half life of 5730 years means that there is little decay during the lifetime of any organism.

How do you know the Carbon-14 that was deposited with your so called 4 billion year old bones wasn't deposited until it was old carbon-14, instead of young carbon-14?

It would take a miracle for random carbon molecules to simply happen to have an unusually low amount of C14 while they are taken to form bones of any given organism (I assume that by "old" C14 you mean decayed C14, which is just less C14 and more non-radioactive carbon).

 

[Sonofason]

Wouldn't do any good.

You will still flat out deny what you dislike.

Your double standards and all....

I don't care if you think I have double standards. It's been quite some time since I've thought that you had anything intelligent to offer in this debate. Come to think of it, you never have. So I'm not going to start worrying about whether or not you think I have a double standard. You are among the least of my concerns.