Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Sonofason]

Do you want to go to a lab to measure it? We can use the *current* decay rate, easily enough measured, to determine the half-life. This isn't a difficult thing to do.

Do you know what a half-life is? After one half-life, half of the original amount is left. That is the definition of the concept. After two half-lives, 1/4 the original amount is left. That radioactive material decay according to an exponential decay law is easily measured for short half-life materials and the general law is easy enough to determine. And yes, the general law is easy enough to establish from known physics. After that, it is simple mathematics.

Well, 50,000 years would constitute about 9 half-lives. Given current technology, and the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, that would leave a small enough amount to be difficult to measure accurately. If you use certain accelerator technology, it is possible, thereby extending the utility of carbon dating (but significantly increasing the costs) to around 100,000 years.


Do you want a reference to a scientific paper detailing the measurement and determination of the half-life of C-14?

No, I'll be satisfied if you show me the evidence or knowledge that you have that has caused you to believe that everything you are saying is absolutely true, and under all the conditions for which it is true. After all, if you need to go outside for the information, it cannot be counted as evidence for your belief. If you are simply believing someone else, I can understand that. I understand faith very well.

 

[Polymath257]

No evidence for evolution! Radiocarbon dating, has dated modern things as thousands of years already! Can be off! There is also something I read about the flood possibly interfering with the results of radiocarbon dating! I would need to research it again in order to explain it! Also atmosphere may have been different back then

You may have read about something like this, but if you , then your sources were badly misinformed (or lying to you). Something as simple as a flood will not affect radioactive decay. There have been *extensive* tests for what will affect the decay rates. Chemical environment, pressure, and temperature do not do so. Even if a flood could affect how much C-14 was produced in the upper atmosphere (at best a small effect), it would have had no effect at all on the other dating methods, such as Rb/Sr, K/Ar, or U-series.

 

[Sonofason]

Well that would be the cases I described, where scientists have calibrated C-14 curves with objects of known ages and with things like lake varves, tree rings, and stalagmites. Now, I'm not sure what sort of support you're looking for on things like this, but here are a few citations (some to web sties, others to more scientific resources)....

Calibration of radiocarbon dates - Wikipedia

Radiocarbon Calibration

C-14 Information and Labs


First, as Polymath pointed out, C-14 dating is only applicable to objects that are less than ~50,000 years old. So any objects older than that would have to be dated using other methods.

And if you read through the resources linked above, you'll see how some of the calibrations extend back over tens of thousands of years, indicating that the decay has not changed over that time.

The method

The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at �10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range.​

The page goes on to describe how the collection and analyses of additional data indicated that the decay rate is constant and the method is reliable.

So I suppose that you are confident that every possible consideration has been considered, that there are absolutely no factors unfactored in to the calculations that you refer to that ought to be factored in? And you can guarantee that? Can you please list all of the factors that have been factored into the known decay rate of C-14, and show why you believe that none have been missed?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is a claim, please show your evidence for this claim.


This is another claim..please show your evidence to support this claim.




This is yet another claim...please show your evidence to support this claim of yours.


The fact is, that you have never seen any evidence that any of these claims of yours here are true, so you send me off to go find my own evidence to prove that something I know is not true is true. Please show evidence, or admit you have none.


I am not asking you for claims that you believe are supported. I am asking you to support your claims.

The support can be found by Googling scientific resources. If you cared about such things, you would probably already know them, or at the least,be in a position to investigate them yourself.

There's a game that many believers like to play in discussions like these called "Fetch the evidence so that I can deny it." Complying is not a very rewarding use of time. Seasoned posters understand that you cannot convince a man of that which he has a stake in not understanding, and often don't bother trying.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please prove to me why my premise regarding the density of the earth is wrong.

So you require others not only to prove their claims, but to disprove yours. Is that it?

 

[Polymath257]

No, I'll be satisfied if you show me the evidence or knowledge that you have that has caused you to believe that everything you are saying is absolutely true, and under all the conditions for which it is true. After all, if you need to go outside for the information, it cannot be counted as evidence for your belief. If you are simply believing someone else, I can understand that. I understand faith very well.

That isn't faith. That is confidence in the scientific process. A very, very different thing. You see, these types of things are done many times and tested by those who would love nothing more than to find an error. It would get their names into the books.

I have knowledge of the math and physics related to radioactive decay. I understand how the nucleus is shielded from the external environment by the electrons in orbitals around that nucleus. I understand the types of things that *can* affect the rates of radioactive decay. This is very well-known physics and applies to many situations other than what are used for dating methods. This physics has been extensively tested and the results of observation compared to the theoretical predictions.

Now, if you think the scientists have missed an effect that can change the decay rates by factors of a million or more, please let someone know!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, I'll be satisfied if you show me the evidence or knowledge that you have that has caused you to believe that everything you are saying is absolutely true, and under all the conditions for which it is true. After all, if you need to go outside for the information, it cannot be counted as evidence for your belief. If you are simply believing someone else, I can understand that. I understand faith very well.

Faith in the sense that you imply is unjustified belief. Believing the that scientific community has a valid method that generates valid results is well evidenced by the fruits of that method, and is therefore justified belief, also sometimes called faith, such as faith that a car that has started 200 times in a row will start again the next time it is tested. I'm certain that you can see that unjustified belief and justified belief are radically different things and each deserves its own word.

Do you understand that?

 

[Sonofason]

The support can be found by Googling scientific resources. If you cared about such things, you would probably already know them, or at the least,be in a position to investigate them yourself.

There's a game that many believers like to play in discussions like these called "Fetch the evidence so that I can deny it." Complying is not a very rewarding use of time. Seasoned posters understand that you cannot convince a man of that which he has a stake in not understanding, and often don't bother trying.

I thought you might have the evidence, since you believe it is true. Apparently, you don't, and you are sending me to someone who might. Apparently, faith is enough for you. That's okay, I like faith. You can't believe anything at all without it.

 

[Sonofason]

So you require others not only to prove their claims, but to disprove yours. Is that it?

Isn't that what science is supposed to do, to discredit false claims and to support truthful claims?

 

[Polymath257]

So I suppose that you are confident that every possible consideration has been considered, that there are absolutely no factors unfactored in to the calculations that you refer to that ought to be factored in? And you can guarantee that? Can you please list all of the factors that have been factored into the known decay rate of C-14, and show why you believe that none have been missed?

First of all, for the rate of decay of a nucleus, the particular type of decay is potentially relevant. For example, with C-14, the way the decay happens is that a neutron changes into a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. This happens via the weak nuclear force.

So, what types of things *could* affect such a decay rate? Well, if you strip off the electrons from the atom, the bare nucleus would be in an environment that has a smaller E&M field, which would have a small effect on the weak force and thereby on the decay rate. Typically, the changes in such decay rates are less than 1% even with such highly charged nuclei.

Now, how could you produce such a stripping of electrons? Well, you could do it via an incredibly high electromagnetic field or very high temperatures (millions of degrees). Those are not consistent with the existence of life, so are ruled out in our current context. The same is true for gravitational fields strong enough to produce a measurable change.

Chemical bonding can slightly change the charge around the nucleus, but the effects of such bonds on the decay rates are fractions of a percent. Pressure could potentially change decay rates for those nuclei undergoing electron capture, but that isn't what happens in C-14, which emits electrons instead of capturing them.

So, let's see. Temperature, Pressure, Electromagnetic fields, Gravitational fields, Chemical environment. In ALL of these, the decay rates for C-14 (and also, I might add, for Rb/Sr, K/AR, etc) change by *at most* a percent.

Again, if you think that someone has missed something that can change the decay rates by a factor or thousands or millions, please let someone know! You will be up for a Nobel Prize in nuclear chemistry.

 

[Sonofason]

That isn't faith. That is confidence in the scientific process. A very, very different thing. You see, these types of things are done many times and tested by those who would love nothing more than to find an error. It would get their names into the books.

I have knowledge of the math and physics related to radioactive decay. I understand how the nucleus is shielded from the external environment by the electrons in orbitals around that nucleus. I understand the types of things that *can* affect the rates of radioactive decay. This is very well-known physics and applies to many situations other than what are used for dating methods. This physics has been extensively tested and the results of observation compared to the theoretical predictions.

Now, if you think the scientists have missed an effect that can change the decay rates by factors of a million or more, please let someone know!

Sure, sure...I get it. I understand perfectly. That is called blind faith. After-all, it's science we're talking about, right? How could it ever be wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't that what science is supposed to do, to discredit false claims and to support truthful claims?

Science is supposed to use the evidence obtained from observations to form hypotheses and do testing to determine which of the hypotheses agree with further observations.

Which observations lead you to think that the Earth was once 4 times the size it is now? Now, let's be clear. This does NOT include the time when it was first forming from the dust but rather for the Earth at some point within the last 4 billion years or so.

 

[Sonofason]

Faith in the sense that you imply is unjustified belief. Believing the that scientific community has a valid method that generates valid results is well evidenced by the fruits of that method, and is therefore justified belief, also sometimes called faith, such as faith that a car that has started 200 times in a row will start again the next time it is tested. I'm certain that you can see that unjustified belief and justified belief are radically different things and each deserves its own word.

Do you understand that?

I see, so if science got it right once, they must be right in all cases. I see.

 

[Jose Fly]

So I suppose that you are confident that every possible consideration has been considered

What do you mean by "every possible consideration"?

And yes, as long as we stay within the realm of reasonableness, I am quite confident that all the relevant factors have been considered. The calibration of C-14 results with objects of known dates strongly supports that.

that there are absolutely no factors unfactored in to the calculations that you refer to that ought to be factored in?

Yes, I'm confident in that.

And you can guarantee that?

"Guarantee"? To whom, and to what end? I mean, if I answer to you, yes I guarantee that, will you accept my guarantee? If not, then what was the point in asking for my personal guarantee in the first place?

Can you please list all of the factors that have been factored into the known decay rate of C-14, and show why you believe that none have been missed?

They have tested decay rates under extreme temperature, pressure, chemical state, and electric or magnetic field strength and not found any changes. And as I described, we've dated objects of known date and the results correspond to the actual date, thereby indicating that the decay rates are constant and the method is reliable.

Now, if you know of a mechanism that can significantly alter the beta decay process you should describe it. I'm sure a lot of nuclear engineers would be very interested.

 

[Sonofason]

First of all, for the rate of decay of a nucleus, the particular type of decay is potentially relevant. For example, with C-14, the way the decay happens is that a neutron changes into a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. This happens via the weak nuclear force.

So, what types of things *could* affect such a decay rate? Well, if you strip off the electrons from the atom, the bare nucleus would be in an environment that has a smaller E&M field, which would have a small effect on the weak force and thereby on the decay rate. Typically, the changes in such decay rates are less than 1% even with such highly charged nuclei.

Now, how could you produce such a stripping of electrons? Well, you could do it via an incredibly high electromagnetic field or very high temperatures (millions of degrees). Those are not consistent with the existence of life, so are ruled out in our current context. The same is true for gravitational fields strong enough to produce a measurable change.

Chemical bonding can slightly change the charge around the nucleus, but the effects of such bonds on the decay rates are fractions of a percent. Pressure could potentially change decay rates for those nuclei undergoing electron capture, but that isn't what happens in C-14, which emits electrons instead of capturing them.

So, let's see. Temperature, Pressure, Electromagnetic fields, Gravitational fields, Chemical environment. In ALL of these, the decay rates for C-14 (and also, I might add, for Rb/Sr, K/AR, etc) change by *at most* a percent.

Again, if you think that someone has missed something that can change the decay rates by a factor or thousands or millions, please let someone know! You will be up for a Nobel Prize in nuclear chemistry.

How does the density of the carbon atom affect its decay rate?

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, sure...I get it. I understand perfectly. That is called blind faith. After-all, it's science we're talking about, right? How could it ever be wrong.

No, it is not *blind* faith: that is the property of religions. Scientific *confidence* comes from the fact that scientific hypotheses are tested against a wide range of situations. This is *exactly* the same type of confidence you have when you go to use electricity to turn on your computer. We have tested the properties of electrons, silicon, etc enough that we have confidence in the outcomes to the point that we have full technologies based upon that confidence.

We know from extensive testing of all the isotopes we have been able to test how radioactive decay works. We know from detailed models of nuclei, which have also been tested, how to compute theoretically the decay rates. We can compare those decay rates to those observed in the lab.

Yes, you can maintain ignorance and wonder whether Newtonian physics applies to the solar system, but all you have to do is a bit of research and observation and you can find these things out for yourself. For that matter, go do your own experiments on radioactivity if you think that the scientists have missed something. You could put yourself up for a Nobel Prize!

 

[Sonofason]

Science is supposed to use the evidence obtained from observations to form hypotheses and do testing to determine which of the hypotheses agree with further observations.

Which observations lead you to think that the Earth was once 4 times the size it is now? Now, let's be clear. This does NOT include the time when it was first forming from the dust but rather for the Earth at some point within the last 4 billion years or so.

Perhaps the fact that the continents all fit together, even along the pacific ocean, but only on a much smaller planet, and that there is no evidence of tectonic plate subduction. As the earth expanded, cracks formed in the earth's crust. These weak areas where the earth has cracks allowed mantle material to rise to the surface, filling those cracks. As the cracks widened, the oceans basins were formed. None of these ocean basins existed prior to 200 million years ago, and probably more recent than that, assuming that I am correct, and dating methods are flawed, all of the earths continental land masses were all interconnected. That could have only occurred on a much smaller planet, and that planet existed less than 200 million years ago.

 

[Polymath257]

How does the density of the carbon atom affect its decay rate?

First of all, it is incredibly hard to change the density of a single atom. Pressure will change the overall density of the sample be pushing the atoms closer together, but won't change the density of the atoms themselves. If you have a nucleus undergoing electron capture, this can affect the rate slightly (less than 1%), but for electron emission (beta decay) or alpha decay, the answer to your question is that density of the atom doesn't change the rates. If the density is changed, that is *all* in how far the electrons in orbitals around the nucleus move, not anything about the nucleus itself.

So, to answer your question: very little and not in the cases you need for dating methods.

 

[Sonofason]

What do you mean by "every possible consideration"?

And yes, as long as we stay within the realm of reasonableness, I am quite confident that all the relevant factors have been considered. The calibration of C-14 results with objects of known dates strongly supports that.


Yes, I'm confident in that.


"Guarantee"? To whom, and to what end? I mean, if I answer to you, yes I guarantee that, will you accept my guarantee? If not, then what was the point in asking for my personal guarantee in the first place?


They have tested decay rates under extreme temperature, pressure, chemical state, and electric or magnetic field strength and not found any changes. And as I described, we've dated objects of known date and the results correspond to the actual date, thereby indicating that the decay rates are constant and the method is reliable.

Now, if you know of a mechanism that can significantly alter the beta decay process you should describe it. I'm sure a lot of nuclear engineers would be very interested.

Okay then, what is the decay rate of carbon-14 when it is four times more dense than the carbon-14 we see today?

 

[Sonofason]

First of all, it is incredibly hard to change the density of a single atom. Pressure will change the overall density of the sample be pushing the atoms closer together, but won't change the density of the atoms themselves. If you have a nucleus undergoing electron capture, this can affect the rate slightly (less than 1%), but for electron emission (beta decay) or alpha decay, the answer to your question is that density of the atom doesn't change the rates. If the density is changed, that is *all* in how far the electrons in orbitals around the nucleus move, not anything about the nucleus itself.

So, to answer your question: very little and not in the cases you need for dating methods.

Are you suggesting that a carbon atom can exist in a singularity? What is the decay rate of carbon in a singularity?