John, I finally got a response to the email I sent to the folks at
Answers In Genesis. One of your questions was not specificly answered.
But I can now directly address your question about the dino blood
findings, with a link anyway. The information on the linked page is too
good, IMHO, to try to summarize.
Ralph Shumaker wrote:
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Ralph Shumaker wrote:
[snip]
The point about C14 was that its half-life follows very reliable
statistical odds. The presence of C14 in items that supposedly are
millions of years old should be undetectable by modern instruments.
And even if modern instruments are so sensitive so as to be able to
detect such miniscule amounts, the amounts should be consistent with
the supposed millions of years the object is supposed to be. But this
is not the case of any of the specimens examined. But you totally
ignored this aspect, of course, because of the obvious implications
that the specimens are not nearly as old as wishful evolutionists
believe them to be.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp
According to conventional geology, the ^14 C in once-living objects
older than about 100,000 years should have all gone, yet we
frequently find objects supposedly /millions/ of years old that
contain measurable quantities of carbon-14.^1
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp#r1>
Of course. Remember what we said about half-lives that you found no new
information in? Remember how 0 is an aymptote of radioactive decay? So -
- we should get to zero, exactly, when? Never?
There is an upper limit as to the _useful_ amounts of C14 for dating
purposes. This is different from zero. Look at your speedometer on your
car sometime. If you crawl along at <1mph your speedometer will read
_zero_ but your speed most certainly is not zero. Your seedometer is not
reading enough useful speed to provide an accurate number.
This is an imperfect anology. All are. The only perfect analogy is the
subject under study, but that would not be an anology, would it? I only
provide this as a demonstration between an absolute zero, and a lack of
effective information _for a given purpose_.
In the case of the car, you could use a fixed distance and a stop watch
to determine your speed, even if your speedometer cannot read such low
levels.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. We are not talking about the reliability of
C14's decay rate being tied to the ability of the intruments detection
at threshold levels near zero. We are talking about significant levels
that should not be there if the specimens are indeed millions of years
old. C14's decay rate doesn't care about threshold detectability, nor
the machines trying to do it. We are *not* talking about threshold
levels. If the specimens truly were millions of years old, the actual
levels of C14 should be much, *much* closer to threshlold levels.
*That* is the point being put forth.
In other words, the speedometer here (according to evolutionists) should
be reading 0 but is actually reading far above it.
And the unreliability (that you mention) of C14 for accurate dating is
not because of a defect in the C14 detection process, nor in its rate
of decay. It is unreliable when levels get near enough to zero that
they approach the limits of the machine to accurately detect them. C14
dating is also unreliable because of the faulty assumption that
atmospheric C14 is, and has been, at near equilibrium (as it should be
if the earth is more than 50,000 years old). Its unreliability has
been proven because of objects of known age proving so. It was
considered foolproof until objects of known age proved otherwise.
Regarding C14, here is a link provided by the reply I received from AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/carbon14.asp
Attempting to give a Reader's Digest version:
- Cosmic rays energize N14 into C14, a radioactive element subject to
half-life decay of a known rate.
- C12 is a stable element found in all living entities which breathe in
air from the atmosphere.
- C14 behaves the same as C12, and molecular interactions don't seem to
care if it's C12 or C14.
- C14 seems to be fairly evenly dispersed throughout the atmosphere such
that the C14/C12 ratio will be pretty much the same no matter where it
is sampled.
- At any given moment, the ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere will be
the same in most entities living (breathing) in that atmosphere.
- Despite the decay of C14 back to N14, the ratio of C14/C12 in a
breathing entity will be virtually identical to that of the atmosphere
in which it breathes.
- When the breathing entity breathes its last breath, that ratio begins
to diverge from that of the atmosphere (at the time of death) as the
C14/C12 ratio in the dead entity shrinks.
- This provides a clock that does not begin to tick until the entity
breathes it's last breath.
- Assuming the decay rate of C14 to be the same in the unobservable
past, this allows us to determine the age of the dead entity.
- But that ratio is also dependent upon the C14/C12 ratio at the moment
of death.
- The industrial revolution has greatly increased the levels of C12 in
the atmosphere which affects the results, but compensation for this is
easily made due to tree ring studies which have shown us the C14/C12
ratio before this period.
- But beyond that it is assumed (by evolutionists) that the C14/C12
ratio had been pretty much in equilibrium since it only takes around
30,000 years for the ratio to achieve equilibrium.
- W.F. Libby, founder of this system, assumed the observations of his
day (of C14 entering & leaving the system) to be incorrect due to
experimental error since they showed that C14 was entering the system
some 12-20% faster than it was leaving which mandated a young earth
which in turn was absurd to him, who in turn just simply dismissed them
as being "flawed".
- "What about modern measurements, using advanced technology such as
satellites? Unfortunately for the ‘old-Earth’ advocates, the studies of
such renowned atmospheric physicists as Suess and Lingenfelter show that
C14 is entering the system some 30-32% *faster* than it is leaving it.
The model of radiocarbon dating which Libby developed, using his
incorrect ‘uniform’ assumption, must therefore be corrected to fit the
*facts* about C14-let us call the new, corrected model the ‘non-uniform’
model. What does this mean? It implies that if the C14 is still
‘building up’, we can calculate how old the whole system is—this puts an
upper limit on the age of the atmosphere of some 7 to 10,000 years.
Also, it means that a thousand years ago, the C14/C12 ratio in the
atmosphere was less than today (because the C14 was still building up).
Therefore a specimen which died a thousand years ago will show an
older age than its true age. Two thousand years ago, specimens would
have still less C14 to start with, so they have an even greater error.
In other words, the further you go back, the more you have to shrink the
radiocarbon dates to make them fit the facts. Remember that this
correction is based on *measurable scientific data*, not on any
creationist preconceptions."
- Some creationists believe that there was a thick canopy of water vapor
above the atmosphere which would have greatly reduced the rate of C14
production which would in turn greatly affect the C14/C12 ratio in
entities dying in that age, making them appear to be much much older.
- The measured exponential decay of Earth's magnetic field (getting
weaker) is increasing the influx of cosmic rays, which gives reason to
believe that C14 production was lower in the distant past.
- Even assuming C14/C12 equilibrium (producing increasingly exagerated
ages for the older specimens), evolutionists are often seriously
embarrassed by the much-too-recent ages of dead entities found within
rock supposedly much much older than the carcass' C14/C12 ratio.
- Examples include coal (whose C14/C12 ratio yields 1680 years) embedded
in supposedly 330 million year old rock, natural gas (C14/C12: 30,000 to
34,000 years) which should be 50 to 135 million years old, bones of a
sabre-tooth tiger (C14/C12: 28,000) which should be 100,000 years old,
and a block of wood (C14/C12: 4,000 years) encased in rock supposedly 70
million years old.
- If the ratios in these items were adjusted for a reduced C14/C12 ratio
in the past, then 1680, 30.000-34.000, 28.000, and 4.000 (respectively)
would each be even smaller.
<Excerpt>
A question which could be asked after all this is: does radio-carbon,
adjusted to fit the ‘non-uniform’ model, give any independent evidence
of a worldwide catastrophe such as the Flood? Certainly if there was
such a Flood, as we maintain from several other lines of evidence and
reasoning, most living things would have perished, and so we would
expect a ‘cut-off’ point at this time. In other words, going into the
past, we should reach a period of time in which there is a sharp
reduction in the number of specimens compared to the period just older
than that, and as we went forward in time, we would expect a gradual
buildup, as plant and animal populations recovered their numbers.
Such a study has been done by Dr Robert Whitelaw. Using the 15,000
published dates previously mentioned after adjusting them as described,
he grouped them into 500 year ‘blocks’ and found a dramatic drop-off
about 5,000 years ago, with a worldwide distribution (/Speak to the
Earth/, Ed. G. Howe. Presb. & Ref. Pub. Co, p.. 331). Readers are
referred to this article for other interesting conclusions about these
dates. [Editor’s note: The graph below was reproduced from a sketch in
the original magazine. Note that the data presented does not necessarily
endorse a particular age for the Earth, but reveals a pattern
/consistent/ with a recent creation and global flood model.]
</Excerpt>
They provide a gif image which looks something like:
Distribution of radiocarbon dates
Men and animals in Afro-Eurasia
1600 XXX
XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
800 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Creation 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
Years before present
"We see, then, that far from being an embarrassment to the creationist
who believes in a young Earth, the radiocarbon method of dating—when
fully understood in accordance with modern atmospheric data—gives
powerful support to his position."
Too bad we cannot so easily show the same fault with the radiometric
methods which are capable of revealing much larger ages, except we now
can because of *things like* the presence of too much C14 where it
should not be. But instead of looking at this evidence objectively,
evolutionists just sweep it under the rug as best they can, and move
on. And by "*things like*", I mean that this is but one example of
many that show serious reason to dismiss the millions-of-years ages
affixed to many specimens. But it is obvious why the evolutionists
must not allow such evidences to shatter the ages affixed to these
biological specimens. It is because if the dating methods are
unreliable to show *these* specimens to be millions of years old, then
how can they be reliable at all? But even worse than that is the
obvious implication that the levels of C14 (among other evidences)
show the items to be much, *much* younger, in the hundreds of
thousands of years range at the very utmost.
And far far less if you calibrate the ratio for the lower levels in history.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no
detectable ^14 C left.
By what method?
Good question. I do not know. (I was recently accused by someone of
giving links without synopses nor excerpts, so immediately following
this link I gave an excerpt from it.)
I'll email and ask them.
In their response, they did not identify how C14 is measured. I just
sent them a reply mentioning that. But I'll emphasize again that the
point is not that C14 cannot be detected, but rather that too much is
being detected in specimens supposedly too old to contain that amount.
The assertion is that the C14 levels should be so low in specimens
supposedly that old that C14 should barely be detectable at all.
That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact,
if a sample contains ^14 C, it is good evidence that it is /not/
millions of years old.
That does not follow. Remember, you are leaving out very important
information: what means are you using to detect the radiation?
(You are responding to a quote from the article. I included this in my
email to AIG.)
Again, I pointed this out to them in my reply.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4314.asp
Our magazine also featured an article on a /nonfossilized/ portion
of a dinosaur bone claimed to be many millions of years old, which
still showed red blood cells visible (the researchers were at the
University of Montana) and tests for hemoglobin were positive,
including serological tests on rodents. The article, Sensational
dinosaur blood report
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp> is on
our website.
Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewd journal about this? This one
actually sounds very interesting.
No, not yet. I included this in my email to AIG. We'll see if they
respond with anything of value.
I don't know about a "peer-reviewed journal", but judge for yourself the
information given in the link provided below.
M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp.
55-57, June 1997.
I cannot find anything else about that article. I did, however, find
this:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/dinosaur_blood.shtml
Were actual red blood cells found in the T. rex bone as young-earth
creationists claim? The data says "no." The objects may be the
remnants of blood cells-residual products resulting from cellular
breakdown-but they clearly lack cell walls and other structures to
claim they are red blood cells. Interestingly, Wieland seems to admit
as much in his 2002 exchange with Jack DeBaun where he states:
The immunological reaction was the factor that, coupled with the
histological appearance, made it more reasonable to claim these
were actual red blood cells (i.e., their remains) [emphasis
added].21
What is significant about this statement is, for the first time,
Wieland seems to clarify that what he and other young-earth
creationists are calling red blood cells are, in fact, cell remains.
The problem is, regardless of the spin one puts on it, cell remains
are not "real blood" and "morphologically intact red blood cells."
I guess there went that theory, huh?
Not at all. Follow the link below and see for yourself.
May be. I just fired off an email to the folks of that website. They
do tend to take a while to respond, but so far have responded to my
challenges (for errors that I have found). (I don't know if they have
yet fixed these errors, but at least they did not ignore me pointing
them out. They actually seemed eager to address them. I'll check from
time to time to catch any addendums, since I don't think they actually
change the text within the articles once they're in posted.)
I also know that they *do* respond to errors within their website
because I have found articles there that start off "This argument is
no longer reliable because ..." (like an article about the rate of
lunar accumulation of cosmic dust). But, following the disclaimer, the
article (with its argument untouched) is still there for the curious
which I think is fantastic. I've also seen addendums starting off like
"Since the original posting of this article, ..." and goes on to give
new info, or indicating a lot of response (positive or negative), or
indicating how new evidence strengthens or weakens the original
article. It's like they're going out of their way to show that they
aren't trying to hide anything, not even the embarrassing stuff.
Well, they actually give a very impressive (to me anyway) response to
Schweitzer and Jack DeBaun:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325RBCs.asp
Jack DeBaun cites Schweitzer, and AiG gives a very good response,
apparently point by point. It appears to leave DeBaun (and Schweitzer)
on very shakey ground.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
