Home » Geology » Saluting Dr. Paul Giem

Saluting Dr. Paul Giem

UD is honored to have Dr. Paul Giem as an occasional visitor. Here is Dr. Giem’s bio:

Paul Giem, medical research

Dr. Giem is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Loma Linda University. He holds a B.A. in chemistry from Union College, Nebraska, an M.A. in religion from Loma Linda University and an M.D. from Loma Linda University. Dr. Giem has published research articles in the areas of religion and medicine. His current research includes work on carbon-14 dating methods. He is author of the book Scientific Theology, which deals with a number of science–Bible areas, including dating methodology and biblical chronology.

http://creation.com/paul-giem-medical-research-in-six-days

One of the other UD commenters, franklin, is having a discussion with Dr. Giem in another thread. I invite the readers interested in scientific discussions to see the exchange. At issue is the age of particular fossils. As I’ve said before, formally speaking the age of a specific fossil is a separate question from the age of the Earth. An organism may have died recently, and it says nothing of the age of the Earth or the universe or even the age of the entire fossil record. Like agnostic Richard Milton, one does not even have to be a creationist to raise serious questions about the chronology of certain species. For example, the Coelacanth was presumed to be extinct in the late Cretaceous (105- 66 million years) ago only to be found alive today!

Darwinists are intolerant of any data point that may call into question their competence in weaving evolutionary stories. It is formally possible that life evolved, that many fossils are millions of years, but that some fossils are much younger than we have been told. That possibility is intolerable to them as symbolized by UD commenter franklin who is in the unenviable position of railing against anomalous findings of mainstream science laboratories. These anomalous findings have even been acknowledged in Darwin loving websites like Wikipedia and TalkOrigins.

I highlight one of the responses by Dr. Giem to franklin:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/genetics/cocktail-galaxies-evolve-in-700-million-years-horseshoe-crabs-stay-the-same-after-450-million-years/#comment-479221

We will now move to another set of (related) topics, namely,

the de novo production of carbon-14 and the problem of carbon-14 diffusion in dinosaur bones

We will start with a brief history. Carbon-14 has been used to date civilization and pre-historic human remains. It attracted creationist attention early on, although most of the focus was on the fact that carbon-14 production and decay were not in equilibrium. Later on, the apparent presence of carbon-14 in coal was noted by R. H. Brown, among others. Andrew Snelling dated several pieces of carbonaceous material in old geological settings that had significant amounts of carbon-14 in them.

At about this time, I wrote an article detailing several different creationist models for explaining carbon-14 data while keeping a short timeframe for life on earth. See
http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm .
These models were testable at certain points, and I recommended testing them. One of the predictions of one set of models was that there should be a small but at least theoretically measurable amount of carbon-14 in fossil material that would not have been expected to have it by standard theory. That is to say, the difference was testable.

I then set about to review the literature, a fairly close to exhaustive review (and AFAIK the best one out there), at
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm .
I took my results to the ICR, and persuaded them that they should do a formal systematic test of radiocarbon in coal. Their response was, paraphrased, “We don’t need that data. We already have enough data. That would be like shooting fish in a barrel.” My response was, “True, but there are a lot of people who don’t believe there are any fish in that barrel.” In the end they raised money for the project and did it. One problem with their data has been detailed above. Its seriousness depends on 1. whether one is willing to believe their results, 2. whether one is willing to believe their statements about the lab background, and 3. the level of evidence one is willing to insist on (which can be related to 1.)

The willingness to believe results is not a trivial point. I remember going to a lab once to double-check (actually triple-check) a reported negative pregnancy test in a lady who seemed to have classical symptoms of pregnancy. I found out that someone had entered it into the computer in error. Similarly, the lab routinely double-checks wildly abnormal potassiums, so if one wants a STAT result and suspect the potassium will be high, one is well advised to tell the lab to report the first value as a preliminary, so as to get a jump on treating the patient properly, rather than waiting for the final report.

However, this willingness to believe results can be abused. If one starts out by absolutely insisting that one’s side is right, one can always find a flaw in the data. One is tempted to label those with contrary data liars, so as not to have to deal with the data. One can then disbelieve their data, and wind up cherry-picking data to support one’s theory, in several different ways, until one completely lines one’s cocoon with cherry-picked data. This goes for all sides.

In any case, Baumgardner et al.did their study, and the latest report was published in the RATE book.

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn…..-Earth.pdf

Kathleen Hunt made her inquiry to experts about the time that the research was actually being done. Heretofore, the usual explanation for most of the data was contamination during sample processing. Depending on the lab, proven contamination may range from 0.04 pMC or less, to 0.25 pMC. But by this time some researchers were coming face to face with data that was not easily explained by laboratory contamination. Furthermore, they were having to bet either with the data and against theory, or with theory and against data. Physicists get very cautious at that point. They were having to fill the Borexino detector with some 80 tons (5+ meters in diameter) of scintillant, and if it contained as much carbon-14 as the data indicated, the experiment would be useless. They finally opted to go with methane distilled from natural gas, naturally low in carbon-13, and to an even greater extent, carbon-14. That is why they answered Kathleen Hunt the way they did.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Several studies of natural gas have been published in Creation Research Society Quarterly, but the most fascinating data that has arrived are those of the Paleo Group on carbon-14 in dinosaur bones, which are hopefully well-known to the discussants here. Those bones have between 0.7 and 7 pMC, which is beyond even the worst reported contamination for a reputable lab. Therefore even if one tried to critique the Baumgardner et al. data, the critique would fail with the Paleo Group data.

An attempt was made to estimate how much carbon would likely be able to contaminate the results, and it was noted that the carbon content of the matrix outside of the bones was about 1/5th of that of the bones themselves (as far as I know, the carbon-14 content of the matrix was. Thus, it could be argued, the carbon should be diffusing out, not in.

I think this is a first approximation, but not adequate to completely rule out carbon-14 diffusion into the bones. As long as there is any carbon-14 outside, it can at least theoretically diffuse in. Diffusion can be (and usually is) a two-way street. A stronger case could have been made if the determination could have been made that the matrix had the same, or even better, less of a concentration of carbon-14. An even stronger case could be made if actual diffusion rates had been measured, although the latter would be extremely technically difficult, and the results open to challenge. That may answer one of your questions.

The second question, nuclear synthesis of carbon-14 underground, is related to the question of what to do with all this radiocarbon. One could attribute it to residual activity, but this necessitates a short age. For at 250,000 radiocarbon years, there should be less than one atom of carbon-14 per gram of carbon, and at 1 million years, if we start out with the entire earth’s mass (5.972 x 10^27 g–Wikipedia) being nothing but carbon-14, allow that 14.0 g of carbon-14 contains 6.02 x 10^23 atoms of carbon 14, we have
(5.972 x 10^27g) x (6.02 x 10^23 atoms) / 14.0 g
=2.57 x 10^50 atoms.
Taking the log2 of that, we have 167.5, which is the number of half-lives necessary to reduce this to 1 atom. 1 million years contains
1 x 10^6 years / (5730 years / half life) = 174.5 half lives, which means we have 7 half-lives (for a factor of around 128) to reduce that last atom to nitrogen-14. Residual activity means short age. Period.

So how else can we explain this carbon-14? For a long time, it was thought that contamination during sample processing accounted for all the carbon-14. But as Harry Gove, PhD and company are realizing, this is not an adequate explanation. So there are three others; machine error, contamination underground, and nuclear synthesis underground. These are discussed in my second paper. Machine error and contamination underground are discounted by most experts, leading to the only known option, nuclear synthesis underground.

There are quantitative problems with the nuclear synthesis that are detailed in both my second paper (and my book Scientific Theology before that), and in Baumgardner et al. Briefly, calculations have already been done, and the numbers of neutrons are orders of magnitude too low to account for the prevalence of carbon-14. In addition, unless the concentration of neutrons is much higher over the past 6000 years or so than in previous epochs (a, shall we say, non-uniformitarian assumption), such neutrons should have had an effect on such isotopes as cadmium 113. samarium-149, and gadolinium-157. The people who propose this have (so far) not worked out the numbers to see how many neutrons it would take to produce carbon-14 in situ. That should mostly answer the second question, although for franklin’s sake we can always go through the excruciating details if he wants.

The reader is invited to visit the original thread and decide if franklin is making a credible scientific case beyond saying “something could be wrong”. This is the same franklin who will rush to defense of OOL theories even after they’ve been discredited.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

98 Responses to Saluting Dr. Paul Giem

  1. I would like to point out that Dr.Giem’s arguments are based on carbon 14 dating- which is no longer used to date fossils because C14 has half-life of only about 5,730 years. Supporting THE FLOOD based on C14 dating is as such untenable.
    Other radiometric dating- eg using K40 (potassium argon dating) is used now.k40 has a half life of 1.24×10^9 years, so fossils billions of year old can be dated more accurately.A rough estimate of age of fossils can be made only by a combination of radiometric dating and that is process followed in modern times.

  2. Dating things by definition can’t be verified. anything that would verify the one would itself be needed to be verified by another which in turn…

  3. I would like to point out that Dr.Giem’s arguments are based on carbon 14 dating- which is no longer used to date fossils because C14 has half-life of only about 5,730 years.

    yes, and he appears to use some very questionable data to boot as he admits of the Baumgardner expt:

    It is to recognize the limits of the data, and then to redo the experiment with the proper controls, and see what happens.

    Now one should ask why there would even be a need to redo the expt with the proper controls if the experiment that generates the data is considered robust in the first place?

    paul’s comment appears at comment #48 in this thread:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-479655

  4. I am pleased to see that franklin is now recommending that the experiment should be redone. Previously it would seem that he would recommend ignoring the old data. This is progress.

    SelvaRajan, I think you are missing the point. You are correct that if carbon-containing fossils are as old as the standard model says, they should not be able to be dated by carbon-14 dating, because of its (relatively) short half-life. However, if we find that they are datable, it suggests that they aren’t as old as the standard model supposes.

  5. SelvaRajan, I think you are missing the point. You are correct that if carbon-containing fossils are as old as the standard model says, they should not be able to be dated by carbon-14 dating, because of its (relatively) short half-life. However, if we find that they are datable, it suggests that they aren’t as old as the standard model supposes.

    Exactly!

  6. only about 5,730 years.

    yes, and he appears to use some very questionable data to boot as he admits of the Baumgardner expt:

    Questionable by whom, biased paleontologists or physicists needing no C-14 in their experiments? There is good reason physicists rejected use of carboniferous era coal (supposedly 300 million years old) — it had C-14 contrary to the boasting of Darwinists.

  7. SelvaRajan:

    I would like to point out that Dr.Giem’s arguments are based on carbon 14 dating- which is no longer used to date fossils because C14 has half-life of only about 5,730 years. Supporting THE FLOOD based on C14 dating is as such untenable.

    I did not follow the discussion in the other thread but my understanding is that C14 dating can be used to date organic matter much older than 5,730 years, up to about 60,000 years, if I remember correctly. 5,730 years is just the time it takes for half of a bunch of C14 isotopes to beta-decay to stable nitrogen-14 atoms. After that, it takes another 5,730 years for half of the rest of the isotopes to decay, and so on. The limitation in the accuracy of C14 dating is not due to its half life but to the sensitivity of the detectors used and the total amount of C14 isotopes contained in the organic matter at the time of its death. Determining the original amount is key to the process. There are other factors that affect accuracy, of course.

    Someone, please correct me if I’m wrong.

  8. Mapou,

    you are essentially correct.

  9. Nice to have Dr Giem post here. :-)

  10. Dr.Paul Giem, scordova

    However, if we find that they are datable, it suggests that they aren’t as old as the standard model supposes.

    In which case your hypothesis is that species evolved/emerged within about 70,000 years or less, because given the half life of C14, it is impossible to detect C14 in samples older than 70,000 years even with expensive methodology.
    If your hypothesis is that life emerged within 70,000 then you need to believe :-

    Earth is 4.5 billion years old and all species evolved in 70,000 years – which is even more difficult to explain than Cambrian explosion!
    or
    Earth is young and all species evolved fast – which is in complete dissonance with existing cosmology model. You will need to explain redshift, Cosmic Background Radiation, other planets & universe age compared to Earth and how Earth achieved a mass of 5.9 X 10^24 within such a short span given that the Gravitational constant is only 6.67 X 10 ^-11
    Given the difficulties in presuming younger species life, wouldn’t a hypothesis of standard model be more prudent?

    Mapou,

    Someone, please correct me if I’m wrong.

    I didn’t say anywhere that c14 can be used only up to 5,730 years (It is c14 half life). In fact as half life is logarithmic measure, dating will be less accurate for recent bone samples than older samples

  11. scordova:

    Questionable by whom, biased paleontologists or physicists needing no C-14 in their experiments? There is good reason physicists rejected use of carboniferous era coal (supposedly 300 million years old) — it had C-14 contrary to the boasting of Darwinists.

    This is interesting. Can someone please critique this?

  12. Paul: However, if we find that they are datable, it suggests that they aren’t as old as the standard model supposes.

    or the signal is representative of the recognized noise in AMS C14 analytical procedures.

  13. This is interesting. Can someone please critique this?

    take a look at the links to Dr.Kirk Bertsche’s critique of the RATE projects data here:

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/educat.....bon-kb.htm

    and

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

    where he discusses the known, and recognized, sources of C14 contamination in samples, including coal samples.

  14. selvaRajan @ 10

    …or…

    Simply that people don’t actually know as much as many have convinced themselves that they know about cosmology…
    …and that the earth & life are both young. And life was specially created (i.e. did not evolve).

    BTW: Ever wonder the origin of the term species? Creatures that reproduced after their kind (i.e. the biblical kind) were believed to have been specially created kinds of animals.

  15. scordova @6 Mapou @11,
    Apart from possible explanations in links given by franklin @13, my favorite reason still remains this:

    The fungus Polyporus versicolor, which is the common species involved in the rotting of wood,incorporates atmospheric CO2 during its growth and thereby introduces C14 into the coal substrate. Autoclaving does not remove fungal hyphae and waste products, which contain C14 derived from atmospheric CO2. Assuming that a sample of coal contains no C14, microbial action only has to result in the deposition of 0.1% by weight of modern carbon in the coal to produce an apparent age of 45 kyr for the specimen

    I might add that Dr.Paul Giem has addressed the various possible explanations in his earlier posts. My contention is if you believe in younger fossils then you are basically a Young Earth believer- the concept is completely in dissonance with current proven cosmological model. Evolution can’t be viewed in isolation. you need to consider universe evolution too.

  16. JGuy,
    Are you asserting that universe evolved while Earth was specially created?

  17. Questionable by whom, biased paleontologists or physicists needing no C-14 in their experiments? There is good reason physicists rejected use of carboniferous era coal (supposedly 300 million years old) — it had C-14 contrary to the boasting of Darwinists.

    This is interesting. Can someone please critique this?

    When it comes to doing real science, physicists needed to conduct an experiment that need a source of carbon that was free of carbon 14. The paleontologists would of course insist that coal from the carboniferous era (300 million years ago) was free of Carbon 14. But the experimental measurements said it wasn’t free of carbon 14. When push came to shove, the physicists dissed the palanetologists/evolutionists “science” and went with the actual lab results which said the 300 million year old coal had C-14.

    Good for the physicists!

  18. selvaRajan @15,

    Assuming that a sample of coal contains no C14, microbial action only has to result in the deposition of 0.1% by weight of modern carbon in the coal to produce an apparent age of 45 kyr for the specimen

    I appreciate the explanation and I thank franklin for the links above.

    Let me preface this by stating that I am a Christian but I don’t believe in the young earth hypothesis. I think it’s pure nonsense; I think it smacks of self-righteousness and it makes us Christians look silly. God does not command us to park our brains in a closet when reading the Bible or any other book for that matter. Worshipping any book (even the Bible), let alone a particular interpretation of the book, is a form of idolatry in my opinion. But then again, I consider Darwinian evolution to be just as silly and even more idolatrous, LOL. I’m sorry if I offend anybody here but I always tell it like I see it.

    To continue (playing the devil’s advocate), first off, a young earth proponent might contend that microbial contamination should only occur at the surface of the carboniferous deposit and that the deeper layers of the deposit that are isolated from the atmosphere should not be so contaminated. Second, 0.1% by weight sounds like very little but it’s really a huge amount of contaminants considering its origin. Would these be composed of dead microbes that accumulated over time or are they just the by-product of microbial metabolism?

  19. The fungus Polyporus versicolor, which is the common species involved in the rotting of wood,incorporates atmospheric CO2 during its growth and thereby introduces C14 into the coal substrate. Autoclaving does not remove fungal hyphae and waste products, which contain C14 derived from atmospheric CO2. Assuming that a sample of coal contains no C14, microbial action only has to result in the deposition of 0.1% by weight of modern carbon in the coal to produce an apparent age of 45 kyr for the specimen

    Atmospheric C02 in buried deposits, how about solidified amber?

    It may not be possible in practice, but one way to settle this is to use pure biological fossil material. That would be a very challenging biochemistry/nano-engineering project to extract only DNA or proteins from a specific creature and then date it, such that contamination is eliminated.

    But I’ve said there are two other lines of evidence:

    1. the biological material itself. It’s non-racemic, non-depurinated state corroborates the C-14 date.

    2. we ought to be able to do molecular clock like experiments on the material. I suggested comparing extant horseshoe crab sequences against crabs that supposedly died 450 million years ago. No one is doing this, but I’ll bet the result will be shocking. This is doable. Any takers? :-)

  20. Would these be composed of dead microbes that accumulated over time or are they just the by-product of microbial metabolism?

    The microbes c-14 would have to be recent too since C-14 would have decayed in them in 45,000 years or so.

  21. selvaRajan @ 15

    “My contention is if you believe in younger fossils then you are basically a Young Earth believer- the concept is completely in dissonance with current proven cosmological model.”

    I have found this post very interesting indeed, especially having someone like Paul Giem contributing to the discussion.

    What I would like to ask is why can’t it be viewed as being possible that the universe, along with its properties, and laws of physics etc, couldn’t have been created as such 7-8k years ago?

    God created the earth, then created the universe around it, almost exactly as we see it today, albeit with a lapse of 8k years.

    Can someone please tell me why this can not be considered, after all it is what the bible teaches?

  22. In which case your hypothesis is that species evolved/emerged within about 70,000 years or less, because given the half life of C14, it is impossible to detect C14 in samples older than 70,000 years even with expensive methodology.
    If your hypothesis is that life emerged within 70,000 then you need to believe :-

    Earth is 4.5 billion years old and all species evolved in 70,000 years – which is even more difficult to explain than Cambrian explosion!

    One can postulate a unique non-repeatable mechanism for the emergence of species. UD has gone at length demonstrating the claimed mechanisms (various OOL scenarios, Darwinian evolution, neutral evolution) can’t work even in principle.

    Perhaps one at the very least should argue that the evidence isn’t a slam dunk for the current mainstream narrative.

    Time is the enemy for the evolution of complexity in my opinion. We see complexity decrease over time, not increase.

  23. What I would like to ask is why can’t it be viewed as being possible that the universe, along with its properties, and laws of physics etc, couldn’t have been created as such 7-8k years ago?

    God created the earth, then created the universe around it, almost exactly as we see it today, albeit with a lapse of 8k years.

    Can someone please tell me why this can not be considered, after all it is what the bible teaches?

    I am a young-earth creationist as a matter of faith, but I will not argue all the evidence we have in hand favors that view, in fact I’ve argued the opposite for at least two major areas:

    1. distant starlight
    2. long and intermediate term radioactivity

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....le-ground/

    We can argue ID based on existing scientific knowledge.
    We can argue youth of humanity according to existing scientific knowledge (and thus affirm the Genealogy of Christ in Luke Chapter 3).

    We cannot do this for the distant starlight problem or long term (billions of years )and intermediate term (milliions of years) radio-isotopes. These are nasty problems for YECs. It doesn’t mean a solution might not be found someday…

  24. Time is the enemy for the evolution of complexity in my opinion. We see complexity decrease over time, not increase.

    Actually, this is not really correct, given the fossil record. There was clearly an evolution from the simple to the more complex in the geological strata. But this is exactly what one would expect from intelligent design, is it not?

  25. PeterJ:

    What I would like to ask is why can’t it be viewed as being possible that the universe, along with its properties, and laws of physics etc, couldn’t have been created as such 7-8k years ago?

    Why stop at 7-8k years? It could have been created an hour ago with all of our false memories of our entire lives with it. This is just silly, though. There are processes that are inherently sequential and whose outcomes are computationally intractable unless they are given time to run their course. But the Gods (or God) have plenty of time on their hands. What’s the hurry?

  26. Actually, this is not really correct, given the fossil record. There was clearly an evolution from the simple to the more complex in the geological strata.

    That’s assuming the Darwinist/Paleontologist interpretation of the fossil record is correct to begin with! At least in the present discussion, it should be apparent that is the question in hand.

    Observed evolution (like anti-biotic resistance) extinction of species in the current day and observable past says complexity goes down with time. This fact conflicts with the geological interpretation that complexity increases with time, thus, like the C14 dates, we have now 3 lines of evidence contradicting the mainstream:

    1. C14
    2. biological material
    3. the tendency for complexity to decrease over time

    So woven into the culture is the notion that all supposedly old fossils are really old, that when we have evidence to the contrary, we miss it. Complexity, as observed today, decreases over time. Only in paleontological stories does it increase with time.

    But if we view the fossils as young, the paradox goes away and all the data suddenly becomes coherent!

  27. Why stop at 7-8k years? It could have been created an hour ago with all of our false memories of our entire lives with it. This is just silly, though.

    Agreed.

    There are processes that are inherently sequential and whose outcomes are computationally intractable unless they are given time to run their course. But the Gods (or God) have plenty of time on their hands. What’s the hurry?

    But the present discussion is looking for hints that things happened faster than presumed by the mainstream. :-) At the very least, this present discussion is trying to cast doubt on the claim that certain fossils are as old as paleontologists say they are. Whether the universe is old is a separate discussion.

  28. scordova:

    But the present discussion is looking for hints that things happened faster than presumed by the mainstream. :-) At the very least, this present discussion is trying to cast doubt on the claim that certain fossils are as old as paleontologists say they are. Whether the universe is old is a separate discussion.

    Cambrian fossils from the Burgess shale are obviously a lot older than 7 thousand years. We don’t need paleontologists to tell us that. Unless you have a different and falsifiable theory for the formation of geological layers over time, I find any argument to the contrary to be a sign of bad faith. I, too, have faith in God, an extremely scientific God, I might add.

  29. Cambrian fossils from the Burgess shale are obviously a lot older than 7 thousand years.

    Has anyone bothered to do C14 dates on these? The Cambrian is supposedly 500 million years back, the carboniferous is 300 million years back and we find C14 there. Given we find C14 in the carboniferous, why not go back just a little farther to the Cambrian?

    How about we C14-date plant fossils from the Cambrian. Any guesses what we’ll find. How about racemization or depurination or molecular clock date the fossils. The problem is these questions have been “settled” by the mainstream just like Darwinian evolution was “settled” by the mainstream. It is taboo to question.

    Let me suggest a modest proposal. I propose we not necessarily agree about the age of the fossils, I propose we re-examine the evidence, and follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the evidence says, we should doubt the mainstream, then doubt them. One is entitled to say, “I don’t know what to make of it”.

  30. Hi Scordova,

    You make this point:

    “I am a young-earth creationist as a matter of faith, but I will not argue all the evidence we have in hand favors that view, in fact I’ve argued the opposite for at least two major areas:

    1. distant starlight
    2. long and intermediate term radioactivity”

    I know this is not what this post was supposed to be about, and I won’t be pursuing this discussion round and round, but I would just like to lend my tupenceworth and leave you all to it.

    I have read these cosmological arguments many times and agree that a YEC position is almost untenable in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, but at the end of the day it is possible, and I think very possible, that God did indeed create it as such 7-8k years ago.

    Everything we see around us, and that which can’t be seen, was created for his glory. Galaxies, black holes, supernovas etc all coming into existence, with starlight visible from earth, long and intermediate term radio activity, and everything else, made in an instant for his glory, and for us to wonder at.

    Why can’t it be as simple as that?

  31. Has anyone bothered to do C14 dates on these? The Cambrian is supposedly 500 million years back, the carboniferous is 300 million years back and we find C14 there. Given we find C14 in the carboniferous, why not go back just a little farther to the Cambrian?

    C14 dating of carboniferous is contentious. So you cannot use it as definitive evidence. But why would anyone in their right mind want to do C14 dating of Cambrian fossils since we have a pretty good idea of the age of the rock they are embedded in? This type of sedimentary rock does not form in 7000 years, I can assure you. Neither did the Canadian Rockies, where the Burgess shale is located, rise to their present altitude in a few thousand years.

    That being said, if the fundamentalist Christian community thinks we should do C-14 dating of the Burgess shale, by all means, do it. You guys have the financial resources. Pay for it or set up your own lab. Personally, I will not hold my breath waiting for any revolutionary finding.

  32. Why can’t it be as simple as that?

    It can be, but it is not as reassuring as having evidence in hand. I used to believe in Darwinian evolution. When it was shown to me, independent of the Bible, that Darwinian evolution was false, then it was easy to become a creationist, and accept that we were made by a creator.

    I’m glad there were those that were willing to wrestle with the evidence. I don’t think I’d be a Christian today if it were not for people willing to do this.

    There are people willing to resolve the difficult questions, and for those on the sidelines it would be reassuring. I’m not one of those who will simply accept what other people say is true, I need some independent testimony to be assured they are telling the truth.

  33. That being said, if the fundamentalist Christian community thinks we should do C-14 dating of the Burgess shale, by all means, do it. You guys have the financial resources. Pay for it or set up your own lab

    It’s being done for some eras, and I’ll try to ping if anyone has done it for the Cambrian.

    YECs have even gone so far as to attempt to bribe Darwinists to run an independent test (i.e. Jack Horner). Horner turned down $24,000 donation to his museum to C14 date his dinos at the lab of his choice.

    Thanks for your response.

    Sal

  34. Thanks for your response.

    You’re welcome. I take it that’s my clue to stop commenting in this thread.

  35. Franklin (#12),

    I would consider that if your alternative was correct, the fossils would not be truly datable. Any dates that were obtained would be within the noise region or contamination. A truly datable fossil by carbon-14 does indicate a young age.

    As for #13, see the old thread.

  36. SelvaRajan (#10),

    There are (at least) 3 options that can take the evidence for carbon-14 in fossil carbon at face value, all of which accept the idea that there was a global Flood that was responsible for a major part of the geologic column.

    YLC (young life creationism) only. In this theory, God resurfaced an old (4.5 billion years? why not?) earth and produced life. At the time of Genesis 1, presumably about 6-20 thousand years ago, the earth was progressively prepared for human habitation within a period of 6 days, with light reaching the (watery) surface of the earth on day 1 and the Sun being seen as a distinct object from the earth’s surface on day 4. (i’m not going into the evidence for or against these various models at this time.)

    YEC (earth) (and YLC) but not YUC (universe). In this theory, the earth was specifically made out of nothing. Perhaps the rest of the solar system was also. But the universe, including the countless galaxies that we can see from earth, were created much earlier (13.7 billion years ago? why not?), possibly with planets around some of them, on which God may have even placed living and even intelligent creatures.

    YUC (which includes the other two). The entire universe, including the substance of the earth as well as all life on earth, is some 6-20 thousand years old.

    Personally, I am presently YEC but not YUC. That has changed. I used to be YLC only, but the biggest evidence for a long age for the earth has seemed to me to fall apart, leaving the (IMO weak) theological evidences for short age for the earth itself unopposed. I could move further to YUC, or revert to YLC only, depending on further evidence.

    Given that, your second model (and probably your first) profoundly misunderstands the position outlined. It is not that “species evolved fast”. It is that they were created in an adaptable form, then differentiated, mostly by losing information (which is much easier and faster to do than gaining it). Similarly, the earth did not have to evolve if it was created; That might also explain why there is so much gold on the surface of the earth, when, given a molten earth, one would expect it to have sunk to the core. And, of course, in my model, redshift and cosmic background are no more problematic than they would be for a standard model.

    If one wishes to cogently criticize a theory, it helps to understand it.

    In #15, you note that fungi can apparently take atmospheric carbon dioxide and incorporate it into rotting wood which can then become coal.

    I’m a little surprised at that. Fungi typically oxidize the substrate on which they are feeding, and thus have no need to incorporate carbon dioxide from the air. I would like a reference. I expect you have one, as you have blockquoted the material you presented.

    But assuming you are right about this, there are still difficulties. First, if the fungus feeds on rotting wood but not coal, its activity would have ceased some 40 to 300 million years ago, and there should still be no leftover carbon-14. Second, if the fungus actually feeds on coal, it has to have done so within about the last 5,730 years; otherwise half the carbon-14 would have decayed away, necessitating a replacement of twice the coal to get the same carbon-14 “age”. (The farther back it happens, the worse the problem becomes. At 45,000 years, one must replace all the coal.) In that case, why can’t we find microscopic evidence of the fungus? And since this process has presumably been going on for the past 40 million years at least, why is there any coal left at all? And finally, are we sure that the air at 1-2 km down (one mile down) has the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as modern air, or even remotely approaches it, in coal seams? Without answering the final question with at least a qualified yes, fungi can churn carbon dioxide into coal all they want without adding one atom of carbon-14.

  37. Scordova (17),

    Your reference might be missed by most people. It has to do with the Borexino neutrino detector (others can Google it). But you are correct.

  38. Mapou (#24),

    Actually, one of your premises is hard to sustain if you take vertebrates out of consideration. For instance, it is arguable that trilobites have the same order of complexity as modern insects.

    However, in one sense, you are right. Once an intelligent designer (or designers) is allowed, trying to measure time by naturalistically allowed rates of change becomes problematic. And considerations regarding the identity of the designer(s), and its/their ways of creating, and intentions, become much more important than scientific limitations on unguided naturalistic processes.

  39. slevaRajan

    JGuy,
    Are you asserting that universe evolved while Earth was specially created?

    That isn’t what I was asserting. I’m not even sure that anything I said was an assertion. It was more of position that is probably held by many in this forum. So, it needed to be represented as an option.

    But as a YEC on this matter, if you ask me what I believe on origins, it’s obviously enough that everything that was created was created in six literal earth days – i.e. as measured by clocks observed on earth. This happens to leave the possibility that the more distant parts of the universe operated on a faster and faster clocks (seen from earth). Humphrey’s et.al. describes a cosmology that allows for this and effects of relativity. But I’m not claiming to hold that position, yet, even though it would be quite a comfortable one for me.

  40. Dr. Giem:

    Mapou (#24),

    Actually, one of your premises is hard to sustain if you take vertebrates out of consideration. For instance, it is arguable that trilobites have the same order of complexity as modern insects.

    Well, I don’t think insects are really all that modern. Most of them seem to have retained the same body plans they had many millions of years ago. I personally believe there were several creations of life on earth and that different groups of designers (elohim) were involved and it seems that each group had their own specialty. I suspect the designers were not altogether satisfied with some of their early experiments and just destroyed them. This could explain the observed widespread extinction events in the fossil record.

    However, in one sense, you are right. Once an intelligent designer (or designers) is allowed, trying to measure time by naturalistically allowed rates of change becomes problematic. And considerations regarding the identity of the designer(s), and its/their ways of creating, and intentions, become much more important than scientific limitations on unguided naturalistic processes.

    It looks to me that the designers/engineers were just having fun, a LOT of fun. It must have been party time for millions of years. :-D The insect designers, especially, seem to have had a ball, given their prodigious and magnificent output.

    trying to measure time by naturalistically allowed rates of change becomes problematic.

    My understanding of time (I have given it a lot of thought over the years) is that there is only one rate of time and only one speed in the physical universe, the speed of light (yep, nothing can move faster or slower than the speed of light). Not even the Gods can change that. But that’s a different story.

  41. Mapou @ 25

    Why stop at 7-8k years? It could have been created an hour ago with all of our false memories of our entire lives with it. This is just silly, though.

    It’s silly because you/we have to realize by simple enough reason that one can’t know the age of the universe or earth from looking around. Nobody actually knows from science that the universe is actually 13.7 billion years old or not some age not even close to that. So, given evidence of youth, accepting a model of the range 5ky-7ky makes far more sense than holding a random youth age of 5 minutes ago. Why? One simple reason. There already exists an established ancient young earth account with that approximate age range ages. And with youth, you’d have to logically accept creation – period (unless you want to claim to be a solipsist or something odd like that) – and you’d find the existing claimed eye-witness account of creation is all you have. So, if it were me, given creation, I’d stick with the ancients…and not the more distant perspective from the creation event that modern man has.

  42. Jguy @41,

    Let’s see now. Any ancient account of creation that includes a talking snake, a tree of knowledge and a tree of life should give you pause: either it’s a heavily symbolic narration or the author was smoking some really good hallucinogenic herbs and fungi.

    There is another book in the Bible, the book of Revelation, a purely metaphorical (or hallucinogenic) book, that also mentions an ancient talking snake and a tree of life in the paradise of God among other interesting metaphors. Now which one of those two books is allegorical and which one is literal? Answer this question and you win the prize behind door number one.

  43. Mapou

    It wouldn’t matter what you think about the style of the literature. The givens were a young earth and universe. My assertion would be that that given would necessarily lead to a creation conclusion. From this, we reason that the brief creation event/period, not too long ago, would be relatively just prior to man’s creation and experience. How many ancient established young earth creation models exist? I can think of only one! The one that pertains to the Bible. So, whether you take the Genesis account figurative or literal would make no difference in the climate of young earth evidence. You’d end up having to reasonably favor the risky theory of thousands of years that was established already. It would, afterall, have been the risky view that makes an exclusively unique prediction of what you would find in the evidence – unlike a post-hoc creation theory of five minutes or months ago that makes no prediction .

  44. Jguy, you are just talking a bunch of nonsense. There is no climate of young earth evidence. It’s all BS on the face of it. As a Christian, I will tell you that you speak with a forked tongue. How does that metaphor grab you?

  45. SelvaRajan (and franklin),

    There is one more problem with contaminating coal underground. Let us take a decent-sized coal seam: 1 m thick, 10 x 11.1 km in lateral extent. It tests positive for carbon-14 at 0.1 pMC after lab error is accounted for (not unusual). With a density of 0.9, we have 10^8 (metric) tons. To contaminate it with 0.1pMC, we have to churn in 10^5 tons of carbon from carbon dioxide, or 3.66 x 10^5 tons of carbon dioxide. Since pre-industrial air was less than 0.03% carbon dioxide, we have 1.2 x 10^9 tons of air, or as at STP air has 29 g /22.4 L, we have 9 x 10^14 L, or 18 million liters per hour, or 5,000 L per second, for the last 5730 years (so that it hasn’t mostly decayed). That’s significantly larger than the usual airflow through a coal seam.

  46. Mapou

    Jguy, you are just talking a bunch of nonsense. There is no climate of young earth evidence. It’s all BS on the face of it. As a Christian, I will tell you that you speak with a forked tongue. How does that metaphor grab you?

    You are way off track, Mapou. Regroup. Claims about the actual climate of the evidence weren’t not made or discussed between us. That scenario was hypothetical from the start – i.e. that young evidence was accepted was a given for the discussion. The question was, if the evidence was all saying young, why bias with a particular age of creation rather than some arbitrary value like a five minutes old creation. If that doesn’t make sense, then ask for more clarification.

    You can call me a liar if you dare, but you’re making a poor call on it. And from this shallow discussion, making such a judgement about one’s heart & intention is dangerous. You should not – especially as a Christian – make false judgments against others in ways you would not want to be judged. How would you like to be judged quickly & falsely?

  47. Paul: I would consider that if your alternative was correct, the fossils would not be truly datable. Any dates that were obtained would be within the noise region or contamination. A truly datable fossil by carbon-14 does indicate a young age.

    You can take any instrument output value and stuff into an equation and obtain a concentration or, in this case, an apparent age. This doesn’t mean that the analysis was done correctly, like the lack of proper controls, and it is easier to generate a bogus result than to do requisite work to produce reliable and verifiable data.

    In the Baumgardner study the values match, and do not stand out from, published literature values for the noise generated in sample processing collected in numerous studies by a number of different analytical labs with different people doing all steps in the entire procedure. That is a compelling data set to overturn.

  48. 5,000 L per second, for the last 5730 years (so that it hasn’t mostly decayed). That’s significantly larger than the usual airflow through a coal seam.

    LOL! I didn’t know coal seams could be so cool. ba da du!

    By the way, since that’s over 111,000,000 square meters. So, per square meter that comes out to .045 mL/s

    Doesn’t sound as fast that way. :/

  49. Paul
    p.s. Would it be 10^8 or 10^7 metric tons?

  50. myself #48

    Doesn’t sound as fast, but still seems fast to think even one milliliter of air would flow through 1sq.meter of coal over ~10 seconds.

  51. Paul again.
    All you’re doing is forcing air through the coal. That still doesn’t ensure the C14 will stay in the coal. So, that may be very conservative, and the problem worse.

  52. Paul: Since pre-industrial air was less than 0.03% carbon dioxide,

    From that data what would be the expected groundwater concentration of carbon dioxide (including all CO2 sinks like carbonate)?

    Can we agree that it would be expected to be much much higher (depending on pH of course). Perhaps something along the lines of (pH: 4-6) 10 umol CO2/l H2O and @ pH 8 in the mmol range? That hardly represents trivial amounts of CO2. How much water might move through a coal seem during its existence?

    Groundwater can easily be found at levels at or above 10 ppm.

  53. to put that CO2 groundwater concentration into perspective many fish species can live and thrive with oxygen levels 3-8 ppm.

  54. Can groundwater or CO2 penetrate diamond… what about diamond buried in strata hundreds of feet under the earth?

  55. JGuy @54,
    No Co2 can’t diffuse into diamond.I believe you are curious to know how C14 could possibly be found in diamond.
    IMHO the links given by franklin @13 and the thread (especially comments by Dr.Paul Giem and franklin)add to the possible reasons for contamination. There are exotic reasons like U fission or neutron capture given by many, but simple reason for c14 contamination is ‘sticking coefficient’.I quote the following from one of the linked article:

    Surface-dependent “sticking coefficients” are a well-known issue in ion source design. Recent tests suggest, not surprisingly, that this effect also applies to the sample surface itself, causing ion source memory to be sample-surface-dependent due to different sticking coefficients for carbon-containing molecules in the ion source. For tests on the UCI AMS system, graphite gave instrument backgrounds of 0.020 to 0.035 pMC, while natural diamond gave 0.005 to 0.02 pMC [4]. Differences in ion sources, beamline components, mass separation techniques, and detectors will cause the instrument background to vary significantly from laboratory to laboratory.

    Mapou,
    The c14 in coal too can be explained by various problems in handling samples and inherent issues in testing as given in links by franklin @13.

  56. No Co2 can’t diffuse into diamond.I believe you are curious to know how C14 could possibly be found in diamond.

    That would be my take on it as well as confirmation by paul on the other thread. Any reports of C14 in diamonds should be taken with a grain of salt. The lab in question had never before analyzed diamond and what little detail is provided in the Baumgardner mansucript indicates they had a great dela of trouble with their methodology (which evedently required modifications which are not reported at all) in processing the diamonds. The data for the diamonds were not provided for weeks after the other samples and I seriously doubt (as should everyone) that the lab ‘hit it out of the park’ on their first attempt at diamond processing. The data is minimal and uncharacterized for their modified methodology which has not been provided in any detail whatsoever (quite disingenuous for a practicing scientist in any field).

    jguy, do you think it would be correct and proper to do a run of analytical chemistry (on analyte of choice) include no controls but then use some control value (for background correction) that was generated years prior to the sample analysis?

    Perhaps paul would supply us with the dates of sample analysis and the dates of the control analysis. I think it will be quote revealing if he were to do so!

  57. As a Christian & creationist that believes in the young earth (YEC), I should express that I have had one doubt with finding any C14 in ancient material. Before old earther types get too excited, the reason isn’t because I find the contamination or old earth arguments as compelling. It’s a reason that follows, in my understanding anyway, from one young earth model. But I’m still exploring tht idea, and rather not get into the details. I’m sure some can figure it out.

    So, by one young earth model, there is one scenario, in my limited understanding, where there might should not be found C14 in any ancient (read ancient as: pre-flood) material.

    That said. I obviously have no issue with finding C14 in ancient material. It does make the topic more interesting. :)

  58. JGuy @57, Dr.Paul Giem and other YECs,

    As a Christian & creationist that believes in the young earth (YEC)…

    I think all of you are under some kind of a spell. Imagine putting Young Earth in orbit. The initial kinetic energy will be zero, so Young Earth will fall towards Venus. Before Young Earth achieves enough acceleration for forward movement, it would fall into Hill sphere of Venus , so Young Earth will revolve around Venus instead of Sun . Young Earth will become Venus’s satellite.
    Then, of course, there is the moon. Since now Young Earth is revolving around Venus, the Hill Sphere of Young Earth will be weaker and most likely, moon too will end up as Venus’s satellite instead of Earth’s satellite! Imagine how day-night cycle, seasons and solar system will mess up.
    I hope YECs can free themselves. Cheers!

  59. Imagine you wake up and see a man standing in front of you. How old is the man? He’s certainly more than a year old, correct? Even definitely more than 10 years old.

    This is the situation Eve would have found herself in. Here was Adam, created recently (she would later be told), but looking as though he was 20+ years old. Is there deception here? No. How else do you create a man but by creating a mature human being?!

    Can this apply to the earth? the universe?

    Personally, I’m YEC but not YUC.

  60. In particular (to my #59), I meant to specifically point out star light from great distances. That can be answered with, those stars ARE that old, or, those stars were created that old (like Adam was created “old”).

  61. The initial kinetic energy will be zero, so Young Earth will fall towards Venus. Before Young Earth achieves enough acceleration for forward movement, it would fall into Hill sphere of Venus , so Young Earth will revolve around Venus instead of Sun . Young Earth will become Venus’s satellite.

    From:

    http://www.universetoday.com/2.....-to-earth/

    Mass of Earth: 5.9736×1024kg
    Mass of Venus: 4.868 x1024 kg

    Earth will not orbit Venus, and neither will it fall toward Venus. Earth has MORE MASS than Venus.

    To amplify the point, when I drop a pebble, I don’t say “the Earth falls upward toward the pebble”.

    Venus is much larger than a pebble, but it is still smaller in mass than the Earth. The Earth will hardly “fall” toward Venus.

    To say Earth will fall toward Venus or orbit it is evidence you are the one confused about elementary facts, maybe even high school physics!

    Worse, you are using your erroneous ideas to criticize YEC ideas. You are welcome to use correct facts and logic to criticize YEC. But in this case you are using errors to criticize YEC, and an error a high school kid will make. Now if you are a high school kid, I suppose you can be excused.

  62. selvaRajan @ 58

    Just to put your comment a bit in perspective…..Whuhh!???

  63. Sal @ 61

    Not to mention, motionless objects in space would attract in a perfect head-on collision (not end up in an orbit). But more importantly, where does he comes up with his initial conditions? The bible doesn’t described this kind of detail about creation week. The sun was made on day four, but even this doesn’t mean there was no planetary orbit around some initial matter that was to becomes the sun.

    selvaRajan’s spell delusion, busted.

  64. Scordova @61

    To say Earth will fall toward Venus or orbit it is evidence you are the one confused about elementary facts, maybe even high school physics!
    Worse, you are using your erroneous ideas to criticize YEC ideas

    Oh my God! You really are under spell. The Gravitational force between massive Sun(sitting right in the middle) and young Earth is far greater than the Gravitational force between Young Earth and Venus. Obviously young Earth will fall (Ok, hurtle) towards Venus and fall in Venus’s Hill sphere. You can use the formula F=G(m1 xm2)/r^2 to calculate the Force where m1m2 represent mass of planet/sun and r is the distance between the masses, G is the Gravitational constant.
    JGuy @63

    Not to mention, motionless objects in space would attract in a perfect head-on collision (not end up in an orbit).

    The initial Kinetic energy is zero, but when hurtling towards Venus, Young Earth will accelerate. Since Sun too is pulling the YoungEarth, the force of acceleration will become tangential, giving a tangential motion which will be equal to the Sin theta of the F of Venus and F of Sun. on the Earth, so by the time Young Earth reaches Venus’s Hill sphere, Earth will have rotational momentum. Also remember that though Earth has more mass, it’s Gravitational attraction is not enough to wrench Venus from its orbital path, so it will become satellite of Venus. Young Earth has the disadvantage of fighting the combined force of the Old solar system!

    But more importantly, where does he comes up with his initial conditions?

    I am trying to put some science in to show how crazy universe will be! I hope you can see how Sun created after Earth will be. The point is if you argue about c14 based on science, you have to argue about Young Earth based on science too I love the Lord because He is the guiding force of my life, but I can’t bring Him into this debate.

  65. The Gravitational force between massive Sun(sitting right in the middle) and young Earth is far greater than the Gravitational force between Young Earth and Venus.

    LOL! I never said otherwise. You’re attributing an argument to me I never made.

    Obviously young Earth will fall (Ok, hurtle) towards Venus

    Keep digging your hole deeper. Are you still insisting Earth will orbit Venus. Hint: The Earth is more massive than the moon, the Earth doesn’t orbit the moon. The Earth is more massive than Venus, the Earth won’t orbit Venus.

    You’re now just trying to save face rather than admit error, move on and seek the truth.

    I’ve criticized YEC ideas more than anyone at UD, but I don’t do it with the sort of sham arguments you are putting up. To say Earth will orbit Venus is a sham argument. At this rate, you are acting like a Venus-centrist.

  66. scordova @ 65,
    Did you see my answer to JGuy right below the answer I gave you?

    Also remember that though Earth has more mass, it’s Gravitational attraction is not enough to wrench Venus from its orbital path, so it will become satellite of Venus. Young Earth has the disadvantage of fighting the combined force of the Old solar system!

    Keep digging your hole deeper. Are you still insisting Earth will orbit Venus. Hint: The Earth is more massive than the moon, the Earth doesn’t orbit the moon. The Earth is more massive than Venus, the Earth won’t orbit Venus

    Do you understand that the difference between mass of Venus and Earth is way way too less than moon and Earth and that you are putting Earth in a SYSTEM not just against Venus and against the orbital inertia of the Venus? If you had Earth created at the time of all other planets, what you say would be right but not if you are putting young Earth into a system with angular momentum ! you have to consider the force of the Venus’s orbital momentum too to pull it out of its path. If the young Earth were 1.5 times what it is now, that could happen but not with the existing mass differential. I really thought you could understand that! If you put a magnet on a rotating turntable and try to pull it off tangentially with another stationary electromagnet, you will need to apply far more current than if you are pulling a stationary magnet!

    LOL! I never said otherwise. You’re attributing an argument to me I never made.

    You are the one who said Earth will not fall towards Venus, so I had to show you why that was possible.
    I hope you read through all the lines before responding!

    I’ve criticized YEC ideas more than anyone at UD, but I don’t do it with the sort of sham arguments you are putting up. To say Earth will orbit Venus is a sham argument. At this rate, you are acting like a Venus-centrist.

    Hope now you understand that my arguments aren’t sham !!

  67. Mung @67,
    I am sure Sal has many Phds and has worked out the Langrangian points of Hill sphere and the Barycentric coordinates, and found the center of mass of the solar system and hence can assert that Gravitational force of m1 m2 body, where m2=0.81m, when put into an existing system is equivalent to putting them as if there is no existing system of orbital bodies. How else could he have deduced that a single body will not revolve around a more power full m1 + center of mass of the system or a subsection of the system?

  68. I am trying to put some science in to show how crazy universe will be! I hope you can see how Sun created after Earth will be. The point is if you argue about c14 based on science, you have to argue about Young Earth based on science too I love the Lord because He is the guiding force of my life, but I can’t bring Him into this debate.

    You are still not making sense. Assuming there is the Creator to a young earth and the rest of the universe, do you think the Creator would actually fail to create the planets in orbits around the sun?

    Even so, if you actually do believe in a creator – which is not clear at this point – then you would eventually have to accept the fact that all science breaks in explaining ANY period/act of creation. So, if you believe in any original creation, you would have a problem in your way of reasoning. To be consistent, it seems your view must be devoid of an actual creation – I don’t want to misrepresent so clarify on whether that is correct or not. Do you believe the universe is eternal and thus not created from nothing?

  69. Mung @67,
    a single body will not revolve around a more power full m1 + center of mass of the system or a subsection of the system?

    LOL!

    For Earth to orbit Venus, the center of mass (of the m1 + m2) has to be inside Venus or at the least closer to Venus than the Earth. It’s not. And you are totally clueless about basic classical physics.

    You’re outclassed in this discussion and you’re just pretending superior knowledge.

    Earth will revolve around Venus

    The Earth is more massive than Venus, so this won’t happen. Get a clue, bud, you’re just trying to save face after getting called on your stupidity.

    I studied classical and celestial mechanics. I understand Lagrangian mechanics. You’re clueless and I’m calling you on it.

  70. Sal @70,
    Refer to post 68 again !
    You changed m1+ center of mass of the system or a subsection of the system to just m1+m2!
    You are stuck on Gravitational force between m1 and m2 where m2 is 0.81m OUTSIDE the SYSTEM Pl address this:
    Barycentric coordinates and hence the center of mass and its effect on Young Earth and Venus

    I studied classical and celestial mechanics. I understand Lagrangian mechanics. You’re clueless and I’m calling you on it.

    So what according to your superior knowledge will happen to young Earth ? Will it start revolving around Sun like exactly it is now?I am sure by your superior knowledge you would have calculated the path.Please enlighten us

  71. FWIW, the starlight problem involves the inflationary model of the universe. With this model, the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light early on, which gives a false appearance of additional age (stars hundreds of light years away might have been dozens of light years away a few seconds ago). IIRC, most of the red shift is now attributed to the inflation of space-time.

    I’m also amazed at the estimates of the age of the universe in the face of relativistic time. I think physicist Gerald Schroeder calculated that relative to an arbitrary photon, the universe is only about a week old. Something like that.

    And BTW, planetary capture is nearly impossible—the trajectories will be parabolic, not elliptical unless a massive third body gets involved. There are a large proportion, perhaps a third, of stars orbiting each other: binary, trinary, quadrinary, and more (they are unlikely to have any planets, BTW). I don’t think anyone understands how this could have happened.

    - Q

  72. SelvaRajan,

    Sorry, I have to agree with Sal. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Maybe you can participate by asking respectful questions instead. :-)

    - Q

  73. Maybe you can participate by asking respectful questions instead

    1. What do you think is the CMBR and the Planck 2013 data if it is not the after glow of BigBang?

    2. If the universes is young, why are we seeing evidence of it in the Microwave spectrum instead of infrared spectrum ?

    3.Could you please explain this

    relative to an arbitrary photon, the universe is only about a week old

    as you understand it?

    4. Is speed of light a constant ? If not how to you explain the concept of Space Time?

    5. How old do you think the Sun is?

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask

  74. The accelerated expansion of the universe or the Big Bang hypothesis is full of problems. First off, it assumes that light arriving from distant stars does not undergo any attenuation from interstellar gases and dust (this would explain why the light is red-shifted) which is not true. Second, the farthest light sources would have to be moving away at speeds faster than the speed of light, which is nonsense. Third, the cause of the expansion must be some invisible magic dark energy, which is nowhere to be found.

    There are other problems but these are sufficient to put it in the crackpot or voodoo science category.

  75. Wonderful stuff, guys!

    Please keep it up. It is making the distinction between “Intelligent Design” and Creationist “science” so much clearer.

    @ mung

    Sorry to hear of your problems. It does explain a lot.

  76. Mung @ 67

    I don’t have a computer science degree. I’m schizophrenic and bipolar. I’m no longer responsible for what you see posted under my name.

    What is your name?

    If your name is not Mung, then you are responsible for the writing.

    If your name is Mung, then you are not responsible for saying you are not responsible for posts under your name.

  77. selvaRajan
    I wanna play!

    Maybe you can participate by asking respectful questions instead

    1. What do you think is the CMBR and the Planck 2013 data if it is not the after glow of BigBang?

    I think you are under a spell for asking that. Imagine putting BIG BANG UNIVERSE with no kinetic energy in nothing. After Venus appears, BIG BANG UNIVERSE will achieve maximum expansion rate. But Venus have accelerated and gained near infinite mass, and will suck all the matter into Hill sphere – after it ate all the other 8 (or 7 if you don’t count Pluto) planets and became a class Alpha-1(§ 123.c) black hole. Condolences, BIG BANG UNIVERSE will become digested material of Venus.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask

    It wasn’t me, but thank you for reading this far. :P

  78. JGuy @78,
    Querius was the one who said he couldn’t handle the answers and wanted me to ask questions :-) Anyway, lets take Sal’s route – what would be the mass of Big Bang vs the Venus when it is formed? How can I take the system’s mass, let’s take only the Venus and one part of Big bang so obviously, Venus will be sucked into Big Bang mass which arises from Nothing.
    I want to play – Well how could you know any of that happened and Venus became a black hole if light can’t come out of the black hole? Yeah well, I think you can take the help of Gerald Schroeder who can I think equate some grain to black hole and explain.
    Sorry JGuy, your answers are getting hot to handle why don’t you only ask respectable questions?. :P
    Thanks for reading!!!

  79. JGuy @78

    But Venus have accelerated and gained near infinite mass, and will suck all the matter into Hill sphere – after it ate all the other 8 (or 7 if you don’t count Pluto) planets and became a class Alpha-1(§ 123.c) black hole.

    Great idea!Let’s do the opposite – squash Venus to convert it into a Black hole. Of course since its not gaseous enough, only YECs can squash it. Let see how much we need to squash
    The idea is to ensure light can’t escape Venus, so lets squash the Venus. Before that let’s see the variable:
    1. vr( venus radius) = 6.052 x 10^6
    2. vm (venus mass) = 4.86 x 10^24
    3. c (speed of light)= 3 x 10^8
    4. G (Gravitational Constant) = 6.67×10^11

    Let’s first calculate the escape velocity of Venus = squareroot[2 x (G x vm)/vr)]=

    10350 or 10.35 Km/sec

    Let see what should be the radius of Venus so that light can’t escape thus making it a sort of black hole. We rearrange the velocity equation :
    V^2 = 2xGxvm/vr.
    convert to escaper (radius to avoid light escape)= 2x Gxvm/c^2
    ‘c’ is the speed of light. Now, we get 0.0072 which is 7.2mm !
    So if we squash the Venus to 7.2 mm we will have a black hole! Very interesting. let’s call the Venus small radius as ‘ vrs’. vrs = 7.20 x10^-3.
    Let’s calculate the Force on a 1 kg object if placed on this:
    F = G x vm x 1/(vrs)^2
    The force will be staggering 6.24 x 10^18 Newton, so nothing can stay on surface, every thing will be pulled in. Of course the Venus itself will collapse to a singularity and leave only a Schwarzschild Radius which will be danger border of Venus black hole.

  80. selvaRajan,

    Earth will revolve around Venus

    Provide your calculations using actual mass numbers. Explain why a more massive body (the Earth) will orbit a less massive body (Venus) in a 2-body system.

    NOTE:
    You are clueless and just trying to save face but in the process you just look even more clueless. I suggest you quit posting drivel on my discussions. You’re wasting everyone’s time. Any more spam by you might get treated as such.

    Funny, none of the Darwinists are coming to your defense. Not even franklin. Why? They know you making stupid statements otherwise they would have rushed to defend statements like:

    Earth will revolve around Venus

  81. franklin,

    Are you going to let stuff like this get a pass?

    Earth will revolve around Venus

    Funny, you’ll complain and criticize minutia that you can’t even prove (like your contamination argument) and yet you won’t even correction obvious stupidity. What’s the deal?

    :-)

    Your blind biases are on display.

  82. Funny, none of the Darwinists are coming to your defense. Not even franklin.

    Perhaps “Darwinists” are unaware of this most important discussion you are having here. Perhaps”Darwinists” are more familiar with matters biological than cosmological. Perhaps “Darwinists” (those sorry few who still can’t help looking in on the last bastion of ID) think it’s hardly worth adding a comment.

    Anyway, relatively speaking, I think when bodies are in orbit around each other, neither is the centre but the movement occurs around a common centre depending on the masses of the objects involved. Barycenter, I think, is the usual term.

  83. Hey, BTW, Sal, what’s with Telic Thoughts disappearing? All those other important discussions, some of which you tokk part in, all gone!

    BTW, Sal, what’s with ID sites tendency to bite the dust. Telic Thoughts has folded. All those very important posts and discussions, some of which you took part in, all gone!

    And the ARN forum. Those fascinating discussions on Genetic-ID and the explanatory filter! All gone too!

  84. Oops

    BTW, Sal, what’s with ID sites tendency to bite the dust. Telic Thoughts has folded. All those very important posts and discussions, some of which you took part in, all gone!

    And the ARN forum. Those fascinating discussions on Genetic-ID and the explanatory filter! All gone too!

  85. Funny, you’ll complain and criticize minutia that you can’t even prove (like your contamination argument) and yet you won’t even correction obvious stupidity. What’s the deal?

    Minutia? You call the need for process sample control replicates as being ‘minutia.? Making statements like makes me conclude that you’ve never done any analytical chemistry whatsoever. For example I am wondering if Paul would accept the clinical lab he uses to process his samples using control values generated 7-10 yrs prior to the actual samples being analysed. What do you thinbk, Sal, does that sound like a rigorous example of analytical chemistry at its bes?

    As far as the cntamination issue it is well recognized and doicumented in Baumgardner’s manuscript.

    FYI, sal, you have something backwards it isn’t up to me to prove the samples were contaminated it is up to the researchers involved in the experiment to provide the evidence (via proper control samples) that the results are not a representation of contamination. Especially, when the vast majority of the published literature support this very conclusion!

    talk about blind biases….sheesh.

    As for the current direction of this thread….it’s hilarious and I’m with Alan…keep up the good work…LOL!

  86. franklin,

    Is this a correct statement?

    Earth will revolve around Venus

    Why aren’t you rushing to defend the truth now? Aren’t you eager to defend scientific knowledge? Here’s your chance.

  87. Alan Fox,

    Is this a correct statement?

    Earth will revolve around Venus

    Basic science question. Surely you want to advance science and not let falsehoods go unchallenged.

  88. sal, you should try and answer some of the questions posed to you before you ask additional questions while ignoring those already asked, that is only if you expect others to engage with you. Just sayin!

  89. Sal asks:

    is

    Earth will revolve around Venus

    a correct statement.

    As it stands, Sal, it is an incomplete statement. I think you may have omitted the context, though far be it from me to suggest you have relapsed into quote mining.

  90. Alan Fox @ 89

    I think you may have omitted the context, though far be it from me to suggest you have relapsed into quote mining.

    It’s should be clear that the context/scenario is already in this thread. I seriously doubt Sal would object to you using that context. Suggesting otherwise appears as disingenuous.

  91. Sal @ 80

    I think it’s pretty clear selvaRajan made a mistake. But it seems explaining to him this mistake is basically swimming into a net – whether it got there by intention or not. I could be wrong, and there could be use in showing the errors.

    But as a friendly reminder…. even if his physics were correct – which we will agree is not – he more importantly made some erroneous assumptions about how things would have had to start if biblical young earth creation were true. So, debating his physics issues is, in that sense, almost like following a red herring. imo

  92. Evolution? – Part 1. Charles Darwin wrote 500 pages on adaptation evidence, and 1 page on evolution speculation; and he stated that adaptation can only happen at the lowest level of the biological table (by Carl Linnaeus), the species level. The higher levels, from the top, are kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, and genus. That’s why he essentially titled his book, Origin of the Species, and not Origin of the Phylum. Darwin based his one page of speculation on the Geological Column proposed by his contemporary, Charles Lyell; which, however, now faces increasingly apparent scientific contradictions.

    The Evolution Story – Part 2. The evolution people have since seized upon the one page of speculation by Darwin, coupled with the Geological Column of Lyell, the name of which has since been changed to the Geological Time Scale. They have then used these two threads to develop what can be identified as a Pseudo-Adaptation Hypothesis. Before considering this, let us summarize the correct Theory of Adaptation that was scientifically proven by Darwin. This is something that only takes a few or so, at most, generations to work, and it relies upon the fact that there will be individual differences among the newborn from one generation to the next; so that those characteristics that are better able to cope with life are the characteristics that are going to prevail. Also bear in mind that this is something that can only happen at the species level, the lowest level from the biological table. This also means that when some evolution people say that Darwin proved evolution, they are not telling the truth.

    Now let us consider the Pseudo-Adaptation Hypothesis. The Geological Time Scale now allows for an estimate of the age of the earth to be in the millions, or even billions of years; rather than the few thousand years allowed by the Old Testament. The idea is then proposed that purely fortuitous, happenstance changes might take place from time to time over a period of zillions of years, even at higher levels from the biological table, so that life forms can become more complicated that way. There are also two schools of thought as to the Geological Time Scale. One school relies on catastrophic events, such as a huge asteroid hitting the planet earth. The other school of thought relies upon ordinary events taking place over zillions of years. All of this also means that the Pseudo-Adaptation Hypothesis is something that can never be scientifically proven, or at least it certainly hasn’t been yet. Thus, to conclude, the only thing that the evolution people have to offer us is a hypothesis that can never be proven, and nothing any better than that.

  93. Alan Fox is correct. Objects orbit the barycenter of their combined masses. The observed wobble in a star indicates the presence of a large, Jupiter-sized planet. There’s a nice explanation and animation here:
    http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/

    Thus, it’s not strictly correct to say the moon orbits the Earth although the barycenter of the earth-moon system is within the earth. Orbital capture is impossible with two bodies, and nearly so with three. This touches on the mystery of the origin of the moon. One cosmologist suggested that the best scientific explanation for the origin of the moon is that the moon doesn’t exist.

    The inflationary model indicates a fast expansion early on that rendered gravitational acceleration irrelevant.

    - Q

  94. JGuy @ 91

    Yes, I agree.

    - Q

  95. “One cosmologist suggested that the best scientific explanation for the origin of the moon is that the moon doesn’t exist.”

    lol

  96. SelvaRajan,

    On #55, see my comments to franklin.

    On #58, you make one critical assumption that completely destroys your model. You say “The initial kinetic energy will be zero”, without any justification whatsoever. If the earth were created with a specified kinetic energy, and Venus were created 3 days later, along with the sun, there is nothing that would particularly prevent a creator (particularly an intelligent creator) from creating all of them with relative motion to keep them in orbit. I used to be YLC but not YEC, but I would never use this kind of argument against YEC. This is deliberately making one’s opponent’s model as bad as possible, and is basically creating a straw man.

    In addition, as scordova noted in #61, if they did wind up in orbit, although they would orbit their common center of gravity, it would be closer to earth than to Venus, so it would be more proper to to say that Venus orbited the earth than vice versa. I am afraid scordova’s evaluation of your arguments is correct. And JGuy is right in #64 about the fact that if both are motionless there would be a collision rather than an orbit, neglecting for now their greater attraction to the sun.

  97. JGuy (#47),

    The problem is not just that you have to get the air in, but you have to get the air out. We need throughput. Also, most underground coal seams have layers of shale and/or limestone on top of them, so it is inconvenient to get air in from the top. And how does it get out? And as you noted (#51), this is assuming 100% extraction. If the extraction level drops to 1%, then you need 100 times more air.

  98. Franklin (#52),

    Let’s try doing the same calculations (as #45) using water. It appears that groundwater bicarbonate is typically of the order of 0.01%. Throw in carbon dioxide and carbonate and we can probably get to the equivalent of 0.015%. That leaves us with an elemental carbon concentration of 0.003% (0.015% x 12 / 61). We now have 3.3 x 10^9 tons of water, or 3.3 x 10^12 liters. Divide that by (5730 x 365 x 24 x 3600) and we get 18ml / sec.

    That certainly is easier than doing it by air. There are several problems, however. The first is that most groundwater is relatively depleted in carbon-14, so it would take an unusual exposure to air, or a corresponding increase in volume, to get enough carbon-14 in the water. The second is that where this water runs by carbonate rocks, it would be expected to exchange its carbon-14-rich bicarbonate for carbonate in the rocks, and that carbonate would be expected to have a lower carbon-14 concentration. So the final carbon-14 concentration of the entering water would be expected to be lower than predicted by the simple model, thus increasing the volume of water need to carry the carbon-14. The third was noted by JGuy in #51, that we are assuming 100% extraction of carbon-14, which seems unlikely. The fourth is that either air or water delivery of carbon dioxide seems unlikely to produce uniform contamination of all the coal, and if we find dates fairly uniform within and between coal seams, contamination in situ would seem unlikely. Now there is something to experiment on from a long-age perspective. :) You really need a lab as good as ANU or IsoTrace. (While you are at it, measure the uranium content of the surrounding rocks, or better yet, the neutron flux, and the nitrogen content of the coal, to get data for application of the neutron hypothesis.)

    BTW, your choice of ideas to attack and ideas not to attack is why I made the comments I did earlier on the previous thread
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ion-years/
    (comments #52, 69, and 74). You are perfectly free to choose which comments deserve your reply. But when all the corrections appear to be against one perspective, it is not unreasonable for observers to draw some conclusions about your beliefs.

    You act like the Baumgardner et al. data are worthless, for example (#85),

    FYI, sal, you have something backwards it isn’t up to me to prove the samples were contaminated it is up to the researchers involved in the experiment to provide the evidence (via proper control samples) that the results are not a representation of contamination. Especially, when the vast majority of the published literature support this very conclusion!

    You are ignoring our discussion in #74ff of
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ion-years/
    where I pointed out that Dr. Bertsche acknowledges that

    While this conclusion explains the higher values for the biological samples in general, it does not account for all the details. Some biological samples do have radiocarbon levels not explainable by sample chemistry. These samples are mostly coals and biological carbonates, both of which are prone to in situ contamination.

    That is to say, not all of the carbon-14 can be accounted for by laboratory contamination, and that specifically, in the case of Baumgardner et al.,

    Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.

    So even though you would like to explain Baumgardner et al.’s data as laboratory contamination, the source you cited, Dr Bertsche, does not. (You may turn out to be right in the end and he wrong, but it is not that unreasonable to follow him rather than you.)

Leave a Reply