Just for Gracie:

(October 8, 2013 at 1:05 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 7:31 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Here is a link to the article

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum...07_1.shtml

There are many more on the Internet.

This is an article about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which has indeed fluctuated significantly. However, radiocarbon dating is based on the ratio between two specific types of atmospheric carbon, not the total level of all carbon. That ratio has only varied slightly, and the amount it has varied is known by calibration with tree ring data. Dates given may be given as calibrated or uncalibrated, with uncalibrated dates running from 10-20% under the actual age of the specimen according to Wikipedia (Wikipedia: ). Moreover, the article you have cited refers to changes over 500 million years, which is five orders of magnitude larger than the range of ages over which radiocarbon dating is useful, making it doubly irrelevant.

So the "evidence" you link to is no such thing. Denied!

I doubt you would recognize actual evidence if it bit you in the ass.

But the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is dependent of how much nitrogen is converted by radiation into C-14. The nitrogen level could not have been much higher than its current level of 78%. If the radiation hitting the atmosphere is the same. There is the same concentration of C14. But the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is almost 20 times less if ther is 20 times the amount of CO2.

Also the radiation hitting the atmosphere was less before the flood.

(October 8, 2013 at 9:11 am)popeyespappy Wrote: ExorcisedFromReasonThroughFaith?

Made dumber than a post through faith?

(October 8, 2013 at 1:11 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: You're going to have to explain to her what sand and vaginas are.

"Read the bible".

I don't assume there's not sand.

(October 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Also the radiation hitting the atmosphere was less before the flood.

Evidence, or we will all just dismiss you out of hand.

Oh, and don't forget to answer my question about biblical contradictions, Grace...

(October 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 1:05 pm)apophenia Wrote: This is an article about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which has indeed fluctuated significantly. However, radiocarbon dating is based on the ratio between two specific types of atmospheric carbon, not the total level of all carbon. That ratio has only varied slightly, and the amount it has varied is known by calibration with tree ring data. Dates given may be given as calibrated or uncalibrated, with uncalibrated dates running from 10-20% under the actual age of the specimen according to Wikipedia (Wikipedia: Radiocarbon Dating, Calibration). Moreover, the article you have cited refers to changes over 500 million years, which is five orders of magnitude larger than the range of ages over which radiocarbon dating is useful, making it doubly irrelevant.

So the "evidence" you link to is no such thing. Denied!

I doubt you would recognize actual evidence if it bit you in the ass.

But the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is dependent of how much nitrogen is converted by radiation into C-14. The nitrogen level could not have been much higher than its current level of 78%. If the radiation hitting the atmosphere is the same. There is the same concentration of C14. But the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is almost 20 times less if ther is 20 times the amount of CO2.

Also the radiation hitting the atmosphere was less before the flood.

Gracie,

I am so proud of you! Yes - you made exactly the same erroneous assumption that the original scientists made:

"If the radiation hitting the atmosphere is the same. "

Sadly - it isn't. The levels of background radiation varies (Cosmic Rays if you want to get technical).

This is why the tree rings were such a God-send (tee hee). With Tree rings we have something of known age. We take a C14 reading from that and can then extrapolate the curve that we use to correct readings.

From the same tree rings we can see that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere haven't changed dramatically in 11,000 years. We can extrapolate further but we don't use Carbon dating beyond 40,000 years for reasons including the one you mentioned (varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere).

(October 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Also the radiation hitting the atmosphere was less before the flood.

Evidence, or we will all just dismiss you out of hand.

Oh, and don't forget to answer my question about biblical contradictions, Grace...

Like we are taking anything she says seriously.

The Carbon Dating "debate" is so old and overdone, and I love how these religious people rarely talk about other methods.

Of course if we really wanted to screw the whole thing up we could claim that the existence of these trees - giving us a massively accurate measure to fix the carbon dating issue is proof positive of God.

I mean - what are the chances of finding just what we needed, exactly when we needed it, to fix carbon dating?

Therefore God, but an old earth.

Teehee.

(October 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm)max-greece Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: But the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is dependent of how much nitrogen is converted by radiation into C-14. The nitrogen level could not have been much higher than its current level of 78%. If the radiation hitting the atmosphere is the same. There is the same concentration of C14. But the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is almost 20 times less if ther is 20 times the amount of CO2.

Also the radiation hitting the atmosphere was less before the flood.

Gracie,

I am so proud of you! Yes - you made exactly the same erroneous assumption that the original scientists made:

"If the radiation hitting the atmosphere is the same. "

Sadly - it isn't. The levels of background radiation varies (Cosmic Rays if you want to get technical).

This is why the tree rings were such a God-send (tee hee). With Tree rings we have something of known age. We take a C14 reading from that and can then extrapolate the curve that we use to correct readings.

From the same tree rings we can see that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere haven't changed dramatically in 11,000 years. We can extrapolate further but we don't use Carbon dating beyond 40,000 years for reasons including the one you mentioned (varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere).

The background radiation may vary but not 20 to 1.

The tree rings cannot be used because they cannot correct for the 20X CO2 in the presence of less radiation hitting the atmosphere before the flood.

You also do not have 11,000 years of tree ring history.