Read the following article and answer the questions.

This blog is due by 17 April 2013, midnight.  This is a quiz grade.

Extra Credit may be obtained by intellegently responding to your peers by 21 April 2013, 9:00 PM.

Questions to answer.  Questions must be answered in complete sentences.

1.  At what time frame does Carbon-14 completely become eliminated from an organism? (How old will an organism be when the C-14 is all gone?)

2.  What is the measured half life of C-14?  What does C-14 degrade to?

3.  Under "Dating Methods Conflict" what material do scientist believe is millions of years old that still has C-14 present?

4.  In the statment "If the scientist did not realize that the pre-Flood 14C/C ratio was hundreds of times smaller than today’s value, he would calculate the animal’s age to be approximately..." how old would carbon dating age the animal and when could the animal have died?

5.  Tell me how this article has affected your thinking on evolution and the old earth theory?
4/10/2013 09:54:05 am

1. The article says that no detectable carbon-14 should be present in organisms that are over 100,000 years old.
2.Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years and degrades back into nitrogen.
3.Scientists believe sedimentary rocks and the organic materials inside them are millions of years old.
4.Carbon dating would age the animal at 51,570 years old, so the animal would have just died.
5.I want to scream that evolution scientists are wrong because of this article, but there are still other things that we are still trying to figure out, so I can't.

Christian N. Sanders
4/11/2013 11:16:54 pm

1. Ok, for question one, in paragraph two it says, that it takes a little more than 100,000 years.
2. C-14 measured half life is 5,730 years and it decays into nitrogen.
3. In the page it says that, it is thought that sedimentary rocks are also millions of years old.

I will come back with the next 2 questions i am sorry but the computer was acting dumb. Thank You and be blessed.

Christian N. Sanders
4/13/2013 10:35:50 am

Sorry that i did not finish, but here is the second part

4. Carbon dating would age the animal approximately 9 x 5,730 years = 51,570 years old.
5. This article had brought me to a uderstanding that evolution is incorrect. Also, it shows me how evolutions facts sort of collide with each other proving it being invalid.

4/11/2013 11:34:46 pm

1) over 100,000 years
2) half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. nitrogen
3) sedimentary rocks
4)over 50,000 years
5) I think it has made my belief stronger

Dragon King Terrell
4/13/2013 05:30:57 am

1. The answer for the first question is 100,00 years.
2. The measured half life is 5,730 years, and it degrades to nitrogen.
3. The materials are sedimentary rocks.
4. The animal would approximately be 51,570 years old. This would imply that the animal wold have died at the least 50.000 years ago.
5. This article allowed me to have a stronger faith that evolution may not have ever existed.

cody johnson
4/13/2013 11:35:29 am

1. 100,000 years
2. 5,730 years. nitrogen
3. sedimentary rocks
4. 51,570= 9 times 5,730
5. this article proved that evolution is so fake and strengthen my belief more

Danyel Royster
4/14/2013 11:26:57 am

1) It should not be represented in organisms over 100,00 years of age
2)5,730 years and it turns back into nitrogen
3)scientists believe that sedimentary rocks still have c-14
4)over 50,000 years !!!!!!
5) i mean if you think about it, how can this possible happen.
look around you, look at nature all of this could have not happened with out a true and living God.NOBODY can save you from your sins like Jesus can. Evolution is a LIE !

ciara speight
4/14/2013 01:20:21 pm

1. Over 100,000 years of age is when C14 becomes completely eliminated.
2. The measure of half life of C-14 is 5,730 years. C-14 degrades to nitrogen.
3. Scientists believe that sedimentary rocks still has c-14 in them.
4.Carbon dating would age the animal at 51,570 years old. The animal would have just died.
5.this article makes me feel stronger about God because all this detail could not just be coincidental. There must be a God.!

4/15/2013 09:12:19 am

1) 100,000
2) part 1- 5,730 part 2- nitrogen
3) sedimentary rocks
4) 51,570& the animal would be dead
5) it effected me that evolution is not real and that the old theory is very wrong.

4/15/2013 10:50:11 am

The theory of carbon dating gives evolutionists hope that they are right. However, their whole system of thinking is flawed. Carbon 14 is the main factor of the theory. It states that organisms continually lose carbon after death,and you can verify their age by the amount of carbon in their bodies. According to the article, this is false as the age for one to lose all their carbon would be 103,140 years. In order to prove this we must determine how they come up with these calculations.

The life span of C14 is measured in half lives until it eventually degrades into nitrogen. To be more specific, a half life is,according to the article, "...the amount of time for half of any given sample of C14 to decay back into nitrogen." However, some scientists claim that igneous rock is able to hold more carbon as a counter example to any thoughts that life can't be older than 104,000 years old. This is false for the following reason. If a scientist was to carbon date an animal killed just before the flood without taking into account the extra carbon existing prior to the flood then he would get a number close to 51,570 years old when if he did take this into account would get a number similar to 4,500. In the end, these theories of Evolution are proved to be totally false and Creationism is once more true.

Asha Ragland
4/15/2013 10:51:25 pm

Ofcourse, cant you believe that scientist think that evolution exist. God is the Alpha and the Omega and He is incharge of everything. I do agree that Evolution is false and Creatonism is once more true.

4/15/2013 10:47:14 pm

1) The answer is 10,000 years.
2) Measured half-life of C14 is 5,730 years. It degrades into nitrogen.
3)Scientist believe that sedimentary rocks is a million years old that has C14 present in them.
4)51,570 years old.
5)It effected me because I dont believe in evolution becuase God is the Alpha and the Omega.

The Doctor (DJ)
4/15/2013 11:17:28 pm

1. Scientist have not been able to find C 14 in organisms that are a little over 100,000, so C14 will gone in 100,000 year old organisms.

2. C14's half measured life is 5,730 years old, and it degrads back into nitrogen.

3. scientist believe C14 is in sedimentary rocks which are also millions of years old.

4. The Carbon dating would age the animal at 51,570 years old, so the animal would have just recently died in evolutionist's terms, but as Christians we know that is not true.

5. I still do not believe in evolution and it is wrong. Eventhough scientist still are doing test to prove evolution is right, it will never be right.

The Doctor (DJ)
4/15/2013 11:19:14 pm

Sorry, for 3 I ment to capitalize Scientist.

4/15/2013 11:33:20 pm

1. In the article it says it would be about 10,000.

2. C-14 has a measured half of life of 5,730.

3. Scientists beileve that sedimentary rocks are the material that have lived a million years.

4. An animale would die at 51,570 carbon dating years, so it would have died due to evoultuion's scientists terms.

5. I am a chridtin so I don't beileve in evolution so this article really didn't change my opinion on it.

4/16/2013 07:21:25 am

After one half life of an organism at leats 50% of the carbon 14 atoms will remain in an organism. At two half-lives 25% of the carbon 14 moleculues will remain in an living organism and then to be continued. So after 100,000 years the carbon 14 should be expelled. The measured half life of carbon 14 is 5730 years. Alos it is equivilant to 100 PMC. Carbon 4 eventually overtime will degrade to nitrogen. What keeps carbon 14 present for so many years is because of radioisotopes dating methods in the rocks and the material within the rocks which are 100,000 years old. The carbon dating of the animal wouldve shown that the animal would have been 51,570 years old and i dont think the animal wouldve died just yet. I think evolution is incorrect because some of their theroies honestly to me make absolutley no sense.


Leave a Reply.