Carbon Dating

[KerrMetric]

Where has this been concluded?

I think what you meant to say was that no original C14 will be left and that is a valid assumption and no evidence to the contrary exists. There are other well known sources of C14 contamination and creation of C14 that will cause C14 to be added to any sample.

Claiming that no original C14 is expected would be accurate. What you have stated is not.

He's had this explained to him in the past.

 

[laptoppop]

ummmm, what turns the nuclear decay off? Give me a break! Do you understand half-life?
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

 

[laptoppop]

Where has this been concluded?

I think what you meant to say was that no original C14 will be left and that is a valid assumption and no evidence to the contrary exists. There are other well known sources of C14 contamination and creation of C14 that will cause C14 to be added to any sample.

Claiming that no original C14 is expected would be accurate. What you have stated is not.

The papers I just linked to consider and address the various possibilities of contamination, in-situ generation, etc. Nothing is being ignored.

 

[notto]

The papers I just linked to consider and address the various possibilities of contamination, in-situ generation, etc. Nothing is being ignored.

And it emphasizes my point.

Your statement
The truth is that after something is over 100K years old - there should be no measurable c-14 left.

Is certainly not a prediction of mainstream science. I'll ask again,

Where has it been concluded that no C14 should be found in these samples? Suggesting that mainstream science expects this to be true is an incorrect statement.

 

[KerrMetric]

ummmm, what turns the nuclear decay off? Give me a break! Do you understand half-life?

What?????

I think we need to be asking you if you understand this simple concept.

 

[laptoppop]

I used the word "LEFT" to indicate original carbon. I linked to papers which examine the issue more fully. Bottom line - too much C-14. Problem for old earth.

 

[notto]

I used the word "LEFT" to indicate original carbon. I linked to papers which examine the issue more fully. Bottom line - too much C-14. Problem for old earth.

No, not really. Dismissing evidence doesn't explain it. The paper dismisses and does not provide evidence to support its proposition. It only tries to discount evidence and explain around evidence that opposes its conclusions.

What positive evidence is provided that there is too much C14 to be explained by an old earth model? The paper you linked to certainly can't be used to assert that conclusion and support it with evidence.

Of course you have been shown the shoddyness of the research and the inaccuracy of your statements on the subject before..

http://www.christianforums.com/t4007396-too-much-carbon-14-to-support-old-earth.html

 

[laptoppop]

I'll let the articles speak for themselves, especially the 2nd one. I prefer data over blanket statements. Yes, we have talked about this before. No, I am not convinced that it is an issue that has a satisfactory answer for people who support an old earth. In other words I have not heard or read a satisfactory answer. If I had I would not continue with this. The truth is very important to me -- especially if I am shown to be wrong. I want the truth, not just an opinion, even if I have to change my viewpoint.

 

[KerrMetric]

Yes, we have talked about this before.

In other words I was not off the mark in characterising.

Makes the new thread in the other forum seem a tad questionable.

Integrity is important I agree.

 

[laptoppop]

No, not really. Dismissing evidence doesn't explain it. The paper dismisses and does not provide evidence to support its proposition. It only tries to discount evidence and explain around evidence that opposes its conclusions.

What positive evidence is provided that there is too much C14 to be explained by an old earth model? The paper you linked to certainly can't be used to assert that conclusion and support it with evidence.

Of course you have been shown the shoddyness of the research and the inaccuracy of your statements on the subject before..

http://www.christianforums.com/t4007396-too-much-carbon-14-to-support-old-earth.html

I just reviewed the entire thread at the link you posted to make sure I was not forgetting/ignoring something. I still see nothing there that I'm missing here -- and the thread itself makes that clear even then. There's just too much left in too many cases to be explained through contamination, in situ generation through nuclear reactions, etc.

Given the amounts, it sets an upper-bound limit to the age of the earth. The earth can be younger, but not older.

 

[KerrMetric]

Given the amounts, it sets an upper-bound limit to the age of the earth. The earth can be younger, but not older.

This is just bizarre. There is no way that claim can be substantiated.

 

[Hnefi]

I just reviewed the entire thread at the link you posted to make sure I was not forgetting/ignoring something. I still see nothing there that I'm missing here -- and the thread itself makes that clear even then. There's just too much left in too many cases to be explained through contamination, in situ generation through nuclear reactions, etc.

Given the amounts, it sets an upper-bound limit to the age of the earth. The earth can be younger, but not older.

But Laptoppop, just how do you think that scientists differentiate between "original" C14 and C14 introduced by contamination? Answer: they don't, because there is no molecular difference between the two. Since there are a lot of contamination sources and other factors that continually introduce new C14 in miniscule amounts into most things on this planet (including, say, fossils), the expected result is that most things, even those things that are billions of years old since they lived, should have some C14 in them. Less than they did when they were alive, but more than 0.

It's a very simple thing, really: Current C14 amounts = original C14 + C14 contamination - decayed C14. You are ignoring one of the factors.

 

[Deamiter]

laptoppop -- I just read through those links and while they mention researchers who mention contamination, they use a lot of quotes and repeat regularly that old samples should contain no C14. Given that there is a considerable amount of radiation in most rocks (you can get more radiation exposure living in a home with a granite foundation for a year than working in a nuclear power plant for your life) why don't these articles even mention that significant C14 levels are EXPECTED in all rocks?

They repeat again and again how researchers expect to be able to push the dating technology to its limits, but I've never spoken to or read of a researcher who claimed they should be able to get an utterly uncontaminated sample.

Finally, neither of your links support the claim that any sample has too much C14 to be due to contamination. There is no discussion of possible sources and the magnitude of these sources and no attempt to rule out contamination as the source for present C14 levels. In short, the articles repeat over and over that there should be no C14, but since no researcher claims that their samples should be utterly devoid of contamination and since it's been shown that contamination does indeed exist, the basic premise of your sites is flawed from the beginning.

 

[notto]

There's just too much left in too many cases to be explained through contamination, in situ generation through nuclear reactions, etc.

This is an unsupported conclusion of the paper. It is asserted but never supported with an independent line of evidence that can't be explained by the mainstream model. The language of the article itself denotes cherry picking to support a favored outcome.

If you think differently, the please quote the independent line of data or line of data that supports the conclusion.

It just isn't there.

 

[laptoppop]

If you read the other thread end to end you'd know that nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer at this time. The 2nd phase of the RATE project looked at diamonds -- and found c-14 levels inside the diamonds 10,000-100,000 times higher than what could be explained from external radiation creating new c-14 in-situ. External contamination has been dealt with thoroughly -- the c-14 is inside the samples.
I guess diamonds are a creationists best friend.

 

[notto]

If you read the other thread end to end you'd know that nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer at this time. The 2nd phase of the RATE project looked at diamonds -- and found c-14 levels inside the diamonds 10,000-100,000 times higher than what could be explained from external radiation creating new c-14 in-situ. External contamination has been dealt with thoroughly -- the c-14 is inside the samples.
I guess diamonds are a creationists best friend.

And this data can be found where. I'm particulary interested in the data that shows the 10,000 to 100,000 times the expected.

All of the stuff on the public rate project says the same misstatement that you have made - that no carbon is expected and that any found would invalidate the dating - this of course is a strawman.

All I can find is the continued assertion that any C14 in ancient carbon invalidates the dating method.

Dr. John Baumgardner from Los Alamos National Laboratory and an active member of the RATE group reported on The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 ka ( V32C-1045). He discussed his findings that various geological samples which are thought to be millions of years old, including diamonds, contain measurable amounts of Carbon-14. Samples this old should Dr. John Baumgardnerhave no Carbon-14 because it would have all decayed by now. Residual Carbon-14 found above the background level indicates that these samples thought to be millions of years old can be at most thousands of years old. The presence of Carbon-14 in diamond was of particular interest because diamonds eliminate the likelihood of contamination.

Any chance we can get the data and the methodology that led to the conclusion that either the sample were contamination free or that the explanation of labs results due to contamination and background are faulty?

Baumgardner just dismisses the result, he does not actually address show that background and contamination are not responsible for the carbon in the samples.

It is an unsupported claim and one the labs don't agree with.

It is cherrypicking to support a determined conclusion.

Claiming they cannot be contaminated in-situ is much different than demonstrating they cannot be contaminated in-situ. I see the claim but not the demonstration of it.

How is the C12 in diamonds protected from bombardment from nearby sources? Surely you are not suggesting that somehow the structure of diamonds provides this protection.

That would be as laughable as suggesting that any C14 found in an ancient carbon sample is not expected.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm suggesting that a diamond is only subject to nuclear contamination, not physical intrusion, so a major possible source of contamination is eliminated.

The data is from the 2nd phase of the RATE project. I don't believe it has been published on the web at this time.

 

[Assyrian]

Nitrogen can be up to 1% of the diamond and it is the conversion of N14 to C14 by thermal neutrons that is the main source of new C14 underground. Diamonds may escape some of the sources of external contamination that effect more porous substances like coal, but the main source of C14 is still there.

 

[laptoppop]

Do you have any measurements and calculations to support that? Unfortunately, I have not been able to get the exact calculations behind RATEs 10,000-100,000 times too much carbon-14 sentences. I expect it to be in their 2nd technical report, which is not out yet.

 

[Assyrian]

Do you have any measurements and calculations to support that?

That what neutrons do to nitrogen. This is a source of C14 we know is constantly being produced where we have nitrogen and radioactive decay in the surrounding rock. RATE claim to have calculated the maximum amount that could be produced that way, but we have only their word for that in a document not peer reviewed by experts, and it is notoriously difficult to claim you have taken into account all the possible mechanisms.

It would be so much better to prove young age with a radioisotope that is not constantly being produced in the environment, unfortunately, all these give old earth readings.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to get the exact calculations behind RATEs 10,000-100,000 times too much carbon-14 sentences. I expect it to be in their 2nd technical report, which is not out yet.

Perhaps they mean 10,000 times no expected C14?