Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

KomatiiteBIF said:

This seems deceptive. The article is discussing background readings created by instrumentation. It isn't talking about naturally occurring C14 in ancient diamonds.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

@Tolkien R.R.J

R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.

This^ is what you sourced and this is what you should be reading. You should be reading the purpose of the research, and their conclusions.

They did not have any naturally occuring C14 in diamonds or fossils.

I stand corrected in that the article does describe studies done with petrified wood. It still does not describe naturally occuring C14 in ancient petrified wood however, nor in diamonds.

The article was a study regarding background AMS readings, just as the title suggests. "AMS Instrument Backgrounds"

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

This happens all the time with these young earther websites. They take valid research that has a set purpose with set conclusions, and they just take it completely out of context and spin it so it sounds like something completely different than what the actual authors wrote.


@Tolkien R.R.J

What it sounds like you are saying, is that some people collected samples from the mesozoic (maybe 100-200 million years old), and those samples had C14 in them, so they ran them at the lab and the lab dated them to be maybe 50,000 years old. And it sounds like you are implying that this is what happened and that this is what the researchers were discussing and concluding.

"Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels "

This statement^ implies that these million year old coal beds contained C14.

But this is not the case at all. But thats what it sounds like you are trying to say. And I dont blame you, I blame the sources that are feeding you, because they are the ones who are twisting things to begin with.

Click to expand...

RealityCheck01 said:

I am stating that you are ignorantly parroting lies which you could have found out with a little research.
8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots a YEC delusion about the recession of the Moon from the Earth.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

Lets read some of the article here:

"There are a number of potential sources of a C14 background signal in an AMS-based system using catalytically condense graphitic carbon produced from CO2 derived from the combuistion or acidication of carboniferous materials. One of these categories is instrument or machine backgruond which involves the registration of what is interpreted by the detector circuitry and or software as a C14 ion produced pulse, when, in fact a non C14 ion mimics C14 or the detector counts C14 which was not originally present in the sample matrix when it was introduced into the source".

More to come...

Click to expand...

1. The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).
2. The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’s cluster decay of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.1
3. The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds.But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out:‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ.’2Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.
4. The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the biblical timescale. This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, creationist or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless. Also, 14C dating assumes that the 14C/C ratio has been constant. But the Flood must have buried huge numbers of carbon-containing living creatures, and some of them likely formed today’s coal, oil, natural gas and some of today’s fossil-containing limestone. Studies of the ancient biosphere indicate that there was several hundred times as much carbon in the past, so the 14C/C ratio would have been several hundred times smaller. This would explain the observed small amounts of 14C found in ‘old’ samples that were likely buried in the Flood.

RealityCheck01 said:

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "religious fervor" fantasy when my profile states that I am an atheist.
It is evidence based fervor.

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "use the quote tags" lie when I use quote tags as in this reply.
What I do not do is quote your quote bombs again (as in your OP) or irrelevant, detailing questions. That is why I use ellipses.

The post you replied to is clear. No evidence based replies and 1 ambiguous reply so:
6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: What are the other geological process that make "erosion rates of continents" into a lie (hint: Himalayas, Andes, the country of New Zealand).

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: The YEC claim that the sea cannot contain its measured salt is unsupported and starts with a probable "maximum possible age of 62 million years""

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: You cited a lie that astronomers consider spiral arms to be persistent physical features when that was discarded in 1926.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Did not understand the YEC lie about the sediment accumulation in oceans filling them up.

Apparently we don't disagree on:
6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots an "overall decay" of the Earth's magnetic field lie
Somehow I doubt this is an acknowledgement of the lie because the magnetic field cycles.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "based on faith" lie about the origins of comets.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A lie that uniformitarianism means population growth is constant.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Explain how fossils of species that died out > 65 million years ago can contain soft tissue that is < 6000 years old ?

With the addition of:
8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: An ignorant demand to not read a source containing and citing science (TalkOrigins).

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: An stupid and irrelevant Yahoo search for spiral galaxies that produces images of spiral galaxies!

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "religious faith on an old Earth" lie.

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "Thus you support my argument" lie about soft dinosaur tissue.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

To examine and monitor the level of machine background in the Irvine Keck Carbon Cycle AMS Spectrometer, we have obtained a series of measurements on a set of natural diamonds. Because of their great geologic age, we view it as a reasonable assumption that these gem-carbon samples contain no measureable C14 and that their physical characteristics significantly eliminate or reduce exogenous contamination from more recent carbon sources.

Theyre using diamonds essentially as something we call a "method blank" to determine what amounts of C14 are produced by this particular kind of machinery.

The truth regarding this article is that it is describing good science. It shows that we arent just blindly assuming things about the ages of samples, but rather we are examining all potential options and sources for C14, so that when we actually do go and date a sample, we have a firm understanding of if our measurements are accurate or not. And so the whole research paper involves Quality Control discussion centered around this particular AMS machine at the university of California.

And what they basically did was, they ran many different kinds of samples, some that would contain C14, some that wouldnt. And they basically established background readings of the machine. So that when they use the machine, they will have an understanding of what concentrations are true to the sample, and what concentrations are not.

Click to expand...

1. The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).
2. The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’s cluster decay of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.1
3. The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds.But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out:‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ.’2Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.
4. The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the biblical timescale. This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, creationist or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless. Also, 14C dating assumes that the 14C/C ratio has been constant. But the Flood must have buried huge numbers of carbon-containing living creatures, and some of them likely formed today’s coal, oil, natural gas and some of today’s fossil-containing limestone. Studies of the ancient biosphere indicate that there was several hundred times as much carbon in the past, so the 14C/C ratio would have been several hundred times smaller. This would explain the observed small amounts of 14C found in ‘old’ samples that were likely buried in the Flood.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Its just disturbing. You get people doing real research and science. And then you have young earthers making up things about rocks being contaminated by zircons?? And mesozoic fossils and diamonds with C14 in them???

Its all a bunch of nonsense

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

If the rock was contaminated, the laboratory would have derived false results, but the results were accurate, and were therefore not subject to contamination.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

When you use the word contamination, you are implying that the sample was contaminated by something that was artificially introduced.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

For example, I can contaminate water by sticking a dirty sock into the water. I am artificially introducing contamination to the sample, which therefore results in a false positive result.

But indeed, both the granite and the zircon, were not contaminated by anything artificially introduced, and the results of their dating, were accurate.

This is why we have the word "inclusion" and we have the "principal of inclusions"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_included_fragments

If you want to talk about science, you need to familiarize yourself with the lingo. Otherwise you are being deceptive, or you just sound like you dont know what you're talking about, or both.

Naturally occurring compounds in rock, are not contaminants, they are naturally occurring, and in this case, are inclusions.

Click to expand...

RealityCheck01 said:

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Repeats the lie that carbon-14 is found in fossils and adds a lie about "billions of years"
Carbon dating is not valid for the vast majority of fossils because their organic matter has been replaced by minerals. Organic means carbon-based compounds. Insane people carbon dating these fossils get the dates of contaminants or the limits of dating. There are a handful of examples of soft tissue preservation inside dinosaur fossils. That is organic fossil material that could be dated by stupid people.

Carbon dating is not valid for samples that are billions of years old. Diamonds are dated by other methods to be billions of years old. Their main transport to the surface (kimberlites) have dates of tens of millions of years.

A lying citation of Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds.


8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "Carbon-14 is found in ancient samples including diamonds" lie.
There are "apparent 14C ages". My impression was that this was from C14 trapped at formation or maybe through absorption. But diamonds are dated by other methods to be billions of years old and it would be a big coincidence to have 14 natural diamonds from different sources that all formed recently. Reading the abstract again I see "one component of the instrument-based background". Thus this is C14 from the instrument itself.

Click to expand...

1. The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).
2. The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’s cluster decay of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.1
3. The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds.But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out:‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ.’2Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.
4. The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the biblical timescale. This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, creationist or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless. Also, 14C dating assumes that the 14C/C ratio has been constant. But the Flood must have buried huge numbers of carbon-containing living creatures, and some of them likely formed today’s coal, oil, natural gas and some of today’s fossil-containing limestone. Studies of the ancient biosphere indicate that there was several hundred times as much carbon in the past, so the 14C/C ratio would have been several hundred times smaller. This would explain the observed small amounts of 14C found in ‘old’ samples that were likely buried in the Flood.

46AND2 said:

Certainly.

When I was in the military, I worked with electronic test equipment. People from other units would bring their equipment to us to be tested for accuracy...or calibration, as it is termed. So the standards set forth by the military that each piece of equipment has to be calibrated by another tool that is at least 4 times as accurate. So the equipment that we used had to be 4 times as accurate as the equipment being brought to us. This equipment with the higher accuracy is what we call the standard. So we would adjust, or calibrate, the other unit's equipment to match our standard. In turn, we would have to send our equipment to Redstone [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]nal, Alabama, where they had equipment used as standards for our equipment. And so on, until it was eventually traceable to NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) in Colorado.

Of course, sometimes it wasn't always possible to obtain these proper calibrations, such as when we were deployed in mobile vans. So, we did something called "cross-checking." The idea is basically that we test our equipment against each other, in several different ways. So let's say we were testing the output voltage of a piece of equipment. We might measure that output voltage on an oscilloscope, a multimeter, and whatever else we had which was capable of it.

So, if we get the same measurement on each of the three measurement tools, we could be reasonably certain that all of those pieces of equipment were functioning normally, even though we didn't have access to standards. Because the more methods you have for making a measurement that agree with each other, the less likely it is that the measurement is wrong. The odds are pretty slim that the voltage output was incorrect, and the measuring tools were wrong in JUST SUCH a way that they all gave the same wrong answer, which just so happened to coincide with the expected value of output.

This idea is called consilience.

So, this is how we know that the decay rate of carbon has been consistent for at least the last 40-50k years. Carbon dating is calibrated primarily using dendrochronology (over the last 11-12k years). It is the science of counting the tree rings of specific types of trees which have been observed to grow one ring per year to determine how old the tree is. So tree rings are the standard by which we adjust the carbon dating (more on why it needs to be adjusted in a minute...it debunks one of your other "assumptions"). Yes, I know you have issues with dendrochronology too, but let me finish.

So now you may be asking. Ok, so what is the standard for dendrochonology? This is where the "cross-checks" come in. We don't really have a standard by which to test dendrochronology (at least not directly), so we have to test it against other methods. So this is what we do:

We have multiple tree chronologies (in different parts of the world) which go back to more than 10k years. If we carbon date a section of those chronologies, we can determine what the atmospheric carbon content was at that time (because it does change...we know this...we never assume that it didn't) by comparing the raw (uncalibrated) carbon date with the tree ring counts. So we use this knowledge to calibrate the carbon date.

From there, we do several things. 1. We test these calibrated carbon dates against items of historically KNOWN age. 2. We test the calibrated dates against annual sediment layers, called varves, deposited in a couple of lakes throughout the world (most notably Lake Sujitsu in Japan) 3. We test them against annual layers of ice cores, like has been spoken of here, in Greenland. 4. Against speleothems 5. against coral bands. 6. Against known volcanic eruptions with embedded ash layers within the varves, and cores, and against the abnormal tree rings during that time.

And we can plot all of these data points on a graph, and show how well they match with each other.

The results are remarkable.

So the question you are left with is, which is more likely? 1. That the carbon dating is accurate, or 2. that somehow tree rings grew remarkably fast AND carbon decay rate vastly increased AND pollen was produced and deposited ridiculously often every year in the lakes, AND unknown volcanic eruptions just happened to occur at precisely the right time during those hundreds to thousands of pollen laying events AND the KNOWN volcanic eruptions somehow didn't leave a layer in the ACTUAL correct sediment layer AND a dozen other things happened JUST SO....

...we got the expected result of carbon years which matched all the (equally) wrong answers?

Click to expand...

DogmaHunter said:

1. The age of the earth is not something that is handled in biology, but in geology and to an extent chemistry / physics. Scientists knew the earth was MUCH older then a few thousand years before evolution was a thing.

2. it is not "always" changing. It is rather improved in accuracy. As more evidence comes in, as we learn more. It's called progress. Also, if it changes, every time it is because new evidence showed it to be OLDER then previously believed.
The idea of a "young" earth has been discarded and refuted a LONG time ago.



lol.... argument from conspiracy.

Yeah, okay.... 99.8% of biologists, geneticists, molecular biologists,... yep, all "liars and frauds". Uhu.




I bet it will be very entertaining.

Click to expand...