Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Coragyps, Alpha particles two protons and two neutrons that combine do form helium. I'll agree uranium decays into helium, radium but no mention that its decaying individual neutrons just that its decaying into helium.Alpha particle - Wikipedia

mini ditka,Oil and Coal are commonly C14 dated 30,000 to 40,000 years. Snelling mineral wood fossil dated 38,000 years well beneath the backround radiation thresh hold.The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.Radiocarbon dating - WikipediaP.S. When they date the earth its based on to many assumptions. No contamination over millions of years, no leachate contamination, and that they have to rule out contamination. The Creationists refering to liquefaction state of all fresh water aquifiers supports all sediments on the earth have been contaminated.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-27-2005 12:48 PM

From what I have read, there are many INDEPENDENT sources that scientists use to estimate the age of the earth. Each one of these methods/sources is going to provide it's own answer for whatever the researcher is trying to date.Now, there certainly may be anomolies or small problems with individual dating methods... However, if I understand the process correctly (and anyone who is a geologist can correct me if I am wrong) the reason we can accept the age estimates provided by all of these various methods is that they all agree with each other to a certain degree. If I can arrive at basically the same answer (within some margin of error) via many different INDEPENDENT methods then I can verify that my dating methods are providing good data.It is certainly possible to point out issues with any individual dating method.... Measurement is not perfect by any means. However, if I can arrive at basically the same answer through many independent experiments I can be quite sure that my answer is accurate.In fact it would seem to me that these dating methods can become more and more accurate as we gather more and more data and building a larger database of results. In addition, we should be able to give a good estimate of the error involved in any dating excersie by analyzing several independent results.If I measure something in 10 completely different ways and find that nine of my methods agree and 1 does not should I assume that 9 of my methods are providing the correct answer or that the one anomalous result is correct?I think that individual dating results are not what makes scientists so certain about various dating methodologies. It is the correlation between many INDEPENDENT methods that makes the science of dating so convincing.

What do you mean the fossils were dated indirectly?

Almost any reference will tell you that the interaction of N14 and thermal neutrons will yield C14. As this source will tell you, radon, among others, is a source of thermal neutrons.Not FoundNow if nitrogen were extremely rare or if radon were not so mobile as well as being a part of the uranium decay chain, you might have a point. As it is, you have no point and no understanding of the process.

Actually, it is not commonly dated by C14 methods. Only YECs do this. MOst real scientists understand that such materials are so far removed from the original atmospheric carbon that dating would be meaningless. Actually, the dates go to 60ky, if you read the RATE stuff. Yes, isn't it a red flag, though, that all of these dates are approaching the limit of radiocarbon dating? Well, probably not to you or to any YECs out there, but to most of us it would indicate that the material is likely older and we are reading analytical noise. Under ideal conditions, yes. Yes, so the question is, what is the source of background C14. It also becomes a question as to why some materials actualy have NO C14. Your source does not support your point. Yes, assumptions that are minimized, compensated or eliminated by the process. Do you think that YEC 'scientists' have ANY motivation to avoid contamination, etc.? No, of course not. They WANT contamination, don't you see? (Never mind, it was a rhetorical question. I know what you see and what you don't see). More nonsense. Radiocarbon dating is not used to date the age of the earth. (For the fifth time)That is why we go to such great lengths to avoid contamination. Do you not have the courtesy to read our posts on this? Your lack of a response is inconsiderate and unchristian.

Listen this time, double-bogie, and answer me:How does your "contamination" get into the cellulose and lignin of leaves and twigs, and into the chitin of bug parts, AT PRECISELY THE SAME RATE? For all that, how does your "contamination" get into cellulose or lignin AT ALL?WRITE ME THE CHEMICAL REACTION, GOLFER!

edge, I know you are looking out for contaminations, however it appeared from my link that uranium decays into helium and then gives off gamma rays. It goes on to say it doesn't travel far(a few centimenter in the air), its stopped by a layer of skin. This is not a nucleur reactor where your multipling reactions. Your own link said any practical portable neutron source will not provide you with thermal neutrons. To get thermal neutrons they refered you to buy a commercial source like 252Cf that has a half life of 2.65 years.First, any practical portable neutron source will not provide you with thermal neutrons.Commercially available sources of neutrons include 252Cf that normally undergoes an alpha decay, but has about 3% of its decays through spontaneous fission.
Not FoundWould not a fossils N14 have to be radiated by a neutron to be contaminated. If alpha rays are easily absorbed by materials how can it reach the N14 within the fossil.Because of their charge and large mass, alpha rays are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air. They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the outer layers of human skin (about 40 micrometres, equivalent to a few cells deep) and so are not generally dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled.
Alpha particle - Wikipedia

Coragyps,The links I've already given says that your cellose is converted to kerogen in the absense of oxygen. Other links make light of kerogen and humic clays both having extremely high molecular weights due to humic acids. Check out these links inrespect to both kerogen and humic clays high molecular weights and similarities. Humics can bond up to 50 of the elements on the periodic table with the leachate having more organics solutes in solution than minerals.http://www.hagroup.neu.edu/abouthafrm.htm
Humic Acids
http://welcome.to/humics/structurems/humicms.htm
Page not found | UW Civil & Environmental Engineering
http://www.ihss.gatech.edu/

roxrkool,Fossils that can not be dated directly via C14 are dated by the sediments surrounding the fossil. They find age factors in the rock sediments to date, and suddenly they have an old fossil.Note: They date rock sediments directly to indirectly date the fossil.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-27-2005 07:08 PM

mini dika, The age of the granites support both old and young depending what age factors your testing for. Humphreys (Creationist scientists)shows that helium suggests 6,000 years, however some age factors suggests millions of years. All we know is that the earths bedrock appears 4.6 billion years but that does not mean its not 6,000 years since the earth was created.The earth likely would of been created with all the age factor from the earths beginnings. To clarify; in vacuum space, water, gold are known to vaporizes. Are the elements vaporized beyond our atmosphere. Is these elements getting older in space as we speak. Were the age factors you dating within the earth already old before the earth was formed 6,000 years ago.How come the earth is made with water from the inside out. Surely if the elements can vaporize in space these elements could of been drawn together by our IDer to form the earth. These elements age is not necessarily the age of the earth. Were all the stars made up in similar ways, from elements God made billions of years ago. Only God knows he simply says in the beginning he made the heaven and the earth. We simply can not assume the earth age factors are from the earths beginnings.All the dating methods suggests the sediment layers are millions of years and not 4.6 billion years. Is the earth getting younger or was all your sediment layers contaminated by the biblical flood.All the freshwater aquifiers exists in an liquefaction state. This simply supports all the sediments of the earth were contaminated by the flood. If the earths elements dated old even before the earth was created why would not all your dating methods not have the appearance of age.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-27-2005 11:36 PM

There is no "furthering" with golfer/whatever. There is no "dicussion". It seems a shame to leave people wasting their time with him. At some point one has to recognize when an individual's posts are not worth the bits taken to store the random nonsense they consist of.whatever passed that point a long time ago. If he's had 5 coherent posts in 1,000 that would be about it.

But, dear Golfer, if you'll trouble yourself to read the paper we are discussing, you will see that they hand-picked actual leaves, stems, and bug parts out of the Lake Suigetsu cores. Not kerogen. I know a little about kerogen, y'know: it goes on to make oil. Neither is a process that happens in a mere 100,000 years at 20 degrees C.

Post 206 immediately above yours just subtracted about fifteen from that five, too. Is anticoherence a word?

Your asking how your cellose (kerogen) is being contaminated. I given you links to digests. I've never said I totally disagree'd with the upper varve dates but provided a scientific mechanism to explain the lower varves less than perfect correlations.Lake Suitsu Varves actually supports the young earth, from a creationists flood scientific perspective. Liquefaction varve sorting, humic acids, anaerobic digestion supports the creationist point of view including the laying down of varves since their biblical flood.