|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Thank you sir. I vaguely knew there were new techniques available, but had no clue what they were. Appreciate the links and information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No, the creationists are NOT using science.
If they were using science they would refer directly to the mechanism involved and make specific points about that. Instead we get assertions about Cold Fusion - attempts to fuse hydrogen atoms via electrolysis. And you haven't shown any reason why that has any relevance at all. So the fact is that you are not using science (abusing it, perhaps) because you quite literally do not know what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
N14 has been proven to (accept a neutron in the upper atmosphere) to produce C14.
Just 14N has been proven to capture a neutron (the appropriate terminology) provided by the decay of nearby uranium to become 14C in the ground (or wherever it is). There's some question whether the resulting neutron flux is enough to account for the observed 14C, but in-situ creation of 14C is an observed fact for which you must account.
The facts are that C14 is within these fossils and after 43.6 half life's is impossible if the fossils are older than 250,000 years.
Unsupported assertion. For the second time, 14C ingested during an organism's lifetime is known not to be the only possible source of 14C, and we do not know that we know all the possible sources of 14C. Merely claiming that the observed 14C has age-significance isn't good enough, not by a long shot; you need to discuss the observed other possible sources and demonstrate their inapplicability. Prattling about fusion is off-topic. Discussing neutron capture, groundwater contamination, fungal contamination, etc. is appropriate. Go to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Just 14N has been proven to capture a neutron (the appropriate terminology) provided by the decay of nearby uranium to become 14C in the ground (or wherever it is). There's some question whether the resulting neutron flux is enough to account for the observed 14C, but in-situ creation of 14C is an observed fact for which you must account. It has not been proven within the earth, I believe your confusing neutron flux being whats expressed within a nucleur reactor with whats happening naturally within the earth. Uranium decays byproducts are alpha (helium) and beta radiation (energy of the conversion of a neutron into a proton). No neutron flux just helium (two protons bonded to two neutrons) within the alpha radiation and beta radiation (backround radiation flux). With C14 dating proving the earth is a young one(no neutron flux), you have no time for evolutions theory to be expressed. http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?c... Alpha Radiation () is the emission of an alpha particle from an atom's nucleus. An particle contains two protons and two neutrons (and is similar to a He nucleus: ). Beta Radiation () is the transmutation of a neutron into a proton and a electron (followed by the emission of the electron from the atom's nucleus: ). When an atom emits a particle, the atom's mass will not change (since there is no change in the total number of nuclear particles), however the atomic number will increase by one (because the neutron transmutated into an additional proton). An example of this is the decay of the isotope of carbon named carbon-14 into the element nitrogen: 146 C 0 -1 e + 14 7 N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
johnfolton writes: Uranium decays byproducts are alpha (helium) and beta radiation (energy of the conversion of a neutron into a proton). No neutron flux just helium (two protons bonded to two neutrons) within the alpha radiation and beta radiation (backround radiation flux). I think uranium decay is more complicated than this because it decays to thorium which is itself is radioactive and decays. There's a whole decay series that goes from uranium to lead through several intermediaries. Maybe someone can look up the details, but I'm pretty sure that neutrons are emitted at some point.
johnfolton writes: It has not been proven within the earth, I believe your confusing neutron flux being whats expressed within a nucleur reactor with whats happening naturally within the earth. As I said, I believe neutrons are given off at some point during the uranium decay series. We can look up the specifics if it becomes important. I found this at Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits which indicates that 14C levels in fossil fuels are a function of the radioactivity of the surrounding rocks, which is strong evidence for 14C being produced by the very process you just said there's no proof for:
TalkOrigins writes: So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I think uranium decay is more complicated than this because it decays to thorium which is itself is radioactive and decays. There's a whole decay series that goes from uranium to lead through several intermediaries. Maybe someone can look up the details, but I'm pretty sure that neutrons are emitted at some point.
{darn table formatting}
As I said, I believe neutrons are given off at some point during the uranium decay series.
Neutrons are not given off as such, but each alpha particle gives rise to thermal neutrons via α→N reactions. From Neutron Source:
quote: Edited by Admin, : Improve table formatting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It has not been proven within the earth, I believe your confusing neutron flux being whats expressed within a nucleur reactor with whats happening naturally within the earth. Everything we know of nuclear physics tells us it's happening within the Earth, and observations (mentioned by Percy above) indicate strongly that it's happening within the Earth. Unless you can come up with some evidence or analysis that indicates it's not happening within the earth, we'll take it as given that it is happening within the Earth. Then the only question is "how much is it happening", and that's still up in the air. Don't forget ther other possible sources of 14C:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Ever heard of Spontaneous Fission
This is exactly the same process that happens in a nuclear reactor except that it is not self sustaining. pretty much all heavy (more than mass 100) naturally occuring isotopes will spontaneously fission though there are vast differences in the rate at which they do so. Note that ALL fissions directly release a neutron as part of the process so a secondary substance is not required to "react" with an Alpha particle. Possibly Radon gas might be one of the most abundent sources of fission neutrons in underground areas. It is well known to be extremely mobile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Unless you can come up with some evidence or analysis that indicates it's not happening within the earth, we'll take it as given that it is happening within the Earth. The neutron survives as an alpha particle (helium) due to the neutron half life being only approximately 10 minutes. The sediment particles within the earth simply prevents a neutron flux from being generated within the earth. http://www.answers.com/neutrons neutronOne of the constituent particles of every atomic nucleus except ordinary hydrogen. Discovered in 1932 by James Chadwick (1891-1974), it has no electric charge and has nearly 1,840 times the mass of the electron. Free neutrons undergo beta decay with a half-life of about 10 minutes. Thus, they are not readily found in nature, except in cosmic rays. In a nucleus the neutron can be stable, but a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 17 min (1,013 sec), into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Possibly Radon gas might be one of the most abundent sources of fission neutrons in underground areas. It is well known to be extremely mobile. But is the alpha particle / neutron produced by radon mobile, didn't anything on neutrons being produced by radon, however a neutron will degenerate within minutes to a proton, electron and an anti-neutrino. http://www.answers.com/neutrons In a nucleus the neutron can be stable, but a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 17 min (1,013 sec), into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Alpha particle - Wikipedia This is a substantial amount of energy for a single particle, but because alpha particles have a high mass, this does not mean they have high speeds --- in fact, their speed is lower than any other common type of radiation ( particles, -rays, neutrons etc). Because of their charge and large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The neutron survives as an alpha particle (helium) due to the neutron half life being only approximately 10 minutes. The sediment particles within the earth simply prevents a neutron flux from being generated within the earth.
Nitpicking, 17 minutes is not "approximately 10 minutes". And alpha particles are not neutrons; they contain neutrons. Thermal (i.e. slow) neutron velocities are on the order of 2,000 m/s. That is, in 17 minutes a typical uncaptured thermal neutron travels just over 2,000 kilometers (just under 1,300 miles). That's a flux. Plenty of opportunities to hit a nitrogen nucleus. Neutron half-life does not prevent a neutron flux. I don't have the remotest idea why you brought sedimentary particles into it. Try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
This is a substantial amount of energy for a single particle, but because alpha particles have a high mass, this does not mean they have high speeds --- in fact, their speed is lower than any other common type of radiation ( particles, -rays, neutrons etc). Because of their charge and large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air. This is irrelevant to neutron flux ... but the major reason that alpha particles don't go far is their physical size qnd charge. Big things hit other big things more than weentsy things do, and charge just makes collisions more likely. Alpha particles ejected by radioactive decay are indeed relatively slow, traveling at only about 15,000,000 m/s (34,000,000 miles per hour). But, when one of those alpha particles hits something, it's got a certain probability of producing a thermal neutron. Yuo haven't yet addressed spontqaneous fission (I forgot about that) or the other possibilities I listed. Edited by JonF, : Add chaarge
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi JF,
Nothing in your post constitutes a rebuttal, so I'm only replying to correct your errors:
johnfolton writes: The neutron survives as an alpha particle (helium) due to the neutron half life being only approximately 10 minutes. The neutron does not "survive as an alpha particle". An alpha particle is a helium nucleus sans electrons, in other words, two protons and two neutrons. The answers.com page you referenced tells you that decay is not a factor for these neutrons when it says, "Free neutrons undergo beta decay with a half-life of about 10 minutes." A neutron in a helium nucleus is not a free neutron and is in no danger of decay.
The sediment particles within the earth simply prevents a neutron flux from being generated within the earth. The process that's actually been described for you is that naturally occurring radioactive elements within the earth decay and give off alpha particles which form free neutrons through collisions with certain elements like oxygen, beryllium and carbon. These free neutrons can collide with a carbon atom to follow the same process as takes place in the atmosphere:
n + 14N => 14C + p In other words, there is a ground source of 14C that, depending upon the presence of radioactive materials at any given location, prevent 14C levels from ever reaching 0. However, from the perspective of radiocarbon dating, these background levels of 14C are so small as to not affect the result in most locations. While it certainly would be no surprise to learn that the 14C levels in a uranium mine are pretty high, in all underground regions with approximately average background radiation levels the 14C levels would be negligible for purposes of radiocarbon dating. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy, help me on one other point.
I was taught that one of the reasons that radiocarbon dating was limited in scope to around 50,000 years was that beyond that level, it becomes hard to separate readings from what one would expect as a general background noise. It would seem to me that anyone using radiocarbon dating where it shows an age greater than 50,000 years (maybe slightly longer with newer instrumentation) is simply looking at nonsense readings that have no meaning at all. Is that still pretty much the case? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Yeah, everything you said seems pretty much in agreement with my own understanding.
Radiometric dating can in some cases be pushed back further than 50,000 years. Here's a couple paragraphs from my favorite radiocarbon site, Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory in New Zealand. This particular information can be found at their old site which I'm very glad they keep around, Radiocarbon Date calculation. It talks about the influence of background radioactivity levels:
It is vital for a radiocarbon laboratory to know the contribution to routine sample activity of non-sample radioactivity. Obviously, this activity is additional and must be removed from calculations. In order to make allowances for background counts and to evaluate the limits of detection, materials which radiocarbon specialists can be fairly sure contain no activity are measured under identical counting conditions as normal samples. Background samples usually consist of geological samples of infinite age such as coal, lignite, limestone, ancient carbonate, athracite, marble or swamp wood. By measuring the activity of a background sample, the normal radioactivity present while a sample of unknown age is being measured can be accounted for and deducted. In an earlier section we mentioned that the limit of the technique is about 55-60 000 years. Obviously, the limit of the method differs between laboratories dependent upon the extent to which background levels of radioactivity can be reduced. Amongst accelerator laboratories there has been mooted the theoretical possibility of extended range dating to 75 000 yr +, at present this seems difficult to attain because of the problems in accurately differentiating between ions that mimic the mass and charge characteristics of the C14 atom. Beukens (1994) for instance has stated that this means the limit of the range for his Isotrace laboratory is 60 000 yr which is very similar to the conventional range. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024