Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

I see most of the points have been covered already but lets sum it up and see where it goes okay?(1) 14C dating is used to date objects containing 14C absorbed by organisms from the atmosphere during their lifetime - after death the 14C decays thus giving an indication based on the half life of 14C of when the organism lived. What is measured is the ratio of 14C to 12-C (the stable carbon isotope).Assumptions used:

the organism carbon content was in equilibrium with the atmospheric carbon content during the life of the organism,

the atmospheric 14C /12-C ratio was fairly constant during the life of the organism, and

the atmospheric 14C/12-C ratio is fairly constant in the past or the content can be correlated (calibrated) over time with other dating mechanisms to fine tune more precisely to the actual age of the atmosphere in question (that is what is being dated eh? not the organism per se, but the atmosphere consumed by the organism while it was living.)

​

As a result:

non-organic measurements are bogus because they don't depend on the consumption of carbon from the atmosphere during the "life" of the object.

non-atmospheric 14C measurements are bogus because they don't depend on the consumption of carbon from the atmosphere during the life of the object.
-- this includes marine life that use alternative sources of carbon, usually carbonates, and any life forms that obtain substantial portions of their diet from such marine life.

​

(2) The source of atmospheric 14C is 14-N plus bombardment by a neutron, a relatively rare occurrence that results in one 14C atom for every 10^{^12} 12-C atoms.
(= 1/1,000,000,000,000 carbon atoms)

​

The method

There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material.

​

In other words the amount of 14C in your body could be concentrated into a small grain of pure carbon that would be very hard to see in your hand with the unaided eye

200 lbs x 16oz/lb
------------------------ = 0.0000000032 ounces ...
1,000,000,000,000}

... if you were pure carbon ... and we are 98% water ...

​

As a result:

We are dealing with a very small initial amount of radioactive material in any sample -- before it starts decaying.

There is a "whole lot more" non-radioactive carbon in the initial sample and

There is a "whole lot more" (non-radioactive) nitrogen (14-N -- the original source of that 14C eh?)

​

(3) The half-life of 14C is 5715 years and the practical limit for 14C dating is45,000 to 50,000 years (depending on sources, but a good one was already provided: Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (click) - a lot of other useful information too, so you'll have to either (a) read the whole thing or (b) search the site for "carbon-14" references.

​

Let's say the limit is 40,000 years

​

As a result:

After 40,000 years the amount of 14C is 0.8% of what was in the original sample at the time of death

​

Now normally 0.8% is not considered a small number, but remember that we are already dealing with a small initial sample, but the other reasons that this is the practical limit of 14C dating are:

Uncertainty - we are getting down to where the numbers of molecules left in the sample size could mean that the variability in the number of actually decayed 14C molecules versus the number that should have decayed by the probability calculations makes the actual dates uncertain, and

Background levels of 14C are interfering with the ability to measure the sample accurately

Contamination of the sample by a very small amount at this level produces larger variations in dates

​

As a result:

No scientist uses 14C for anything that dates older than 50,000 years,

Dates beyond 40,000 years can be considered questionable, and

Labs generally report results in this level as a minimum age or that the amount was too small to measure accurately

Anyone claiming otherwise is misrepresenting the facts

​

(4) 14C content of extremely ancient samples correlates with radioactivity rather than age (and I would have used the same example Percy already used in Message 65 of the 14C content in oil by Kathleen Hunt), from Percy's link:

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. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that ¹⁴C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of ¹⁴C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!

(bold color yellow mine for emPHAsis) ...

​

As a result:

You have a correlation of erroneous 14C dates with levels of radioactive contamination rather than age for these materials.

The measured "ages" in the radioactive contaminated materials date to 40,000 years or older and 40,000 years correlates to 0.8% of the original sample proportion of 14C to 12C

A very small amount of a vastly more abundant material (14N) needs to be contaminated by local radioactivity to achieve such erroneous results.

​

(5) PurpleYouko's Message 68 information regarding spontaneous fission producing neutrons in those same kinds of radioactive materials -- those same kinds of neutrons and energy that caused the formation of 14C from 14N in the atmosphere ...

​

As a result:

You have "means, motive and opportunity" for the errors in ancient carbon dates to be due entirely to radioactivity in the surrounding materials.

​

Logical conclusions:
(1) The world is at least 40,000 years old (whether ancient carbon sources have elevated levels of 14C due to radioactivity or not) and
(2) 14C dating is reliable when used for the proper kinds of samples and the age limitations of the method, and when it is controlled for known sources of errors -- non-organic samples, non-atmospheric organic samples, and radioactivity contaminated samples - ie when it is used honestly.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The alpha particle has very little energy and is only able to move a few centimeters in the air. The problem is within the earth the alpha particle is absorbed by the sediments.Its this self shielding property of the earth (absorbing the alpha particle)all the alpha particle needs is a couple of electrons and it can not violate the coloumb barrier.If the alpha particle has not enough energy to penetrate a layer of skin it does not have the energy to cause fission unless it comes in contact with beryllium.Even then any neutrons generated would have to target N14 and within the earth soil dynamic enrichment is said to be N15. In soil dynamics (assimilation, nitrification, and denitrification) it always result in N-15 inrichment it did not say N14. I find this interesting because you need N-14 within the earth not N-15.Do you know if your fungus, bacteria are assimulating N15, it appear if so then its a non factor in respect to C14 generation? N14 is a gas so if its not incorporated within the soil why would it not simply returns to the atmosphere?If all N14 is returning to the atmosphere where is your target.Nitrogen - WikipediaBiologically-mediated reactions (e.g., assimilation, nitrification, and denitrification) strongly control nitrogen dynamics in the soil. These reactions almost always result in N-15 enrichment of the substrate and depletion of the product.http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.htmThe health effects of alpha particles depend heavily upon how exposure takes place. External exposure (external to the body) is of far less concern than internal exposure, because alpha particles lack the energy to penetrate the outer dead layer of skin.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I reckon you haven't a clue what you are talking about.Are you a chemist or physicist?I know I'm not, but do you?

Hi JF,Nothing in your message constitutes rebuttal, and I'm replying only to correct your errors: It looks like you may have used the Wikipedia entry on alpha particle as a reference, since there are a number phrases from that article that appear in your message nearly verbatim, and the order of presentation in your message is the same as the order in the article, and you've included information from the article that isn't even relevant to this discussion, like absorption by human skin.Anyway, to correct your errors, and as the Wikipedia article correctly states, emitted alpha particles have a hell of a lot of energy: "between 3 and 7 MeV. This is a substantial amount of energy for a single particle." 5% of the speed of light is only relatively slow compared to other radiative particles, and it is actually incredibly fast for something as massive as an alpha particle. When something that massive and that fast hits something it can do considerable damage. I very much doubt that acquiring a couple of electrons plays any significant role. What matters is what the alpha particle collides with. With its substantial energy it has little trouble overcoming the coulomb barrier of low atomic weight elements like oxygen, beryllium and carbon. For example, with beryllium the process goes like this: The neutrons produced by this process are now free to participate in the ¹⁴C production process by striking a ¹⁴N atom: Moving on: As described earlier, alpha particles have an enormous amount of energy. The reason they don't usually penetrate skin isn't due to lack of energy but because of their enormous size. An alpha particle is so large (after all, it's not really a single particle but a ⁴He nucleus consisting of 4 particles: 2 protons and 2 neutrons) that it is highly unlikely for it to travel very far before striking another atom. Animals are protected from alpha particles by their hair and skin which are damaged when struck, but that damage is usually not a health risk because hair and skin are continually replaced. However, ingested radioactive material can cause enormous damage inside the body since the alpha particles now strike metabolic tissue.As this webpage on Neutron Production relates, one very common way to produce neutrons is to mix a source of alpha particles, in this case ²⁴¹Am (Americium), with Beryllium. In other words, nuclear labs around the world are producing neutrons via the very process you're claiming is impossible.To directly address the issue of production of ¹⁴C in coal, radioactive materials that are mixed in with coal deposits give off alpha particles. Any of these alpha particles that happen to strike nearby beryllium, oxygen or carbon atoms will give off neutrons. Any of these neutrons which happen to strike a ¹⁴N atom will transform it into ¹⁴C. This explains the residual amounts of ¹⁴C found in coal. That these amounts are proportional to radioactivity levels within the coal is further supporting evidence. 99.634% of all nitrogen is ¹⁴N. As the very Wikipedia article on Nitrogen that you referenced describes, the enrichment process causes 0.73% of N₂ to be ¹⁴N¹⁵N, and the other 99.27% is almost all ¹⁴N₂. This is actually a cut-n-paste, not a summary or derivation, from Wikipedia's Nitrogen article. You appear to be quoting it without understanding it. ¹⁵N is always less than 1% of all Nitrogen and is not a significant factor. More than 99% of all Nitrogen in nature is always ¹⁴N. This is irrelevant to the discussion, but the website you're quoting is incorrect. Alpha particles have enormous energies. The reason they don't penetrate the skin is because as large and massive particles they are very unlikely to penetrate very far before striking another particle, usually the nucleus of an atom. This is true of any particle - no matter how much energy it has, once it strikes another particle its journey is over. The collision will emit other particles which then begin a journey of their own before in turn striking other particles.To summarize:

• Alpha particles have enormous energies.
  ​
• Radioactive elements within the ground produce alpha particles.
  ​
• In collisions with low atomic weight elements, alpha particles produce free neutrons.
  ​
• In collisions with ¹⁴N, free neutrons produce ¹⁴C.
  ​
• The amount of residual ¹⁴C in any ground sample will be proportional to the radioactivity level and the amount of ¹⁴N that is present.

--Percy

No the neutron isn't mobile. It travels in a straight line for an inch or so before it loses its energy.
The point is that the N14 atom will need to be in extremely close proximity to the the Radon or other heavy isotope nucleous when it fissions. You are quite right here. It is also quite irrelevent since spontaneous fission directly produces a free, high energy Neutron. It doesn't need to first make an Alpha.

And neutrons are generated, which can (and do) travel great distances. Forget the alpha particles, they're red herrings. No, some neutrons will hit ¹⁴N atoms and many will hit other atoms. The open question is "how many will hit ¹⁴N atoms?" Read the reference you provided. Overall on the Earth and in rocks, 99.634% of the nitrogen is ¹⁴N. Organic processes within soil have some isotopic separation effects, but the vast majority of nitrogen in any sample is ¹⁴N. "Enrichment" is not "exclusion"; the organic processes result in very slightly more ¹⁵N incorporated than the overall average.Consider the fact that very few fossils are found in paleosols (fossil soils); most are found in sedimentary rocks formed by erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and those rocks have no ¹⁵N enrichment. They may be slighly preferentially absorbing ¹⁵N, but still 90-95% of the nitrogen they contain is ¹⁴N. You are very confused. ¹⁴N is an atom, which is incorporated in many compounds which are solid at standard temperature and pressure, are included in rocks and soils and what-not (sometimes in just trace amounts), and many of which are required for life and are included in all living and formerly-living things. Nitrogen: The Essential Element. N₂ is a molecule which is a gas at standard temperature and pressure.

Missed one: "N14 is a gas", and the deduction that there's no N14 in the soil 'cause it's all going back to the atmosphere.

Mean free path, right? Got a convenient reference for that? I couldn't dig it up on Google.

Alpha particles are not involved in the process of fission.
Berylium is rather a special case. It is often used in nuclear reactors as a reflecting shield material as it helps a smaller mass of uranium to achieve criticality by sending neutrons back into the uranium.One note also on the term "Neutron Flux"
What this actually means is the neutron density at a given point. When the flux reaches a certain level then a chain reaction will begin.
In underground situations, the flux could be as low as one neutron every minute or so. In a small working reactor at 10MWatts (with highly enriched fuel), it is something like 2E14 neutrons/second.
It isn't really appropriate to talk about flux in the Earth

Something like that. It all depends on the density of the surrounding material. In dense rock it is likely to hit something within an inch or two. In a reactor we only need a couple of centimeters or less of shielding to stop all the neutrons. They aren't good at penetrating stuff but they do one hell of a lot of damage to the stuff they hit.I don't have a ready source of information to reference. I'm just basing my information on what I have picked up over the last 6 years working at a research reactor. I will see if I can find something.

I managed to dig up a load of complex calculations about the mean free path of a thermal neutron through various materials. Not many real examples though.
The defining factor is the density of the surrounding material and the probability of interactions between Neutron and Target. This is dependent on the Barns radius This is about the best explanation that I managed to find

quote:

---

By comparing the photon and neutron results we can see that of the two the neutron cross sections are much higher, so that fewer neutrons are transmitted through the 30 cm thickness of water, e.g., with a mean free path of only 2.1 cm there is only a very small probability that any 1 MeV neutrons will be transmitted through the water.

---

My earlier description of spontaneous fission as a potential cause for N15 to capture a neutron was a little simplistic.
What actually happens is that a fast neutron is emitted by fission but this has way too much energy to be captured so it is likely to collide with other neclei in the vacinity and cause them to also fission. This secondary fission will release much lower energy (thermal) Neutrons which are able to be captured by the N14 (or any other nucleus) Often the resultant nucleus will be unstable or meta-stable and will quickly decay, releasing beta or alpha particles along with Gammas. Some of these may cause further reactions, possibly resulting in a thermal neutron (in the case of the Alpha colliding with a nucleus such as Beryllium).
Each initial fission will most likely result in a cascade of minor nuclear reactions and could result in the production of many thermal neutrons which could potentially be the source of C14.
The radius of such a cascade is probably still only in the region of a few inches from the initial fission.

Not to be too picky but N2 is a gas. N14 is an atom and as such can be bonded to other atoms as part of a molecule.

I have no first hand knowledge of these processes like you do, so I can only read about them. What I'm reading doesn't agree with how I'm interpreting your description, so maybe I'm misinterpreting something.By "spontaneous fission" are you referring to radioactive decay?If so, then if we consider the example of ²³⁸U, when it decays to ²³⁴Th it gives off an alpha particle, not a fast neutron, or at least that's what I'm reading. I'm also reading that neutron sources use indirect means to produce the neutrons, for example, mixing ²⁴¹Am with Beryllium so that the alpha particles from the Americium strike the Beryllium and create a ¹²C atom plus a neutron.So what's the story?--Percy

OMG you work at the reactor! That's awesome, we're practically neighbors. I work at the Rollins Bottoms experiment station back behind the reactor sometimes. Down past the golf course.

Not all 238U decays through alpha particle emission. 0.00005% splits into two (sizable) nuclei and some neutrons instead.
Go to http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc8.html and find 238U in the table - link at the top of the linked page.Other heavy nuclei have this fission pathway available as well - poke around anything heavier than lead on that site I linked and you'll see the "branch ratio" or amount that decays by a fission path.Look at radium 226 there - it has
"Mode of decay: 14C
Branch ratio: 3.2E-9 %
Decay energy: 28.199 MeV"listed as a decay path. And 226Ra is in the 238U decay path, so there's always some around in the crust.Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.