Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

You inquired whether alpha particle collisions with carbon, oxygen and nitrogen atoms giving off neutrons actually happens. I replied that my information came from JonF's Message 66, and that after looking at his message again I found that I had misremembered and should have said beryllium instead of nitrogen. I make no claims about the results of alpha particle collisions with nitrogen. I likely misremembered nitrogen because it is important for ¹⁴C production.I see sidelined says alpha particle collisions with nitrogen can give off neutrons, but as a natural process only in stars, so I guess that means it doesn't happen in your basement.Anyway, what I originally should have said was that I have no doubt that alpha particles from radon do collide with oxygen and carbon atoms in the air to give off neutrons, I just don't know how often. I don't think it's a great danger, either. Even if it were not all that infrequent, how far are the neutrons going to go into the body? Further than alpha particles, I guess, but still probably mostly stopping in the skin. The real danger of radon gas comes from breathing it, allowing the alpha particles to strike lung tissue and, if taken up by the blood (don't know if that happens or not) other vital tissues throughout the body.--Percy

Either there's more to the story or JonF's link is wrong. This is from JonF's Message 66: Perhaps the relevant isotopes of carbon and oxygen for this process aren't common? If that's the case, then you'd be correct in saying that neutrons shouldn't be a concern with radon gas. Or perhaps the link is just wrong.--Percy

Wouldn't be the first time that wrong information was found at wikipedia. Anybody can post an article there.
Having said that though, the particular article in question does appear to be quite well written.The thing is that every other source that I have so far found says that alpha fusion with Nitrogen produces Oxygen plus a proton. These sources have pretty much all been directly talking about Rutherford's experiments as I detailed in Message 118
I have found absolutely no information regarding Alpha-Carbon interaction or Alpha-Oxygen interactions other than articles about steller processes of Helium fusion and the triple Alpha process.It may be that certain other isotopes can be involved but it seems unlikely to me. I can't say for sure though.The vast majority of sites that I have found which talk in depth about Alpha particle interactions with lighter gasses, actually describe a process where the Alpha particle simply ionizes the atoms and breaks apart molecular bonds, thereby expending its energy without an actual collision.
In the case of direct collisions they describe it like two pool balls hitting each other and bouncing off in different direction with no actual transmutation taking place at all.

If we assume the link is wrong for now, that means that the only candidate source of neutrons from alpha particle collisions under conditions in the earth's crust is beryllium. Beryllium's about as common as uranium in crustal rocks (see Abundance in Earth's crust and click on elements in the chart - it provides abundance levels in a number of different mediums), but it's distribution might be more even since it's much lighter. Alpha particles would inevitably strike beryllium atoms, and to the extent that occurs it would serve as a source of neutrons.Johnfolton might request calculations showing how much crustal ¹⁴C would result from all the various sources, but I don't see the need for this. It would be very difficult to gather enough data and the relevant equations to actually calculate contribution figures, but we already know that the amount of residual ¹⁴C is proportional to the background level of radioactivity. There's no indication that anything else is going on, so obviously the residual ¹⁴C is due to processes (some of which we've already identified) driven by radioactivity.--Percy

Agreed.
IMO it would be ludicrous to suggest there will not be some C14 formation by one or more of the discussed routes. Its rate of formation would appear to be in equilibrium with its rate of decay.Further, this could be confirmed by measuring the C12/C14 ratio in various rocks and comparing it to the concentration of radioactive isotopes in that rock.If we are correct then we should see a higher C14 component in rock such as uranium-rich granite than we would in something like sandstone.Of course we have to choose a rock or soil that contains significant Carbon/Nitrogen to start with and calculations would need to be made to take into account the Beryllium levels, without which we would have far fewer neutron.Sounds like an very interesting study for somebody to do. Unfortunately I don't have access to the kind of mass spec that would need to be used for Carbon ratios. I can measure the trans-uranics and Beryllium in the rock though.

It appears the facts are pressing forward that the alpha particle (helium -4) is being deflected by the Coulomb barrier. In the process of breaking molecular bonds it secures electrons from molecular bonds to become helium. The alpha particle (helium -4) is only a molecular chemical reaction not a nucleur reaction and that the coulomb barrier is preventing transmutatation from taking place.The backround C14 radiation is explained by the leaching that mineralized the fossil. Leaching (the mineralization of the fossil) accounting for (the ratio being diluted) a disproportionate number of C12 atoms leached in comparision to C14 atoms being removed to the surroundings from the fossil being dated.This is how coal or any mineralized wood fossil thats only up to 11,500 years could date 35,000 to 50,000 years.Coulomb barrier - WikipediaThe Coulomb barrier, named after physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736”1806), is the energy barrier due to electrostatic interaction that two nuclei need to overcome so they can get close enough to undergo nuclear fusion. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

You're gibbering again.Leaching does not separate isotopes. It acts on ¹⁴C and ¹²C equally, and does not change the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio.Edited by JonF, : change "does" to "does not". Ooops.

But it is no barrier to neutrons and there are plenty of sources of neutrons (spontaneous fission for one) to have enough effect on coal and oils to convert 14N to 14C just as they do in the atmosphere.Even if the only source of 14N were the decayed remains of 14C from the original source, you only need one in every 100 atoms converted every 5715 years to get enough contamination for a false 40,000 year age in ancient coal and oil.The false readings correlate with radioactive contamination, not with age.This position of yours that 14C cannot be formed within the earth is falsified. This is another hoary creatortionista fantasy. Leaching does not differentiate between isotopes, and age is measured by the ratio of 14C to 12C. This is also falsified by Lake Suigetsu, where annual layers of diatoms and clay date the organic objects (leaves etc) caught in the sediment layers, and where the 14C dates for those organic objects match the physical age determined by counting the layers.Read what this christian site says about the lake layers:
Lake Varves If you want to discuss the correlations of age measuring systems then go to the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), as it covers more than 14C methods. What these all show, however is that the correlations of 14C dates to known annual layer dates is very good:

{note: image originally from http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm
copied to a mirror site to cut down on bandwidth usage}The deviation from a straight 45 degree line is due to the change in atmospheric 14C content due to climate. It is at most 16.7% and the effect is that organic objects are actually older than the dates given by the 14C method (data is below the 45 degree line).This is in a lake bottom where leaching would be expected if it were a problem, yet the data correlates with the physical counting of the layers, and the error between the data and an effect from leaching would be (according to your assertion) above the 45 degree line.It appears the facts, whether "pressing forward" or not, falsify your assertions.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : credited image to original site

---

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.

Does or does NOT?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thats quite the senerio however it appears your varves are indeed floating therefore to me your 45 degree line might actually be the rate the C14 is being diluted. It only takes a couple of atoms of C14 to affect the ratio and there exists a whole lot less of them than exists of C12.Your entire lake bed appears to be floating within water. However the multitude of varves could of easily formed when the sediments were lain down in the creationists flood. The organic material that decomposed into solution thats not undigestable cellose would put more C12 into solution to be mineralization within the pourous cellose.Given the pourous nature of cellose and you might well have a proportional dilution of the C14/C12 ratio in agreement with your chart.It is however interesting that your chart agrees that ratio has been diluted from a creationists perspective. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I think you missed the fact that PurpleYouko's comment was about the lighter gasses. Beryllium is a light metal, not a light gas. The same is true of Lithium and Boron (well, Boron is only sort of a metal, but it's not a light gas). The coulomb barrier is apparently not a problem with these elements.We have now identified these methods for producing ¹⁴C:

• Beryllium is a common element within the ground, and alpha particles striking Beryllium turn it to Carbon and release a neutron, which in turn can strike ¹⁴N to turn it to ¹⁴C.
  ​
• One of the Uranium decay series ends at ¹⁴C.
  ​
• One of the Radium decay series ends at ¹⁴C.
  ​
• Spontaneous fission of Uranium releases neutrons which strike ¹⁴N atoms to turn them to ¹⁴C.
  ​
• The above are only the processes we've identified so far that produce ¹⁴C. There are likely more.

Keep in mind that the amount of ¹⁴C found in any ground sample is proportional to the level of local background radioactivity. This could only be true if the radioactivity were responsible for the ¹⁴C. As has already been explained, leaching will not affect the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio.--Percy

Good post RAZD, bought me up to speed good and propper, nice.

Denial is like that. The beginning of the curve was located based on the same kind of data from other sources, and it is confirmed by the same kind of data from still other sources -- read the article.And your "rate the C14 is being diluted" concept is false for a number of other reasons:First off the slope of the line is flatter than the 45 degree line, while for your scenario it MUST be steeper (leaching increased with age)Second the data includes not just Lake Suigetsu but other systems of age date correlations -- the tree rings and corals -- that would all have to have exactly the same rate of mysterious 14C disappearance with time and for which your "leaching" mechanism cannot account.Third there should be scatter in the data if it was affected by leaching processes as different organic objects would have different rates of leaching, and the graph shows a very linear progression that doesn't need a line to connect the dots of data.Fourth leaching would be a linear loss of material, while decay is an expotential loss, and this would result in a very sharp upward curve in the data for leaching to be valid -- to the point where the 40,000 year age from 14C should be only 100 times the loss from 1 year.And you still have not explained how leaching could affect only 14C and not affect 12C. Without this magical mysterious mechanism the concept is useless wishful thinking. This must be some example of "creationist logic" because it doesn't follow at all from the data.For one, the layers themselves add up to much more than 50,000 years of physical counted year after year layers (they keep going beyond the depth used for 14C calibration), so the layers confirm an old age of the earth, even without the 14C data.This physical counted age confirms the 14C age dating no matter where you start the floating varve data, as it just adjusts the correlation horizontal offset at the beginning and doesn't change the shape of the curve, so it doesn't change the slope and it doesn't change the linearity of the curve when matched against the expotential decay model of 14C with a half-life of 5715 years. Care to back that up with some mathematical calculations to show how it works?Lets have something more than some magical mysterious leaching mechanism, lets have a model for how it works and what the effect over time is so we can calculate the ratio at different ages and then compare them to the data and see how it fits.You obviously must have that available, seeing as you have made conclusions based on the kinds of information that can only come from such an analysis eh? -- unless it is entirely made up from wishful thinking and refusal to accept the real world data (denial is like that).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.

Oops. Fixed.

In air?... yes.
In Soil?... some of the time. Unless the alpha impacts an atom of Lithium or berylium that is. Boron is questionable. Both these elements are equally as abundent as uranium and it is well known and documented that the coulomb barrier is not enough to prevent fusion when an alpha particle impacts one of them.
So a potential source of neutrons unquestionably exists. This relies on 2 assumptions.
First, that the original C14 is all that we ever had (ie. all the other potential sources in situ are discounted)
Second, that C14 does not leach out (during the mineralisation process) proportionally to C12.As to the first assumption, It is best not to enter into an investigation with the intent to make the answer come out the way we want it to so let's just let the evidence speak for itself.As Percy, myself and others have listed before in this thread, there are numerous potential in situ sources of C14, including one fission path in which Uranium directly fissions into C14. This has been observed, measured and repeated. It does happen. There is no doubt of that. It may not happen very often, perhaps one atom in 10,000,000 or so (pure guesstimate). This means that for any soil containing Uranium (remember that a Kg of average soil contains 2.52E19 atoms of Uranium) it's going to happen relatively often. A few C14 atoms per year is all we need.
And let's not forget the other radioactive elements in the Uranium decay chain. There are a number of steps before it becomes lead. Some of them are extremely short and in every step, Alphas, the odd fission neutron and potentially fission directly to C14 is going to happen.Percy stated that.. I don't know if this is correct or not. It seems to me that this is a prediction made by the theory that C14 in the soil is created in situ by decay (fission or otherwise) of Uranium. If it has already been observed then it is corroborating eveidence. If not then it would be an extremely useful experiment to perform.If it is found to be true (or has been) for a representative number of samples, then it pretty much confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that C14 is being created in situ and thereby making older soils (which should not have any C14) look younger.As to your "isotopic fractionation due to leaching" theory, I wonder if you are even using it correctly in the context of this discussion.You suggest.. that C12 is being preferentially removed during the mineralization of a fossil.
Think it through a little.
This would increase the proportion of C14 in the sample and would result in an artificially lowered age. NOT a higher age as you suggest here.. For this to happen you would have to remove the C14, not the C12.
Remember that any production of C14 in situ results in artificially lowered age readings as well.Besides this, there is no chemical leaching process that I know of that is able to change the C12/C14 ratio in any kind of sample. Please correct me with relevent links if I'm wrong here.
Also I note that you are still refering to mineralized samples (fossils if you will) while I am being more general and discussing samples that have not yet even begun to undergo such a process.
Soil is the medium I am focussing on for the moment. Mineralized soils are a similar but more complex scenario that I haven't even moved on to yet.A good example of such soils are the lake varves which Razd loves to bring up.
They are a great example.
No mineralization has taken place here. They are still just compacted mud with organic (not mineralised fossil) specimens contained therein.
I would say that these varves would be a great place to perform the experiment I described earlier.