|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
As to your "isotopic fractionation due to leaching" theory, I wonder if you are even using it correctly in the context of this discussion. A long link (Editted to fix link) A kinetic isotope fractionation occurs during AMO because methane composed of the lighter isotopes of C and H is oxidized slightly faster than methane composed of the heavier isotopes (Bigeleisen and Wolfsberg,1958). The magnitude of the effect is expressed as a fractionation factor,, which is defined as the ratio of relative reaction rates of molecules containing different isotopes(Rees,1973):
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.. With more C12 being fractionated into the methane gas byproducts you would have more C12 available than C14 in solution to remineralize to the organic not easily digested. This would cause fossils to date older not younger, with C14 being fractionated into solution forming the digestable C14 backround radiation. With the methane gases transporting CO2 thus explaining that proportionately more C14 than C12 is bubbling upwards causing the upper sediments to date not older but younger. This is all I'm trying to convey that within the earth there is a whole lot of chemical reactions (not nucleur reactions)that are affecting the ratio's. Edited by AdminModulous, : Gigantic link in post was stretching the page.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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. 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. I think Percy is referring to Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits; although that's talking about coal, not "any ground sample", and in her paraphrase of Dr. Gove's email she states:
quote: which is not quite the same thing as background radiation. Maybe your academic resources could dig up some of the primary literature on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
A kinetic isotope fractionation occurs during AMO because methane composed of the lighter isotopes of C and H is oxidized slightly faster than methane composed of the heavier isotopes (Bigeleisen and Wolfsberg,1958). The magnitude of the effect is expressed as a fractionation factor,, which is defined as the ratio of relative reaction rates of molecules containing different isotopes(Rees,1973):
Thanks for the link. That looks like an extremely interesting paper. It is going to take me some time to read though all the information in there and get a grasp of exactly how it impacts our discussion here.
With more C12 being fractionated into the methane gas byproducts you would have more C12 available than C14 in solution to remineralize to the organic not easily digested. This would cause fossils to date older not younger, with C14 being fractionated into solution forming the digestable C14 backround radiation. With the methane gases transporting CO2 thus explaining that proportionately more C14 than C12 is bubbling upwards causing the upper sediments to date not older but younger. This is all I'm trying to convey that within the earth there is a whole lot of chemical reactions (not nucleur reactions)that are affecting the ratio's.
I think I see what you are suggesting now. You think that in deep sediment, the C14 is being converted preferentially to Co2 then bubbled up through the layers and deposited in the upper layers as the Aerobic mechanisms take over.This raises a number of questions though. If it was to happen this way, we should see the depth profile dating in the reverse direction should we not? Surface sediments aught to date older than deeper sediments due to the fractionation effects of this process. I don't doubt that there are chemical processes going on. They may well be the prevalent processes in some areas. Whether they have an effect on Radio-Carbon dating is the question.Either way you cannot entirely discount nuclear processes. They undoubtably happen. Again the question is to what extent? I wouls suggest that in certain places the nuclear processes would likely be prevalent. places like deep dry soil with a high content of granite would be the kind of place where it would likely be so. Wet marshy soils would be the most likely candidates for chemical processes to prevail. Over the next day or two I will carefully read your article and also do as JohnF suggested and see if I can find any relevent research papers through the university system I have to say that it makes a really nice change to actually discuss the science for both sides of an argument in one of these threads instead of mudslinging
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
One could also email Dr Gove and get an update -- I'm sure more information is available now than when the coal article was written in 2002.
Or follow up on the references on Ms Hunts paper Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is all I'm trying to convey that within the earth there is a whole lot of chemical reactions (not nucleur reactions)that are affecting the ratio's. This concept is as falsified as your leaching one by the data from Lake Suigetsu when analysed over the known time intervals -- see Carbon 14 Dating and the possible effect of "leaching" Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
This concept is as falsified as your leaching one by the data from Lake Suigetsu when analysed over the known time intervals
The Article referenced specifically addresses "Gassy Sediments".I haven't read the whole thing yet but it is appears to be very specific in the type of sediment effected. I don't think that Lake Suigetsu falls under than catagory anyway so for this particular case it is not even relevent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi PurpleYouko,
I just wanted to say that I've found your recent posts to be some of the best examples of objective investigation here since Sylas. You're reporting what the research says regardless which side of the debate it supports. This must be time-consuming for you, so I just wanted you to know that it is much appreciated. To everyone else, this isn't to denigrate anyone else's contributions, including my own that PurpleYouko has corrected several times. Her background seems to line up pretty well with this topic, and it just seems like she's making the most successful effort right now to get below the surface to find the accurate information. I don't know if this analogy works for everyone, but sometimes scientific analysis seems similar to analyzing a photograph. Sometimes the closer you get the more detail you see, but the more you lose sight of the subject of the photograph. Or sometimes, though the detail is important to answering certain questions, by the time you've dug deep enough to find the relevant details, how they relate to the original questions is often no longer clear. And finally, sometimes it seems like the deeper you dig the less certain you become of anything at all. Thinking about creationist questioning of evolution, I'll also offer a lawyer analogy. Good defense lawyers of course do their homework so they know the answer to questions before they ask them, but the best ones know to question everybody about everything because they know that they'll always get different answers, even when every witness had a front row seat for the entire crime. They are expert at picking apart these differences to raise doubts in the jury's mind. I think this comes to mind because of recent interactions with Randman. He's so good at this lawyerly tactic that even when no one's done anything he claims, I think evolutionists still come away feeling underhanded and disreputable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Article referenced specifically addresses "Gassy Sediments". I read the pdf versionhttp://earth.geology.yale.edu/...99/07-09.1999.04Martens.pdf Also see Anaerobic methane oxidation in marine systems and Cafe Methane (nasa news stories) It also involves the methane banks off the coasts (applicable to several localities of marine sediments -- methane banks may be the next fuel source), and as such it is a deep marine environment that would then be depleted of atmospheric sources for 14C and so wouldn't be dated properly anyway. Of course it would then have more 12C than 14C, because the source of 14C was already depleted, not because of any effect of the leaching mechanism. His original comment was
Message 126 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. There are several problems with this, not least of which is that 14C dating is not done on mineralized fossils -- it is done on organic samples. Others have commented on the leaching in specific reference to Lake Suigetsu, so I thought I would put that canard to bed. And he is also now claiming on this one that there is 12C being imported into the material:
With more C12 being fractionated into the methane gas byproducts you would have more C12 available than C14 in solution to remineralize to the organic not easily digested. Does he realize that there are 10^10 more molecules of 12C than 14C at the start? Any idea how much 12C you would need to import to change the date measurments? Thanks. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
I am in the middle of a rather extensive search of all the relevent scientific literature I can find that relates to the issues of Radiocarbon dating and Uranium.
I am beginning to find myself drawn in directions that I did not anticipate. Yet what i am finding would tend to indicate that some of the things mentioned in this thread with respect to an in ground source of C14 may well be the case. Many researchers are describing a consistent trend of disagreement when comparing C14 dates to those obtained by other methods such as Uranium/Thorium dates and K/Ar to name a few. here are a couple of examples
quote: Strangely though, Corals are of marine origin so I don't really understand how the C14 age could be expected to be correct. Maybe I am missing something here.
quote: Again these are shells though I don't know if they are of marine origin or not. This one shows an agreement but I don't put much stock in these results, even though they are peer reviewed. The U/Th ratios were obtained via ICP-MS and that methodoligy is not a very precise tool for high precision ratio measurements. I will have to read more on this to see what their claimed precision is.
quote: Now this one is interesting. They artificially mixed some thorium in with a representative sample and experimentally proved an age bias can be introduced
quote: That is a big enough post for now. I will keep you all informed if i turn up anything else of interest.I should note though, that I have been unable to obtain the papers cited in the post that Razd linked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Corals are of marine origin so I don't really understand how the C14 age could be expected to be correct. They'll be off by the "reservoir age" - typically 400 to 800 years - depending on how "old" the bicarbonate in the water is at the spot they grew. The 14C folks have a pretty good handle on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
They'll be off by the "reservoir age" - typically 400 to 800 years - depending on how "old" the bicarbonate in the water is at the spot they grew. The 14C folks have a pretty good handle on this.
Yes I noticed a number of references to "reservoir age" and even a number of papers dedicated entirely to it. I got the idea that they consider it a non-issue that just has to be corrected for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Beryllium is purified from minerals within the earth so in this purified state its said to beable to liberate 30 neutrons for every million hits from an alpha particle. It forms various molecular compounds that due to the coloumb barrier no reason or evidence in the natural its releasing neutrons. Is there any evidence that beryllium molecular chemical compounds (not beryllium) that are found within the earth are violating the coloumb barrier?
The alpha particle in air can only move 2 centimenters, even 1 layer of dead skin is able to absorb the alpha particle before molecular bonds (chemical reactions) supply (helium -4) the electrons to become helium. Beryllium - Wikipedia It is highly permeable to X-rays, and neutrons are liberated when it is hit by alpha particles, as from radium or polonium (about 30 neutrons/million alpha particles).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Exactly why does this make the slightest difference to the discussion?
You seem to be the red herring king here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I think that even though many of the issues Johnfolton is raising have a strong "red herring" element to them, he does seem to be asking well thought out and relevant questions. There's a "grasping at straws" nature to a lot of this, the best example being his "15N enrichment" argument that when examined revealed that it diminished 14N proportions to something still above 99+%.
But as for his last question, it seems that if one of the important sources of neutrons in the ground is thought to be beryllium because beryllium in elemental form gives off neutrons when exposed to alpha particles, how do we know that beryllium in molecular form also gives off neutrons when exposed to alpha particles? I'll go out on a limb and speculate that chemical bonds have little influence on atomic reactions, for the simple reason the energies involved are different by orders of magnitude. It's why traditional chemical bombs are used on small targets while nuclear bombs are used on entire cities. But I've been enjoying PurpleYouko's technical explanations, and maybe she'll chime in on this topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I'll go out on a limb and speculate that chemical bonds have little influence on atomic reactions, ITYM "nuclear reactions". Or maybe "nucular reactions" .
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024