Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

I'm not sure where the link is, but it's in one of these dating threads.that soft-tissue--it's fossilized. Archer Opterix had a good link somewhere, if only I could remember where.maybe someone else has the link handy?abe:found it, turns out it was in Underming Long Held Paradigms (and failing to do sohere's the link to the website Archer posted
T-Rex Bone Tissue (the soft part)--Fossilization at the Molecular levelEdited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

If I continue to address each of these assertions beyond this point, I would be reprimanded by the admins for being off-topic, as it is supposed to be about how radio-carbon dating disproves evolution.Peleg writes: Please feel free to start a new thread concering a discussion of this topic. I would like to see a debate about the issues brought up by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I think such a discussion may help reveal how science works and how much strong evidence it takes to the overthrow a prevailing scientific theory as there appears to be some confusion among some posters in how and why this has occurred throughout history. Once again, please feel free to propose a new topic on how such so-called soft-tissue overthrows current theories concerning the age and evolution of dinosaurs in the biosciences and geosciences.I would suggest you pace yourself, however, and not try to propose more than one or two topics before any preexisting ones you have proposed, and have been accepted, max out at the 300 level. You may find it impossible to keep up if you try to support too many threads.Please do not respond to this message as I would be unable to reply without breaking the rules.Edited by anglagard, : clarityEdited by anglagard, : speling as always

Keresu how exiting! Your imaging of bootcamp and burnings almost sounds like a modern day wich-hunt thriller-in a Freudian transferencial sence that is!I want to tell you though that I would't mind starting a topic concerning your " all a man's knowledge comes from his experience" because a whole lot of new studies on predator induced phenotypes seem to prove a sort of inborn knowledge. What do you think and thanks for the soft tissue refs. Here is one example of many.Just a moment...Oh an Anglagard, a little sassyness from behind your key board never hurt nobody so Thanks and be real dudes !Edited by Peleg, : No reason given.Edited by Peleg, : No reason given.

Off topic, but I think you misunderstand.knowledge isn't instinct. also, the study you linked doesn't really show how a predator influencing phenoypes is inborn knowledge.see, knowledge is more than just facts. It is understanding the why and/or how.a better link to try and prove your point would be one with the kids doing math visually--before they learned any of the concepts in class.the sig is a paraphrase of Locke--the first empiricist--not my own.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Today I received an email from someone who is almost certainly "John Folten" et al.

quote:

---

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

​

"I note that you provide no evidence that anyone claims that Cold Fusion
is responsible for the production of C14 within the Earth.
I therefore conclude that your claim is a complete fabrication."

​

Sir, the above quotation is something I cut & pasted directly from one
of your replies to a question regarding C14, obviously. It was a long
time ago, but nonetheless. You do realize that the general concensus on
the DOE's stand is that they accept the Coulomb barrier evidence to be
true on the status of C14. So, maybe the DOE should be asked why they
are harboring creationist data.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

---

Of course this simply repeats the same stupid error found in Message 23 and answered in Message 30Mark, John, Bret Charley, or Whatever your name is, it doesn't matter how many people you can produce who say that Cold Fusion ISN'T responsible for the trace amounts of C14. We all know that it isn't.What you need to produce is one person who claims that Cold Fusion IS responsible for C14. To prove that you're not just attacking a strawman of your own invention.But thanks for letting us know that the DoE does NOT support your claim.

Glad to see no one claims C14 being generated within the earth.It was kinda interesting how in a perfect situation how out of a million hits into a purified beryllium crystal without sediment particles in the way the alpha particle still stole an electron in all but 30 hits.Think the katheleen Hunt people have more questions like the yamal penninsula study that dated organics in the yamal peninsula and showed no woody plant fossil dated in agreement with their old earth. In fact russians they said they could find nothing that dated older than 9,600 years. It is quite interesting given Baumgardener has brought to light that labs fudging out 50,000 years before a sample is dated because that would support a young earth and science says it has to agree with rocks that dated millions of years.The russians simply dated without fudging wood fossils frozen preserved showing an unbiased climatic study including tropical plants shows nothing dated older than 9,600 years. It showed climatologists that tropical plants no older than 9,600 years thrived on the artic circle. (meaning Greenlands mountain of ice) could not of existed 9,600 years ago. In a tropical climate its not like the ice varves are supported by granite mountains nor could any of them glaciers of existed 9,600 years ago which is interesting if the earth was older some tropical plants would of dated older but interestingly all dated young!In America these Russians would of lost tenure because in America its not politically correct to publish stuff that supports a young earth (check out the movie Expelled by Ben Stein) people that have been expelled for far less, etc... Guess the Russians were not told to fudge their study? In america its politically correct to fudge the lab results so if you send a sample to get dated it will not date young, they call it contamination but truthfully according to baumgardener its fudging (buffering out) 50,000 years of C14.P.S. There was another thread that went into yamal peninsula (enjoy) tropical plants and Greenland mountain of ice could not both of existed 9,600 years ago. The fact that tropical plants thrived this far north raises serious questions how its possible for a mountain of water (ice) to of existed in a tropical climate 9,600 years ago?You only have to look at Seattle Washington where peaks of snow exists in a near tropical climate but only on peaks of granite at an elevation far higher than sealevel. What caused the yamal fossils to date so young transmutations? Too consistent to be due to cold fusion, transmutations glad were all in agreement. The next step is actually quite easy. ITS A YOUNG EARTH !!!!!!! Sorry,Not I:Whatever P.S. Join the winning team if the truth is the fossils are young nothing wrong with standing on the truth, etc...Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

OK - I want to see one or more references on this. Especially for the tropical part.It wouldn't surprise me a great deal, if there were indeed non-tropical plants dated to that age. We get something along that line here in northern Minnesota. Which in no way rules out a long Earth history prior to those plants.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Added 2nd sentence.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added 2nd paragraph.

quote:

---

Glad to see no one claims C14 being generated within the earth.

---

Of course you know that people do claim that. They just don't claim that it is due to Cold Fusion. You made that up.

quote:

---

Sorry,

​

Not I:

---

Oh, so it's just a coincidence that the author made the same stupid mistakes that you make ?

Is this level of logical ineptitude meant to make us laugh, or are you looking for pity?

He must be talking about this.As they report, the oldest subfossil wood they could find was 9,400 years old. Obviously they don't claim that this is evidence for a young Earth, because they're not nuts in the head.The trees in question are not "tropical", they are Siberian larches.You see why creationists avoid giving references?

quote:

---

It was kinda interesting how in a perfect situation how out of a million hits into a purified beryllium crystal without sediment particles in the way the alpha particle still stole an electron in all but 30 hits.

---

I thought we had been over this before.
the 30 parts per million number has nothing to do with hitting a purified beryllium crystal with 1,000,000 alpha particles
It is an experimentally derived figure based on 1,000,000 successful collisions between an alpha particle and a single Beryllium nucleus.
30 of these collisions resulted in the release of a high energy neutron
The other 999,970 resulted in something else. This something else is definitely NOT "stealing an electron". That would NOT be considered to be a successful collision. Collisions always result in some form of transmutation. All 1,000,000 of them transmuted into something.This 30ppm value also has nothing to do with the Beryllium being in a purified crystalline form. All that does is to bring the atomic nuclei closer together within the crystal lattice, thereby maximizing the chance of an alpha particle hitting something rather than just shooting straight through.
It's a bit like shooting a bullet into a forest. The more dense the trees are packed, the more chance of hitting one of them. In a very spread out forest, the bullet is may well run out of energy before it hits anything.
A good analogy would be if the trees were all about 1/4 of a mile apart and you fired a .22 bullet. That would give you somewhere around the same chance of hitting one of the trees. Beryllium is very small and an alpha is even smaller.30ppm might sound very small but it is actually very high and is way more than needed to produce one or two C14 atoms per year which is all we need for a continuum age measurement in natural samples.Did you know that nuclear reactors actually use a beryllium mirror lining in the reactor vessel in order to reach criticality with a smaller fuel rod?

quote:

---

Glad to see no one claims C14 being generated within the earth.

---

That is primarily because it is utterly insignificant in pretty much every case.
All it results in is a continuum of background noise in the measurement of isotopic ratios.
At 50,000 years + the continuum levels out to a more or less constant ratio due to in situ production of C14 by various reactions.You should also note that any such production of C14 will only serve to make the sample appear younger than it actually is.After all we have gone through in this thread are you still saying that in situ C14 production does not happen?Remember all we need is 20 or 30 atoms of C14 to be produced per year in each Kg of soil. We have established ample pathways for this to happen in normal soil/mud/clay/rock and so on.

I got a new computer thus lost my link to the russian study did word searches but could not find it on the several thread where the tropical plants including greenland was discussed. Could not find the study doing google searches but the word was nothing "NOTHING" dated older than 9,600 years.P.S. Your side simply believed a mountain of ice existed above sealevel I agree'd as long as its base is held up by granite and not ice. Without the study we discussed in the past its not worth going farther than the previous discussion unless someone can find the link to the russian study. You can not have tropical plants and ice varves in the artic circle the russians data showed tropical plants thriving in them peat core samples only 9,600 years ago. This also means no contributions or deletions of C-14 due to fusion of any color, nor transmutation through reductions, fungus, leaching, in that the samples were still frozen due its now cold up above the artic circle.P.S. the kind kathleen hunt minions was attributing to coal c-14 dating, etc....The evidence provided by the russian study is that less than 9,600 years ago it was tropical. Perhaps the excess carbon the earth simply means nothing to fear about excess carbon dioxide, etc...History shows the artic was tropical in climate other indicator fossils draw up from bottom of the artic seas Purdue University study was also discussed in the past on this site about what artic creatures existed in their studying global warming by sampling creatures on the bottom of the artic seas near the north pole showed tropical creatures in cores sampled. The bottom line the russian study you will find nothing dated older than 9,600 years. I could not find the study certainly not something you'd see in political correct publications wondering if its been swept under the rug by the political correctness folk fear of the validity of the evidence of a young earth, etc... Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

The only "Russian" study I have seen creationists cite is the coal study: The problem with this is that it is just sloppy creationist research that has been passed down from book to book to website after website. And it is false.What we had there was no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! But that was enough to fool Ken Ham. The coal was nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. That radiocarbon sample was even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the following paragraph discussed archaeological data. But it was too good for a creationist to pass up. (Most of their examples of faulty radiocarbon dating are similarly untrue.)Here is a link to a blog giving all of the particulars:http://blog.darwincentral.org/...nce”-”-part-ivSo I am not waiting for your half-remembered references showing that radiocarbon dating proves a young earth.Based on past experience, I have absolutely no reason to trust anything a creationist says about science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

My feeling was in a dense forest (beryllium crystal)lining nucleur rods what difference does it mean if 1,000,000 alpha particles hit 1,000,000 different Beryllium atoms. Seems your saying they are not scarfing an electron to become helium in the other 999960 hits but transmuting? if that would be the case then how can we believe any dating methodology.

The only similar study I have found was the one found by Dr Adequate and the 9400 years refers to the oldest sub-fossil wood collected by that particular survey. Another study into pollen samples deals with considerably older material - and shows no sign of a tropical climate.So far we have no evidence that there is any study saying what you claim.