Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 6:30 AM
351 online now:
NoNukes, PaulK (2 members, 349 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,344 Year: 23,950/21,208 Month: 1,915/2,468 Week: 8/416 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
22232425Next
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
zaius137
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 301 of 373 (741535)
11-13-2014 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by NoNukes
11-12-2014 11:10 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
quote:
The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen, which can comprise up to 1% of a diamond by mass

The fact that nitrogen-14 is so abundant only helps my case. You see if the sample was contaminated by radiation it would cause a greater abundance of C-14. That contamination would be picked up easier because it would stand out more in the standard deviation.

quote:
Only if your goal was to assert and be wrong. Don't you ever check anything?

You see all your claims about radioactive contamination are just that, claims. Ever time a result is a little bit uncomfortable the knee jerk reaction is to attack the researcher, their methods, their world view… on and on.

My friend you win the battle only to lose the war.

The problem with unlikely scenarios is that they are "unlikely".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 2:42 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 315 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 11:32 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 302 of 373 (741536)
11-13-2014 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by RAZD
11-12-2014 9:49 PM


Absurd assumptions are misleading
quote:
The variation is 14C levels in different rocks of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the rocks.

That is a ridiculous claim… You might as well say all the surrounding rocks are radioactive, not just background but radioactive enough to cause contamination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 9:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:19 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 7:19 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 303 of 373 (741537)
11-13-2014 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by NoNukes
11-12-2014 11:29 PM


Off subject...
quote:
Yes, graphite is used as a component of control rods. The carbon does not have a large cross section for absorption, but that is not it's function. Carbon acts as a moderator to slow down fast neutrons so that they are more readily captured by boron or material effective at neutron capture.

Graphite was used primarily as a moderator in early and soviet style reactors. It was always considered too dangerous for use on a broad scale in the United States. I gave you the citation for the scramming rods/control rods.

just say… Zaius you are right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:29 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 12:45 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 304 of 373 (741538)
11-13-2014 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by edge
11-13-2014 12:13 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
So, let me get this straight. You want to produce an extreme discrepancy with an insignificant process.
Do I have that right?

That insignificant process, as you put it, changes the entire paradigm. Not by magnitude but by precedence.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 12:13 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 10:44 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 305 of 373 (741540)
11-13-2014 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:14 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
zaius137 writes:

The fact that nitrogen-14 is so abundant only helps my case.

Nope. Not at all. The fact that the stable N-14 isotope is incorporated in the crystal lattices of diamonds when they crystallise, means that there's always a ready source of fresh C-14 in diamonds. And C-14 is not stable; it reverts back to N-14. We would thus expect to find fresh C-14 in diamonds, regardless of age.

zaius137 writes:

You see if the sample was contaminated by radiation it would cause a greater abundance of C-14.

New, fresh C-14 formed regularly. C-14 has got a half-life. Thus, we would expect to find C-14 in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.

That contamination would be picked up easier because it would stand out more in the standard deviation.
It's not contamination. It's fresh C-14. Doesn't matter what the deviation is; we expect to find fresh C-14 to detect in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:14 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:21 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 317 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 11:58 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 306 of 373 (741541)
11-13-2014 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by zaius137
11-12-2014 9:07 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
zaius137 writes:

If 14C is in diamonds or coal...


Diamonds already done.

Ever been in a coal mine? Ever seen how wet the coal is? It's groundwater. And groundwater is replenished with fresh C-14 every time it rains. And that water gets adsorbed in the coal. Together with the C-14.

And all those bacteria living in the coal. Another source of fresh C-14.

Then also don't forget the N-14.

Three reasons why we expect to find C-14 in coal. Regardless of the age.

Also three reasons, amongst many others, why only creationists would try to carbon date coal and diamonds and expect a reliable date. They want to mislead people.

zaius137 writes:

... they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way.

Or the people who tried to carbon date diamonds and coal and expect a reliable date for the formation of these are either idiots or want to mislead people. My bet is both of these.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 9:07 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 9:11 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 319 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 12:07 PM Pressie has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 307 of 373 (741558)
11-13-2014 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by RAZD
11-12-2014 8:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
... how come there is measurable amounts in diamonds, fossils and coal seams?

Because 14C can be created from these materials when they are subject to radiation, as occurs with carbons rods used in fission generators to control the rate of reactions.

No doubt that's a contributor, but the major contributors in the RATE studies were background and other contamination. They worked hard at eliminating one and only one source of contamination. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:01 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 308 of 373 (741560)
11-13-2014 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by zaius137
11-12-2014 8:51 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.

The person he criticizes is John R. Baumgardner a geophysicist. You have to be kidding..

Baumgardner who has no training or experience in 14C dating and avoidance of contamination and how to measure background, yeah, that's him.

Went threw that citation of yours but did not find a significant argument against 14C in diamonds.

Of course you didn't. Morton's demon prevented you from seeing what was there.

Otherwise I will view your opinion as just an opinion

It's the opinion of a recognized expert in the field, and backed up by evidence. {ABE} I'm not sure if you are acknowledging Dr. Bertsche's (I spelled his name wrong earlier) expertise. He is a physics PhD from UC Berkeley, has conducted many 14C dating studies, and is currently at the Stanford Linear Accellerator. Oh, and he's a comitted evangelical Christian.{/ABE}

14C was detected, does that stament hurt that much?

Oh, certainly 14C was detected. That 14C has no significance as to the age of the samples, as Dr. Bertsche demonstrated.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 8:51 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 12:00 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 309 of 373 (741561)
11-13-2014 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:19 AM


Re: Absurd assumptions are misleading
That is a ridiculous claim… You might as well say all the surrounding rocks are radioactive, not just background but radioactive enough to cause contamination.

Background radiation is everywhere, including in rocks and coal and diamonds.

The issue is whether there's enough to cause the observed results. guesses by someone as ignorant as yourself are not evidence.

It seems that in Baumgarrdner's studies in-situ production probably isn't the major source. Contamination and background are. remember this?

quote:
Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure [1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE’s five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction.

Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by the modified sample chemistry.

Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields” [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.

If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”

The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:19 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 310 of 373 (741562)
11-13-2014 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Pressie
11-13-2014 2:42 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
It's not contamination. It's fresh C-14.

Depends on your definition of contamination. If "contamination" is non-age-significant 14C, then it's contamination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 2:42 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 311 of 373 (741565)
11-13-2014 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by zaius137
11-12-2014 10:17 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
quote:
The variation is 14C levels in different rocks of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the rocks.

I am not aware that 14C in rocks has that much relevance for dating them, I thought Potassium Argon dating was predominate for rock dating.

Note that I edited my post to clarify what I meant, so that the paragraph now reads

"The variation in 14C levels in different coal samples of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the coal."

Sorry for the mistake. Rocks are not dated with 14C because it is a method for dating organic matter that uses carbon including 14C during growth.

Yes, regardless the credential a creationist is labeled a outsider.

Ah the old persecution paranoia. No, the reason is that those papers would not pass peer review because of their bad science, and he knows it.

Carbon-14 is most commonly produced in the upper atmosphere from Nitrogen-14 not in diamonds or oil. How much Nitrogen-14 is in diamonds? Small amounts I would guess, so production in that way would be rare in diamonds. I would think that would be the same case for oil and coal right, just trace amounts. You could then assume that Carbon-14 production is rare in the host materials.

Probably as much as there is in carbon rods used in nuclear reactors. But much higher amounts of 14C are recorded in used rods.

Path for the rarer production of Carbon-14… like from your post.
quote:
Carbon-14 can also be produced by other neutron reactions, including in particular 13C(n,gamma)14C and 17O(n,alpha)14C with thermal neutrons, and 15N(n,d)14C and 16O(n,3He)14C with fast neutrons.[14] The most notable routes for 14C production by thermal neutron irradiation of targets (e.g., in a nuclear reactor) are summarized in the table.

So we know that it would be highly unlikely that any coal, oil or diamonds that were near radioactive materials would have zero 14C.

I have every confidence that professor Baumgardner is familiar with sample contamination.

So am I, as that would be why he would have taken his samples came from areas with contamination from high background radiation, a detail that he would have to report in any paper to a peer reviewed science journal ... if he ever intended to make a real scientific report rather than just something to fool gullible people ignorant of alternate sources for 14C.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 10:17 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 312 of 373 (741568)
11-13-2014 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by zaius137
11-12-2014 10:17 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
I am not aware that 14C in rocks has that much relevance for dating them, I thought Potassium Argon dating was predominate for rock dating.

OT, but it's hard to even find a lab to do K-Ar dating any more. By far the most widely used method over the past few decades is U-Pb concordia-discordia. Ar-Ar dating is also widely used. It's based on the decay of 40K but is much more robust than plain K-Ar dating.

K-Ar is beloved by creationists because it is possible to get incorrect results, especially when committing deliberate fraud a la Snelling. We do know that most K-Ar results are accurate because of their consilience with other more robust methods. But real scientists have moved away from K-Ar.

Your ignorance is showing.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 10:17 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 313 of 373 (741570)
11-13-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Pressie
11-13-2014 3:18 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Or the people who tried to carbon date diamonds and coal and expect a reliable date for the formation of these are either idiots or want to mislead people.

Baumgardner isn't an idiot. He's done some good and significant mainstream work. His study of diamonds and coal is well outside his area of expertise, and it's possible (although I doubt it) that he did his best to produce an honest study but failed because of his lack of expertise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 3:18 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3969
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 314 of 373 (741575)
11-13-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:36 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
That insignificant process, as you put it, changes the entire paradigm. Not by magnitude but by precedence.

I have already agreed that constants may not be absolute, but your line of thinking is going to take you places you don't want to go. Do you realize that all measurements have limits to precision? That's just the way it is in the real world. I can accept that the measured half-life of C14 has a +/- precision of 40 years. Does that really turn a 60ky old sample into a 6ky old sample?

You are living in a fantasy world. I want a concrete explanation here. What makes the discrepancy significant in the sense of the age of the earth?

The problem is that you are an absolutist, particularly when it comes to other people's assumptions and measurements. You don't question your own measurements or assumptions, do you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:36 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 11:43 AM edge has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9926
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 315 of 373 (741586)
11-13-2014 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:14 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
The fact that nitrogen-14 is so abundant only helps my case. You see if the sample was contaminated by radiation it would cause a greater abundance of C-14. That contamination would be picked up easier because it would stand out more in the standard deviation.

You cannot possibly be this stupid. Did Baumgardner make this observation or not?

The C-14 is produced regardless of the age of the diamond. It is produced solely by having the diamond near a radioactive source. Thus it completely explains why anyone might detect C-14 in a very old diamond.

You have argued both that having no N-14 trapped in a diamond proves your case and that having a significant amount of N-14 in a diamond helps your case. Quite clearly one of those is wrong.

Nonukes writes:

Only if your goal was to assert and be wrong. Don't you ever check anything?

zaius writes:

You see all your claims about radioactive contamination are just that, claims. Ever time a result is a little bit uncomfortable the knee jerk reaction is to attack the researcher, their methods, their world view… on and on.

So your position is that we should just accept bad research if it helps you?

Let's make your own behavior here quite clear. Regardless of what can be concluded about the meaning of the N-14 in a diamond, your 'guess' that there was no significant N-14 is clearly wrong. Yet you cannot admit to making an error. Instead, you spin out an impossible, contradictory impression in an attempt to save Baumgardner's work. And then you impugn my motives?

Well to avoid any need to guess, I'll tell you about my motivation. My primary motive is to expose the shyster behavior and google and guess 'research' that is your trademark. I really don't care about your opinion regarding the age of anything because you've already told us that you are not motivated by the evidence but by your world view.

And you simply cannot post without providing me with such fodder, so keep up the good work. If i were you, I'd consider that when I responded to a NoNukes post. But it won't help. Because you are just as careless with everyone else, and there are plenty of people here who understand radiometric dating, or astronomy, or biology, or particle physics much better than I do.

Keep positing bro. I'm not going to wind down.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:14 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
22232425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017