Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Nonsense. Show me where she even implies such a ridiculous thing.

You'll raise an eyebrow or two quoting with that many ellipses around here, Golfer. I think that you are misunderstanding what Dr Hunt wrote: What she is saying here is that all the 14C now in this ancient coal is from such decay. Most all the C-14 that was incorporated into that coal from the plant material that formed it was, indeed, from atmospheric CO2 - that C-14, though, dacayed to immeasurably low levels within 100,000 years of burial, or about 299,900,000 years ago. So yes, Hunt is saying that the C-14 in coals today is from uranium/thorium byproducts, but she's not implying that their original C-14 was from anything other that atmospheric sources, just like it is today.AbE: "is probably" and the like is the way they teach us to phrase everything in grad school in the sciences. It's a little oddity, like the way lawyers always say "alleged," even when everyone around knows perfectly well who done it.This message has been edited by Coragyps, 12-15-2005 01:12 PM

Ah, Golfer, but you fail to appreciate that Hunt and I, among quite a few others, don't hold this quirk of oil and coal in isolation. There are quite a few threads in this forum alone that show quite plainly that the fifteen or so dating methods that do, in fact, make dating things like that possible really do agree on ages of things like that.

You really need to present some of that "evidence to the contrary," Golfer. I don't believe I'm familiar with any of it. Now, I've seen assertion to the contrary....but no evidence.

What in Sam Tunket are you talking about? What "marine leachate contamination" was there in freshwater Lake Suigetsu that soaked carbon-14 preferentially to carbon-12 out of cellulose in leaves and twigs, and to exactly the same degree out of chitin in insect parts? Why do carbon-14 dates on corals agree with uranium-thorium dates on the same corals, as well as with the Lake Suigetsu varves ans C14 dates? Why do both agree with tree rings from Finland, Sweden, and Germany? Why do all the above agree with ice varve counts from Peru, Kenya, Antarctica, and Greenland?

For when you return, Golfer:How, precisely or even very roughly, does carbon dioxide or methane seeping up through the sediments of Lake Suigetsu react with cellulose or with chitin? Just the basic reactions would be fine to start, and then we can look more deeply into why their rates are identical with such different substrates.Something like CO2 + bug wing ----> {products}, but with the products specified, would be perfect.

You need to learn just a very, very small little smidgin about things you going to type about before starting to type, Golfer. Have you seen me pontificate on which iron you should use on #11 at Palm Springs?Calcite is the most acid soluble scale of any of the ones I deal with daily here in my job as an oil field chemist. Gypsum is indeed resistant to acid attack, but contains no carbon of any isotopic stripe and therefore is immaterial in a discussion of C14 dating. Dolomite is not as quickly soluble as calcite in acid, but was assuredly removed by van der Plicht and Kitagawa's pretreatment of samples:
"To remove the possible contamination, we applied a strong acid-alkali-acid (AAA) treatment [W. G. Mook and H. J. Streurman, PACT 8, 31 (1983)] to both samples and reference blanks. The blanks consisted of more than 50 14C-free plant materials, collected from the deep layer of the same SG core (corresponding to an age of about 90,000 to 100,000 years)."
Science 20 February 1998:
Vol. 279. no. 5354, pp. 1187 - 1190
footnote 14

Do you have even a clue about how many acid treatments get pumped in dolomite formations within two hundred miles of my chair EVERY SINGLE DAY? Would you believe threescore and ten as a low estimate? Why do you think oil companies will pay my customers a few thousand dollars for each of those if dolomite isn't acid-soluble?

Who gives a red rat's patoot about talc? There isn't any in Lake Suigetsu's sediments, I'll lay you 1000 to one odds. If you can provide evidence of Noah's wife overpowdering babies' butts with talc upriver from the lake, I'll withdraw from the argument, though. Photos or videotape only, please."Pores of the organics?" You are babbling.

Water is a bit compressible - a unit volume of it shrinks by about 0.00005 volume per atmosphere of applied pressure, going to about half that as you get up to 3000 atmospheres or so (like the deepest part of the ocean.) That's about half as compressible as other common liquids like alcohol or benzene.

Golfer, why have you failed to mention Pliocene Glad-Wrap as being the material that protects the dolomite that won't dissolve in the acid that pretreated the leaves and bug parts that were found in the varves that formed in the lake that lived in the house that Jack built? Or was in liners for Pampers that Mrs Noah threw overboard after over-talcuming baby butts?No talc. No dolomite that wasn't removed by pretreatment. Just 14C dates that line up with varve counts. Get used to it.

The evo side has presented a pretty good chunk of same, Golfer. You have brought absolutely none. Nichts. Nada. Only off-the-wall speculations about dolomite and talc that almost certainly aren't even there.... That Radiocarbon paper is the one spot where the full mineralogy might show up. It's not online, but perhaps I'll get up to Texas Tech in the next few weeks and find it.

Golfer: on this mighty Flud and these Fountains of the Deep:Why is it that Lake Suigetsu has 100,000 or so pairs of varves in a neatly ordered fashion in its bed? White/black, white/black or diatom/clay, diatom/clay over and over, with not a trace of any such catastrophe? And with no talc, besides? And no dolomite? And with monotonically increasing 14C dates as you get deeper?Why is that?

Wow, Nighttrain, I'm glad you've cleared that up!

Ask the folks in Nagasaki about neutrons not being able to get loose, Golfer. One way is through spontaneous fission.And are neutrons "bigger" than alpha particles?