Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 7:22 AM
59 online now:
DynamicGreens, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 57 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,052 Year: 24,893/28,606 Month: 2,194/1,786 Week: 409/647 Day: 14/79 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 9 of 308 (339153)
08-11-2006 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jazzns
08-11-2006 5:00 AM


C14 is not JUST produced in the atmosphere. It is also produced by normal radioactive decay of elements in the ground.

Saying C14 is produced within the earth is based on faith (belief) not facts by fringe scientists that have the need to believe C14 is being produced within the earth under normal conditions.

C14 has only been proven to be formed in the upper atmosphere. We have reputable scientists (not creationists) of the department of energy who reviewed 15 years of cold fusion experiments and concluded the Coulomb barrier to great to be overcome by cold fusion by the normal conditions within the earth.

The creationists truely are taking the high ground basing C14 on evidence while the evolutionists are taking a faith based belief that under normal conditions the Coulomb barrier can be overcome naturally within the earth.

Faith based evolutionistic science has not yet proven in the natural that the Coulomb barrier can be overcome within the earth say C14.

All scientists see happening within the earth is radioactive decay, no cold or hot fusion those are simply the facts.

If you believe cold fusion is happening within the earth (C14) then would you not need to throw out all the radioactive dates arrived via radioactive decay?

*******resource article

U.S. DoE 2004 Cold Fusion Review - U.S. Department of Energy review of 15 years of cold fusion experiments

Reviewer comments
Here are some significant quotes from the reviewers:

Review 1. "The evidence does not demonstrate that a new phenomenon is occurring."
Review 2. "... there appears to be rather convincing evidence for the production of excess heat and for the production of 4He in metal deuterides. ... There is no convincing evidence for the occurrence of nuclear reactions in condensed matter associated with the reports of excess heat production."
Review 3. "... the evidence strongly suggests a nuclear origin for the excess heat observed in palladium rods highly loaded with deuterium."
Review 4. "This set of articles make a significant case for phenomena in the deuterium/palladium system that is (I) markedly different from that of the hydrogen/palladium system, (ii) supportive of the claim that excess energy is generated in the deuterium/palladium system, and (iii) without a coherent theoretical explanation."
Review 5. "My feeling is that there should be no funds set aside for support of CF research but, if the DOE receives a proposal in this area which suggests some definitive research which settle some of the issues, it should consider it for support as it would any other proposal."
Review 6. "I find nothing in the articles that I've read that convinces me that the new anomalies reported are not experimental artifacts."
Review 7. "I find in summary that, even after all of the work that has been done, the case is spotty for the existence of the cold fusion phenomenon. I am not convinced by the evidence that I have seen ..."
Review 8. "If the bottom line is that experiments in which x > 0.95 in PdDx (at room temperature) give anomalous effects reliably (even if achieving that high x is very difficult and very dependent on the materials science of the Pd), while heat balance is attained for x < 0.9 in PdDx (or when using PdHx at all x), we've got the start of science."
Review 9. "Evidence for excess heat in LENR experiments is compelling and well established. ... The body of work that has resulted from LENR investigations is formidable and worthy of attention of the broader scientific community. It is unfortunate that a few vocal individuals have manage to stigmatize this field and those working in it."
Review 10. "In a general summary of the calorimetric results, the observation of sudden and prolonged temperature excursions ..., has been made a sufficient number of times that, even if not totally reproducible, still have not been explained in terms of conventional chemistry or electrochemistry ... At this stage, I think the evidence suggests the possibility of such events, [but] cannot be considered conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, for reasons alluded to above."
Review 11. "the care in which the measurements are done for experiments that do show excess heat are convincing evidence of low energy nuclear reactions. ... There is strong evidence of nuclear reactions in palladium, and suggestions of reactions in the titanium foil experiments."
Review 12. "There seem to be increasing evidence for the production of excess heat, even though the reason is totally unknown. ... Yes, it is likely that an unknown process (in materials physics or in nuclear physics) is responsible. However, the link to nuclear reaction is still not strong enough at the present time. ... The current evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that nuclear reactions occur in metal deuterides yet."
Review 13. "... there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that very low energy nuclear reactions can occur in condensed matter at rates that are totally unexpected"
Review 14. "I am not persuaded that such energy has been produced."
Review 15. "As one of the reviewers stated, one can never disprove something and this is my feeling about "cold fusion"."
Review 16. "My opinion is that none of the experimental evidence directly presented to us is conclusive that nuclear reactions are occurring in these environments, but some of the evidence is certainly suggestive that they are."
Review 17. "Most "nuclear" measurements (particle emission) are not convincing in comparison with the state of the art in low energy nuclear physics."
Review 18. "Although experiments have become more sophisticated there is no new convincing or even tantalizing evidence for LENR."

Edited by johnfolton, : edited to clarify that the DOE scientists were not creationists but an unbiased appraisal of 15 years of cold fusion research.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2006 5:00 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 8:56 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 12 by RickJB, posted 08-11-2006 10:25 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 308 (339168)
08-11-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
08-11-2006 8:56 AM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
Because quite frankly I think you're engaged in the usual YEC technique of inventing false accusations in order to dismiss the facts.

Do you believe the elements that make up the earth fused (fusion) in the big bang or perhaps quazars. If so then the elements radioactive isotope decay rates were set before the earth was formed.

Can you accept this ? or do you have conclusive evidence that the Coloumb barrier can be overcomed naturally within the earth.

You have to prove that its able to power past not only the coloumb nucleur barrier but also the self shielding absorbtive properties of the sediment particle.

The problem is elements are only seen decaying not fusing into more complex states within the earth which is not evidence of an old earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 8:56 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 11:13 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 308 (339171)
08-11-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RickJB
08-11-2006 10:25 AM


What on earth do cold fusion claims have to do with natural C14 decay

I agree within the earth C14 decay has no additional C14 fusing from N14 within the earth. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RickJB, posted 08-11-2006 10:25 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 23 of 308 (339419)
08-11-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
08-11-2006 11:13 AM


Re: Cold Fusion
I note that you provide no evidence that anyone claims that Cold Fusion is responsible for the production of C14 within the Earth.

Jazzns claimed message 6: C14 is not JUST produced in the atmosphere. It is also produced by normal radioactive decay of elements in the ground.

Johnfolton responded: C14 has only been proven to be formed in the upper atmosphere. We have reputable scientists (not creationists) of the department of energy who reviewed 15 years of cold fusion experiments and concluded the Coulomb barrier to great to be overcome by cold fusion by the normal conditions within the earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 11:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 08-11-2006 10:07 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2006 4:03 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 27 of 308 (339450)
08-11-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
08-11-2006 10:07 PM


Re: Cold Fusion
N14 needs a neutron to become C14 this is an example of fusion not fission. 1n+14n=14c+1p I agree in advance that their is no such thing as cold fusion within the earth and we all likely also agree 15n is converting to 14c in the upper atmosphere due to a neutron being accepted and the emission of a proton. You don't see a neutron being emitted as in fission.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission1.shtml

Nuclear Fission: Basics
When a nucleus fissions, it splits into several smaller fragments. These fragments, or fission products, are about equal to half the original mass. Two or three neutrons are also emitted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 08-11-2006 10:07 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2006 2:37 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 31 of 308 (339513)
08-12-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
08-12-2006 2:37 AM


Re: Cold Fusion
A single proton is, by definition, a nucleus. (It's the nucleus of a hydrogen atom.) Therefore the process where an atom absorbs a thermal neutron and emits a proton is correctly described as fission, because the nucleus is splitting into two nuclei, one of which is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (the proton.)

Deuterium(hydrogen isotope)is formed when a neutron fuses to the proton within the nucleus.

resource article

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/atomic_weight.htm

Nuclear fusion atoms
Atoms with atomic numbers lower than Iron typically have atomic weights that are lower than their true atomic weights. The reason is that these nucleii are capable of fusion or joining together and also give off energy. The most obvious of these is Hydrogen that is used in nuclear fusion reactions, such as the Hydrogen Bomb.

In the H-bomb the isotope of Hydrogen (Deuterium), which consists of a nucleus containing one proton and one neutron, combines to form a nucleus of Helium. The atomic weight of two atoms of Deuterium is 4.027106 and the atomic weight of Helium is 4.002602. The extra 0.0245 of atomic weight is turned into energy for the explosion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2006 2:37 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2006 10:29 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 49 of 308 (339865)
08-13-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
08-12-2006 8:53 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
Mineralized fossils simply should not have any of its C14 remains that fossilized, the problem is that C14 is found within these fossilized remains.

I'll agree however in advance that dilution would affect the ratio adding additional C12, C13 to the mineralized fossil making it date older.

The problem is that not even a single atom of C14 should be present in a mineralized bone or even within a mineralized wood sample.

http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2006 8:53 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2006 8:44 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 52 of 308 (339891)
08-13-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
08-13-2006 8:44 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
Also - my guess is that any C14 reading that supports a date around 250,000 ya as they suggest isn't actually a reading at all

I'm sure the creationists would agree with you, but they never said they dated these fossils to be 250,000 years. They were just making a point that the fossils at the very least are younger than 250,000 years because detectable C14 remained.

The tests are valid on marine fossils, not that the date is the age of the marine fossil but that the Phanerozoic record fossils are said to be 570 million years ago is not an accurate statement because no C14 atoms could be present if the fossil mineral remains were older than 250,000 years (C14 only has 43.6 half lifes).

Its just science confirming that the Phanerozoic fossils are not millions of years old and that the earth is a young earth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Phanerozoic%20%20

Phan·e·ro·zo·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnr--zk)
adj.
Of or relating to the geologic time period from approximately 570 million years ago to the present, comprising the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras, and marked by an abundance of fossil evidence of life, especially higher forms, in the corresponding rocks

http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

ABSTRACT

Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C. (One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives should reduce that number by a factor of 7.3 x 10-14.) An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2006 8:44 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by zombie ringo, posted 08-13-2006 11:04 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2006 11:10 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2006 12:24 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 08-14-2006 2:35 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 59 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 8:27 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 60 of 308 (339963)
08-14-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
08-14-2006 2:35 AM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
We've already went over reputable scientists that are not creationists, explaining that no fusion happening within the earth. They have expressed its due to coloumb barrier and the sediment self shielding making it not possible.

Fusion is happening naturally like N14 has been proven to (accept a neutron in the upper atmosphere) to produce C14. This is all thats been proven no fusion (cold or hot) happening within the earth).

You do realize if fusion of any flavor was violating the coloumb barrier within the earth you'd have to throw out all the isotope methods because they too would be violated.

The creationists have taken the high ground (based on science) while some evos have taken the low ground (not based on science) but a belief that (within the earth) the coloumb barrier has somehow been violated.

How could it be violated (no answers) hmmm however (Don't answer) Cold fusion or fusion of any flavor has been deemed off topic.

The facts are that C14 is within these fossils and after 43.6 half life's is impossible if the fossils are older than 250,000 years.

Truly all the creationists have proven is that the earth is a young earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 08-14-2006 2:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 08-14-2006 11:15 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 1:15 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 64 of 308 (340000)
08-14-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by JonF
08-14-2006 1:15 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
Just 14N has been proven to capture a neutron (the appropriate terminology) provided by the decay of nearby uranium to become 14C in the ground (or wherever it is). There's some question whether the resulting neutron flux is enough to account for the observed 14C, but in-situ creation of 14C is an observed fact for which you must account.

It has not been proven within the earth, I believe your confusing neutron flux being whats expressed within a nucleur reactor with whats happening naturally within the earth.

Uranium decays byproducts are alpha (helium) and beta radiation (energy of the conversion of a neutron into a proton). No neutron flux just helium (two protons bonded to two neutrons) within the alpha radiation and beta radiation (backround radiation flux).

With C14 dating proving the earth is a young one(no neutron flux), you have no time for evolutions theory to be expressed.

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?c3=&mid=59&l

Alpha Radiation (α) is the emission of an alpha particle from an atom's nucleus. An α particle contains two protons and two neutrons (and is similar to a He nucleus: ).

Beta Radiation (β) is the transmutation of a neutron into a proton and a electron (followed by the emission of the electron from the atom's nucleus: ). When an atom emits a β particle, the atom's mass will not change (since there is no change in the total number of nuclear particles), however the atomic number will increase by one (because the neutron transmutated into an additional proton). An example of this is the decay of the isotope of carbon named carbon-14 into the element nitrogen:

14
6 C 0
-1 e + 14
7 N


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 1:15 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 08-14-2006 2:35 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 67 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 3:42 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 68 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-14-2006 3:58 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2006 9:26 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 69 of 308 (340065)
08-14-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by JonF
08-14-2006 3:42 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
Unless you can come up with some evidence or analysis that indicates it's not happening within the earth, we'll take it as given that it is happening within the Earth.

The neutron survives as an alpha particle (helium) due to the neutron half life being only approximately 10 minutes. The sediment particles within the earth simply prevents a neutron flux from being generated within the earth.

http://www.answers.com/neutrons

neutron
One of the constituent particles of every atomic nucleus except ordinary hydrogen. Discovered in 1932 by James Chadwick (1891–1974), it has no electric charge and has nearly 1,840 times the mass of the electron. Free neutrons undergo beta decay with a half-life of about 10 minutes. Thus, they are not readily found in nature, except in cosmic rays.

In a nucleus the neutron can be stable, but a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 17 min (1,013 sec), into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 3:42 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 7:19 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 08-14-2006 7:42 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 70 of 308 (340066)
08-14-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by PurpleYouko
08-14-2006 3:58 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
Possibly Radon gas might be one of the most abundent sources of fission neutrons in underground areas. It is well known to be extremely mobile.

But is the alpha particle / neutron produced by radon mobile, didn't anything on neutrons being produced by radon, however a neutron will degenerate within minutes to a proton, electron and an anti-neutrino.

http://www.answers.com/neutrons

In a nucleus the neutron can be stable, but a free neutron decays with a half-life of about 17 min (1,013 sec), into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle

This is a substantial amount of energy for a single particle, but because alpha particles have a high mass, this does not mean they have high speeds --- in fact, their speed is lower than any other common type of radiation (β particles, γ-rays, neutrons etc). Because of their charge and large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-14-2006 3:58 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 7:29 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 80 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-15-2006 8:50 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 77 of 308 (340146)
08-15-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by JonF
08-14-2006 7:29 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
Alpha particles ejected by radioactive decay are indeed relatively slow, traveling at only about 15,000,000 m/s (34,000,000 miles per hour).

The alpha particle has very little energy and is only able to move a few centimeters in the air. The problem is within the earth the alpha particle is absorbed by the sediments.

Its this self shielding property of the earth (absorbing the alpha particle)all the alpha particle needs is a couple of electrons and it can not violate the coloumb barrier.

If the alpha particle has not enough energy to penetrate a layer of skin it does not have the energy to cause fission unless it comes in contact with beryllium.

Even then any neutrons generated would have to target N14 and within the earth soil dynamic enrichment is said to be N15. In soil dynamics (assimilation, nitrification, and denitrification) it always result in N-15 inrichment it did not say N14. I find this interesting because you need N-14 within the earth not N-15.

Do you know if your fungus, bacteria are assimulating N15, it appear if so then its a non factor in respect to C14 generation? N14 is a gas so if its not incorporated within the soil why would it not simply returns to the atmosphere?

If all N14 is returning to the atmosphere where is your target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen

Biologically-mediated reactions (e.g., assimilation, nitrification, and denitrification) strongly control nitrogen dynamics in the soil. These reactions almost always result in N-15 enrichment of the substrate and depletion of the product.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.htm

The health effects of alpha particles depend heavily upon how exposure takes place. External exposure (external to the body) is of far less concern than internal exposure, because alpha particles lack the energy to penetrate the outer dead layer of skin.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by JonF, posted 08-14-2006 7:29 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RickJB, posted 08-15-2006 4:37 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 08-15-2006 5:43 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 81 by JonF, posted 08-15-2006 8:57 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 84 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-15-2006 9:09 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 93 of 308 (340273)
08-15-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by JonF
08-15-2006 9:01 AM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
The metabolic processes involved in protein breakdown result in a preferential release of 14N-enriched products and retention of 15N-enriched cellular chemicals.

The nitrogen cycle utilizes denitrification bacteria to release nitrogen of any flavor back to atmosphere.

http://www.aehsmag.com/issues/2002/june/tracers.htm

In the food cycle, nitrogen compounds are assimilated with little change in the relative amounts of 14N and 15N, and plants and soil microorganisms that can use atmospheric nitrogen or can metabolize nitrogen from man-made ammonium nitrate fertilizer, retain only a small enrichment of 15N over the starting 15N/14N ratio in N2 or NH4NO3. However, metabolic processes involved in protein breakdown result in a preferential release of 14N-enriched products and retention of 15N-enriched cellular chemicals. Herbivores further enrich their tissues in 15N and each consumer up the food chain eats nitrogen progressively enriched in 15N. The body mass and excreted waste of carnivores at the top of the food chain, including humans, are most enriched in 15N.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denitrification

Denitrification is the process of reducing nitrate, a form of nitrogen available for consumption by many groups of organisms, into gaseous nitrogen, which is far less accessible to life forms but makes up the bulk of our atmosphere. It can be thought of as the opposite of nitrogen fixation, which converts gaseous nitrogen into more biologically useful forms. The process is performed by heterotrophic bacteria (such as Pseudomonas fluorescens) from all main proteolitic groups. Denitrification and nitrification are parts of the nitrogen cycle.

Denitrification takes place under special conditions in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In general, it occurs when oxygen (which is a more favourable electron acceptor) is depleted, and bacteria turn to nitrate in order to respire organic matter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 08-15-2006 9:01 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by NosyNed, posted 08-15-2006 12:40 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 08-15-2006 1:17 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2065 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 106 of 308 (340372)
08-15-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
08-15-2006 1:17 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
So since at least 97% of all nitrogen is always 14N, you cannot cite a deficiency of 14N as a reason for doubting the production of 14C from 14N by natural radiation within the ground, because no such deficiency of 14N exists.

You can not translate it because like cadmium dispaces zinc within the human body even though one consumes more zinc in ones diet than cadmium. This is the whole reason for the unclean foods (heavy metals) is these heavy metals are displacing elements within the body.

All the article is saying is that N14 is being displaced with the human body with N15. It has nothing to do with the lesser concentration of N15 within the atmosphere.

I did however look but could not find expressly saying what concentration if any of C13 N14 or N15 exists within the fossils dated. This being the target of your beliefs in neutrons hitting the target and converting. N14 N15 however appears quite stable so if it has not been reduced by denitrification it would be interesting what proportion if any of N14/N15 is within the mineralized fossils.

Radon gas is only concerned about the alpha particle (helium minus its electrons part of radon radioactive decay). There are not concerned with neutrons flooding into your basement, should we be concerned about neutrons as these alpha particles attach to the skin.

I however agree with you that the reflection from beryllium is interesting but with the alpha particle resistance being the sediment particles inhibiting its path to centimeters would be separating it from beryllium from generating a neutron is the problem.

With the neutron itself only able to move centimeters within the earth it still needs to find an atom and the target is quite small if it exists. You've mentioned that upper atmosphere 14N is abundant yet only a small percentage is being converted. In the earth we have a much smaller percentage if any N14 in comparion to the upper atmosphere.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : corrected a few spelling problems

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 08-15-2006 1:17 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 08-15-2006 6:56 PM johnfolton has responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014