Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

Your source lied, Rand. Libby's paper says "greater than 9000 years" - older, in other words, older than a 1964-model Geiger counter could count. And the dating was done on animal bones found with the Broken Hill skull, not the skull itself.Sloppy reading, or deceptive reporting. Or maybe both.

From your link: What element related to carbon-14 is always found in living organisms? Nitrogen, maybe? Nearly all of it nitrogen-14? That's the kind that can react with neutrons to give 14C. Neutrons are not uncommon down in the dirt - uranium and thorium are two sources, and they are much more common than silver or gold - or bromine - in the crust. And what's the concentration of 14N 100 miles up in the atmosphere? I'll bet it's orders of magnitude lower than in an average fossiliferous rock.It'd be a good project for a geochemistry grad student - correlate 14C content of coals with the in-situ radioactivity or neutron flux where it was dug up. You can bet that the ICR won't touch it, though.

That means nothing at all. Nada. Nichts.

Not all 238U decays through alpha particle emission. 0.00005% splits into two (sizable) nuclei and some neutrons instead.
Go to http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc8.html and find 238U in the table - link at the top of the linked page.Other heavy nuclei have this fission pathway available as well - poke around anything heavier than lead on that site I linked and you'll see the "branch ratio" or amount that decays by a fission path.Look at radium 226 there - it has
"Mode of decay: 14C
Branch ratio: 3.2E-9 %
Decay energy: 28.199 MeV"listed as a decay path. And 226Ra is in the 238U decay path, so there's always some around in the crust.Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

And if this is saying what it appears to be: It gives us a direct source of 14C from radium - and ALL the uranium-238 that goues through the "normal" decay pathway goes through 226Ra for a little while - 1600 years half-life. There's never much radium present in the crust, but it's always being replaced by decay down the 238U chain.

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.

I think JohnFolton is misinterpreting something from van der Plicht and Kitagawa's paper: they present a "29,000year-long floating chronology" from 10.43 down to 30.45 meters into their 75-meter-long core from the bed of Lake Suigetsu. I presume they didn't count each varve clear from the bed itself because of mechanical coring problems like losing chunks of core. As noted before by RAZD and others, though, this core chronology correlates beautifully with its own 14C dates - no discontinuities at the "Flood" - and with chronologies from all over the world done by a half-dozen different methods.

The core vdP and K recovered had a 20-meter-long continuous piece when they got it back to surface. They counted 30,000 or so varves in that piece. Does that sound like "muck" to you? Because they AREN'T, as you would know if you had read the paper and comprehended any of it. The light half of each varve couplet is made of diatom skeletons - nearly pure silica.

You heard wrong. Very, very wrong.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Hmmm. Nuenergy must be where you heard it wrong, huh?That's bullshit of the first water. "This has been proven by the so called "clean" fusion device known as the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), when, in fact, military scientists detected little or no helium after detonation." is about as ludicrous as anything I've read all month - do you think "military scientists" at Eniwetok in the early 50's even had the means to detect a few grams of helium in a million-ton plume of evaporated atoll?

{Off-topic chit-chat "hidden". Please stop doing such. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic chit-chat "hidden".

JF/Whatever/Golfer: How does C-14 get leached preferentially from anything? It's the heaviest carbon isotope, y'know, and should be left behind, not leached first.Be specific as to your proposed mechanism.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

The question was how these agents of leaching selectively remove the heaviest isotope. In the physical universe, the lightest isotope moves more quickly. What mechanisms operate in your universe?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

So you're confirming, for about the fiftieth time in in last five years or so on this forum, that you have not an inkling of a clue of what isotopes even are, let alone how they behave chemically?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Check it out where? References, please?