Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

It is astonishing that you could be here this long and not see the utter ignorance portrayed by the sources you quote.Radio carbon dating is good for, at the extremes, up to about 50,000 years. Any use of it to date anything suspected to be older will produce a date of about that. It would be stupid to use a measuring tool that is only 50 units long to attempt to measure 100,000 unit long thing.The physics demands that this be the limit. Up to that limit C14 dating has been well calibrated with various independent approaches.If one were stupid enough, or dishonest enough, to submit samples of suspected great age for C14 dating one would get back nonsense numbers.Where have you been for the past months?

Thank you for such good examples of the total dishonesty of some YEC types.

In fact, rm, PaulK's post 4 (Message 4 was the most pertenant in the thread.Those who made the statments you posting in the OP were, by this time, deliberatly lying. PaulK summed that up pretty well.All the other posts simply supported that with more details.

Uh, so what?You quote a bunch of details when you've been shown that:1) The N14/N15 ration (enriched or not) is almost all N14.2) You're fussing about miniscule amounts of C14 that are a problem when attempting to deal with anything over about 50,000 years. You've been give ample reason why there can be small amount of C14 created in situ.You haven't though dealt with the high degree of correlation between C14 dates and other dating approachs back to about 40,000 years.It seems you want to drag red herrings across the discussion when you can't deal with substantive issues.Are you going to deal with them?

You whole post is somewhat garbled. Where is it possible to read what you've written it seems you have not been reading what has been in the replies to you.It has been pointed out to you that nowhere is there any place where there is an amount of N15 that will make a difference. You N15 idea is simply wrong.Your discussion of the distance a neutron or an alpha particle may travel is forgetting that there are sources of radiation mixed into soils so there is no need for long distances. It has been pointed out to you that alpha particles can be a source of neutrons.Read more carefully and much more slowly.In addition, as I pointed out earlier this is all ignorning the propoer use of C14 dating where it has been shown to work very well.Address the real issue and drop the nonsense.

Yes, yes indirectly a source of neutrons.Now get off the stupid red herrings and address the real issues.

So what?The EPA is not particularly concerned with the details of the nuclear reactions involved. Simply that radon is a source of radiation exposure.And what fission reactions are you talking about? And why is this an issue?These are, again, red herrings. Just junk noise from you.

Exactly why does this make the slightest difference to the discussion?You seem to be the red herring king here.

You keep bringing up reasons (that you more or less make up) why there can be no very low level of C14 produced by natural radioactivity.If it can't happen then why does the amount of residual C14 correlate with the radioactivity of the surroundings?In what way does this explain the high degree of correlations between C14 and other methods when the dates are in a range that C14 is appropriate for?Why is there only a problem when we reach the dates that we expect there to be very, very little C14?Do you think the earth is made up of solid lumps of one kind of mineral and then another? Do you see a big lump of uranium there and then a lump of berylium?The soil is a mixture of very small amount of all sorts of things. This way the low atomic weight elements are, in some cases, very close to the sources of alpha particles. And so is the C12 close to the neutron sources.There are very, very large numbers of atoms in a very, very small amount of soil and we only need to produce very low numbers of C14 atoms to give a residual reading. This shows that you have, at best, a most tenuous grasp of what is going on. The shielding by other elements in the soil would stop the alpha particle from reaching an appropriate target. The coloumb barrier is only an issue when the alpha particle actually reaches a target.It has already been shown the the coulomb barrier is then no problem.Do not ignore what has already been answered.

This feels very high to me. I'd have guessed at 1,000 to a million times lower. Is it right?Edited by NosyNed, : fix dbcodes

One has a strange desire to wrap ones gonads in tinfoil.

I haven't managed to nail this down yet but you should note that the adjective "floating" is NOT refering to the varves.The noun is "chronology". It may be that a way to read this is it is a floating chronology based on varves. That is the chronology, by itself, it not "anchored" to a specific date. After the varves are counted to determine the length of the chronology then these are "anchored".I do NOT know this is the case yet. I'm trying to track down the meaning.ABE
I've emailed an author of a paper using the term.ABE 2
Silly me. It is right there in the paper (thanks to Jar for pointing it out).

quote:

---

In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from recently revised absolute German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves2. Figure PE-4 shows the best match between the tree-ring and the Lake Suigetsu chronologies, estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve. The features in our data overlapping the tree-ring calibration agree very well, even for "wiggles" in the 14C calibration curves. Using this match, we defined the absolute time scale for the Lake Suigetsu varves chronology. The 29,100 yr Lake Suigetsu chronology then covers the absolute age range from 8830 to 37,930 cal BP.

---

The varves are NOT floating.Edited by NosyNed, : correct typoEdited by NosyNed, : added a bitEdited by NosyNed, : added even moreEdited by NosyNed, : reordered lines

John, all this nit picking stuff that you are mostly making up is being answered.Meanwhile you are NOT dealing with the larger facts of the matter.The dating of the varves correlates very well with C14 decay dates. How do you explain the match between counting and radioactive decay?
Are you trying to say it is all a total coincidence? That even though they are all wrong they still end up agreeing by some magic?How do you explain the match between this and other sites and other methods? Is this more coincidence of errors all cancelling out in some magic fashion?You are running around in very smaller circles with your head down ignoring the real facts.There are numerous methods to apply for dating. There are numerous differnt sites to apply them.To a very, very, very high degree they agree. This strongly suggests that even if any of the sources of error you try to find (or just make up)actually apply they still don't amount to enough to invalidate the methods.If you think an error source is a real prolbem then show how it can produce (other than by magic) the results that are actually obtained.

It seems that people aren't using small enough words for you (or few enough).Leaching doesn't matter.
When you mention leaching it demonstrates you don't know anything about the dating process.