Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

{sigh} Wrong. 14N is transformed to 14C (mostly byu cosmic rays), which then slowly decays back to 14N. But when multiple independent methods applied by multiple independent researchers produce a curve that is so obviously nearly linear at 45°: (see Seite nicht gefunden – MONREPOS and click on "CalCurves" and "CALPAL 2004 JAN". The graph covers 50K years. Or click on "CalCurveData" to see individual data sets.)we can deduce that the correction is small, and that there is no evidence of researcher bias. Penguins I haven't heard, but it's possible. Usually it's seals and snails.It is well-known that organisms which get most of their carbon from marine sources cannot be dated accurately. Your claim no doubt originates at some creationist web site which does not note that the source of the information was scientists investigating what can and cannot be carbon dated, and that the problem is completely explained and easily avoidable. Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old. I doubt it, assuming no hanky-panky. Reference, please? Huh? 2% of what? I bet not. Reference, please?

Pretty close to right. Sedimentary layers cqan sometimes be dated directly, by dating something which formed when the layer lithified. Improvements in insturmental sensitivity and consequent reductions in required sample size help this a lot. (SHRIMP systems regularly sample a disc 10 micrometers diameter and 1 micrometer thick: , from Geochronology: SHRIMP laboratory.) Some materials that can be dated include the aptly named xenotime which forms on zircons at lithification (e.g. SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks, K-Ar dating of glauconite, and fission track dating in apatite.

Unsupported assertion, and prima facie false. ¹⁴C ingested during an organism's lifetime is known not to be the only possible source of ¹⁴C, and we do not know that we know all the possible sources of ¹⁴C.Since the major premise of the "paper" is false, there's no need to discuss any more of it.

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. Unsupported assertion. For the second time, ¹⁴C ingested during an organism's lifetime is known not to be the only possible source of ¹⁴C, and we do not know that we know all the possible sources of ¹⁴C. Merely claiming that the observed ¹⁴C has age-significance isn't good enough, not by a long shot; you need to discuss the observed other possible sources and demonstrate their inapplicability. Prattling about fusion is off-topic. Discussing neutron capture, groundwater contamination, fungal contamination, etc. is appropriate. Go to it.

Uranium-238 Decay Series Nuclide Half-Life Radiation * U-238 4.468 · 109 years alpha Th-234 24.1 days beta Pa-234 1.17 minutes beta U-234 244,500 years alpha Th-230 77,000 years alpha Ra-226 1,600 years alpha Rn-222 3.8235 days alpha Po-218 3.05 minutes alpha Pb-214 26.8 minutes beta Bi-214 19.9 minutes beta Po-214 63.7 microseconds alpha Pb-210 22.26 years beta Bi-210 5.013 days beta Po-210 138.378 days alpha Pb-206 stable - only major decays shown ​ * in addition, all decays emit gamma radiation

Uranium-235 Decay Series Nuclide Half-Life Radiation * U-235 703.8 · 106 years alpha Th-231 25.52 hours beta Pa-231 32,760 years alpha Ac-227 21.773 years beta Th-227 18.718 days alpha Ra-223 11.434 days alpha Rn-219 3.96 seconds alpha Po-215 778 microseconds alpha Pb-211 36.1 minutes beta Bi-211 2.13 minutes alpha Tl-207 4.77 minutes beta Pb-207 stable - only major decays shown ​ * in addition, all decays emit gamma radiation ​ Ac: Actinium ​ Bi: Bismuth ​ Pa: Protactinium ​ Pb: Lead ​ Po: Polonium Ra: Radium ​ Rn: Radon ​ Th: Thorium ​ Tl: Thallium ​ U: Uranium

{darn table formatting} Neutrons are not given off as such, but each alpha particle gives rise to thermal neutrons via α→N reactions. From Neutron Source:

quote:

---

Alpha Reaction: Neutrons are produced when alpha particles impinge upon any of several low atomic weight isotopes including isotopes of beryllium, carbon and oxygen. This nuclear reaction can be used to construct a neutron source by intermixing a radioisotope that emits alpha particles such as radium or polonium with a low atomic weight isotope, usually in the form of a mixture of powders of the two materials. Sources based upon this reaction are comparable in size and cost with spontaeous fission neutron sources. Typical emission rates for alpha reaction neutron sources range from 1x106 to 1x108 neutrons per second. As an example, a representative alpha-beryllium neutron source can be expected to produce approximately 30 neutrons for every one million alpha particles. The useful lifetime for these types of sources is highly variable, depending upon the half life of the radioisotope that emits the alpha particles. The price of these neutron sources is also comparable to spontaneous fission sources.

---

Edited by Admin, : Improve table formatting.

Everything we know of nuclear physics tells us it's happening within the Earth, and observations (mentioned by Percy above) indicate strongly that it's happening within the Earth. 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. Then the only question is "how much is it happening", and that's still up in the air.Don't forget ther other possible sources of ¹⁴C:

• Groundwater contamination
• Fungal contamination
• Handling contamination after excavation
• As-yet unknown processes

Nitpicking, 17 minutes is not "approximately 10 minutes". And alpha particles are not neutrons; they contain neutrons.Thermal (i.e. slow) neutron velocities are on the order of 2,000 m/s. That is, in 17 minutes a typical uncaptured thermal neutron travels just over 2,000 kilometers (just under 1,300 miles). That's a flux. Plenty of opportunities to hit a nitrogen nucleus. Neutron half-life does not prevent a neutron flux.I don't have the remotest idea why you brought sedimentary particles into it.Try again.

This is irrelevant to neutron flux ... but the major reason that alpha particles don't go far is their physical size qnd charge. Big things hit other big things more than weentsy things do, and charge just makes collisions more likely.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).But, when one of those alpha particles hits something, it's got a certain probability of producing a thermal neutron.Yuo haven't yet addressed spontqaneous fission (I forgot about that) or the other possibilities I listed.Edited by JonF, : Add chaarge

And neutrons are generated, which can (and do) travel great distances. Forget the alpha particles, they're red herrings. No, some neutrons will hit ¹⁴N atoms and many will hit other atoms. The open question is "how many will hit ¹⁴N atoms?" Read the reference you provided. Overall on the Earth and in rocks, 99.634% of the nitrogen is ¹⁴N. Organic processes within soil have some isotopic separation effects, but the vast majority of nitrogen in any sample is ¹⁴N. "Enrichment" is not "exclusion"; the organic processes result in very slightly more ¹⁵N incorporated than the overall average.Consider the fact that very few fossils are found in paleosols (fossil soils); most are found in sedimentary rocks formed by erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and those rocks have no ¹⁵N enrichment. They may be slighly preferentially absorbing ¹⁵N, but still 90-95% of the nitrogen they contain is ¹⁴N. You are very confused. ¹⁴N is an atom, which is incorporated in many compounds which are solid at standard temperature and pressure, are included in rocks and soils and what-not (sometimes in just trace amounts), and many of which are required for life and are included in all living and formerly-living things. Nitrogen: The Essential Element. N₂ is a molecule which is a gas at standard temperature and pressure.

Missed one: "N14 is a gas", and the deduction that there's no N14 in the soil 'cause it's all going back to the atmosphere.

Mean free path, right? Got a convenient reference for that? I couldn't dig it up on Google.

Yup, that's what I said in response to his "N14 is a gas" claim.

The bottom line is that there's minuscule but barely measurable amounts of ¹⁴C where we don't a priori expect to find it; we certainly don't expect to find any remains of ¹⁴C ingested by organisms that died over 50K-ish years ago. There are various possibilities for the source of this ¹⁴C, and there are various explanations being tested. But "The Earth is less than 50K years old" is way down on the list of possible explanations, certainly below "we don't know yet", and for good reason. If we explain the ¹⁴C by a young Earth, we immediately have the problem of explaining the vast quantities (far too much for one human to comprehend) of interlocking and cross-correlating evidence for the great age of the Earth.

You're gibbering again.Leaching does not separate isotopes. It acts on ¹⁴C and ¹²C equally, and does not change the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio.Edited by JonF, : change "does" to "does not". Ooops.

Oops. Fixed.