Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

It is from Randman's OP! HugeDomains.comNo one even bothered to look at it. They merely had a knee jerk reaction and went off.

Solar flares have cause power outages in Canada and neutrino's are measured in coal mines. No, your wrong we actually do date fossils with C14 where did you hear such nonsense? The truth is all fossils dated by C14 date young!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________Cosmic neutrons
Earth receives an intense flux of cosmic rays on a permanent basis. They are mainly high-energy protons coming from the sun and numerous other galactic sources.Less than 1% of these particles reach the ground, because on their descent they crash into and break the nuclei of atmospheric atoms, generating particle bursts. At sea level, these bursts span several square kilometers and have a significant neutron content (27 neutrons/cm2/hour).According to John M. Carpenter, Earth atmosphere is the equivalent of a 310MW spallation source. It generates much more neutrons per second than is generated by artificial means - but they are diluted in an immense volume.This flux of cosmic neutrons is enough to damage electronic devices, and the industry treats the problem very seriously.Site not installed - OVHcloud You seem to base your stuff on what you see happening in a nucleur reactor and using that math to what you believe is happening in the real world.I've shown you an example where it was not happening multitudes of frozen wood samples non dating older than 9,600 years.Whats happening in the real world is simply the C14 is reduced by fossilization Its highly doubtful the ratio is being affected by insitu generation of C12 & C14 because the alpha particle is becoming helium and the neutron if generated is likely becoming hydrogen-1?The neutron is not like an alpha particle it does not have many collisions, being neutral passes thru atoms quite easily, so it reduces the already low possiblility of a neutron causing a nitrogen atom or carbon atom to mutate to C14 to nothing, etc... This is probably why the Katheleen Hunt people have not written papers on it being possible. It appears insitu C14 generation within the earth is nothing but a red herring.Sorry,JFP.S. I've enjoyed your theories if you write a paper on this please let us know. I'd enjoy reading it, etc ...__________________________________________________________________A free neutron (one not contained in an atomic nucleus) is radioactive. It undergoes beta decay to form a proton, an electron, and an electron-antineutrino. This what happened to most of the neutrons created by the big bang.Free neutrons easily pass through atoms, because they have no electrical charge, and so they form highly penetrating radiation, interacting with matter only through collisions with atomic nuclei. These do not happen very often.Redirect To new version of this pageThe most abundant isotope, hydrogen-1, protium, or light hydrogen, contains no neutrons; other isotopes contain one or more neutrons. This article primarily concerns hydrogen-1.Isotopes of hydrogen - WikipediaEfficient transmutation requires fast neutrons (neutrons not slowed down by a moderator). As there is only limited availability of fast neutrons in thermal reactors (such as light water reactors), research into partitioning and transmutation arose in the context of expectations of the early deployment of fast breeder or other fast neutron reactors.http://www.asno.dfat.gov.au/...900/nuc_waste_management.htmlEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As well per honesty, check the post responding to Randman about misrepresentations. He quotes Randman and changes the quote! He changed the page number cited by Randman from 999 to 1000! That's blantant dishonesty.

---

No, I didn't. Randman's source cites both pages. Here's the relevant para. from Message 1 with the references in bold to make it even more obvious. In my Message 4 I correctly quoted the 2nd and 3rd sentences which contain the reference to page 1000. Page 1000 is where the cited statement occurs (and page 1000 is where I found the information omitted by the source Randman was quoting).Thus your accusation of "blatant dishonesty" is itself blatantly dishonest.

Well, it seems that we've reached 300 posts and descent into changes of dishonesty at the same time!Summation time, folks.Please do not post any replies after this point. The content of all replies will be hidden.Those so inclined, please post your summation sometime during the next day or so. Naturally, no replies should be posted to summations.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

First my apologies to PaulKI did indeed misread the first post and thought he had changed his quote of Randman when he had not. I was wrong and apologize deeplyAs for C14 dating the problem still remains that dino bones, coal, diamonds and wood all supposed to be millions of years old have dated repeatedly in multiple respected labs to be tens of thousands of years old. This has been consistent and anomalies such as contamination and background cannot be used to dismiss it all. Charges that one cannot use C14 to date fossils and that it is stupid to do so is based on the bias in the premise that no C14 will be found because the fossils are millions of years old are disingenuous and based on circular reasoning. And then when C14 is found in organic samples assumed to be millions of years old then the bias is used to make generic excuses which are not demonstrated in the specific multiple cases of mass spectromater tests cited and would render C14 dating useless altogether if true. It's a great example of Evo bias and circular reasoning. Ignorant statements such as NosyNed and others stated that trying to date something beyond the bounds would give erratic data but that is false. First all the samples dated below the bound and they said they would date either to the bound of 50,000 or give erratic conclusions but neither is true. What would happen is no C14 would be found meaning no dates could be assessed which would be reported not a date of 50,000 and not erratic dates. A great example of Evo bias in ignorance and knee jerk reactions and responses to anyone who disagrees with their assumptions and circular reasonings.Responses to my post demonstrated it well as all (except for Cora's) first assumed that because I differed from their opinion I was ignorant and stupid and instead of intelligently asking for the references which I intentionally left out which were from the first few posts, Randmans dino bones and another reference to Schellings Australian wood. The authors of those posts, Cavediver and Coyote, instead of asking for references and presenting valid arguments, employed the typical invalid ad hoc/ad hominem attack used by those who are biased. A fitting to the end of this thread.What still stands unrefuted are: 1) The examples from Randman's first post of dino bones and other organic examples cited of diamonds, coal and wood dating less than the 50,000 BP limit yet all were assumed to be millions of years old and 2) The typical biased methodology of assuming that the dates come from contamination and background without any evidence supporting that claim which is made simply because the scientifically undisputed mass spectrometer tests differ from evo assumptions. Significant yet typical scientific and methodological problems exposing the bias in the evo case.Edited by ReformedRob, : typo...wrote 'though' in the first sentence of the second paragraph when I meant 'thought'Edited by ReformedRob, : clarificationEdited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.Edited by ReformedRob, : punctuation, syntaxEdited by ReformedRob, : typos, grammar & syntax

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

As I stated in Message 304, the text of replies to summations will be hidden. If you'd like to post a summation please go ahead. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Moderator action.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The "peaceharris" page was shown to have misrepresented its sources on two claims - the only claims based directly on non-creationist sources. The final claim about "90% of fossils" is odd enough taken at face value - and odder still when we look at the page it links to - the Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database. If "fossil" really means "sample" (since it is entirely likely that none of the samples are fossils) how could it be significant ? There's no real attempt to explain.The other page cites Creationist claims that dinosaur remains have been carbon dated to give dates - mostly well in excess of the 10,000 years that would be the maximum expected in a YEC scenario. These are more likely the result of contamination rather than real ages. Any argument to the contrary must be considered in the light of the other dating evidence we have, that indicates that the remains are far older rather than simply jumping to the preferred conclusion,

'sample' might be a better word than 'fossil', but I prefer to use the word 'fossil' as this refers to objects from the past, but the word 'sample' could refer to present objects.
Let us not argue about the word which should be used, but the point that I was making.The point I was making is the statistical argument. If you take the fossils (or 'samples' as you prefer to call it) from a small time period and compare with a large time period, there should be more fossils from the large time period.So basically I was comparing the number of fossils carbon dated less than 10000 years to the rest of history. If evolutionists are correct in saying that the earth is few billion years, then we are comparing a time frame which is 100000 times bigger than the past 10000 years.
In spite of the time frame being 100000 times larger, it has 10 times less fossils.Evolutionists could defend themselves by saying, "Fossils need not be preserved, recent objects have a greater chance of being discovered by archaeologists."Saying that a radio carbon date of 10000 years is the maximum to expect in a YEC scenario proves that PaulK doesn't understand the points I made in my website.
I assume C14 production only started on the 4th day, after trees were created. The basis of this assumption is Genesis 1 which states that the sun was created on the 4th day, and our knowledge that solar rays convert Nitrogen to C14. Using this assumption, I attempted to show that the fossils formed during the flood (which according to biblical chronology happened ~4500 years ago) would give a radio carbon age of 10000 years.
Everyone who has read the book of Genesis knows that it is stated that life began before the flood, so it is expected that there are fossils that would yield a radiocarbon date more than 10000 years.Pls understand the contents of http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14/ before commenting {Despite this being posted as a reply, I will take this as being Peaceharris's summary message. PH - Do not post any further messages in this topic.

​

No replies to this message. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See note above.