Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

A long link (Editted to fix link)A kinetic isotope fractionation occurs during AMO because methane composed of the lighter isotopes of C and H is oxidized slightly faster than methane composed of the heavier isotopes (Bigeleisen and Wolfsberg,1958). The magnitude of the effect is expressed as a fractionation factor,, which is defined as the ratio of relative reaction rates of molecules containing different isotopes(Rees,1973): With more C12 being fractionated into the methane gas byproducts you would have more C12 available than C14 in solution to remineralize to the organic not easily digested. This would cause fossils to date older not younger, with C14 being fractionated into solution forming the digestable C14 backround radiation. With the methane gases transporting CO2 thus explaining that proportionately more C14 than C12 is bubbling upwards causing the upper sediments to date not older but younger. This is all I'm trying to convey that within the earth there is a whole lot of chemical reactions (not nucleur reactions)that are affecting the ratio's.Edited by AdminModulous, : Gigantic link in post was stretching the page.

I think Percy is referring to Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits; although that's talking about coal, not "any ground sample", and in her paraphrase of Dr. Gove's email she states:

quote:

---

In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series

---

which is not quite the same thing as background radiation. Maybe your academic resources could dig up some of the primary literature on this?

Thanks for the link. That looks like an extremely interesting paper. It is going to take me some time to read though all the information in there and get a grasp of exactly how it impacts our discussion here. I think I see what you are suggesting now. You think that in deep sediment, the C14 is being converted preferentially to Co2 then bubbled up through the layers and deposited in the upper layers as the Aerobic mechanisms take over.
This raises a number of questions though. If it was to happen this way, we should see the depth profile dating in the reverse direction should we not? Surface sediments aught to date older than deeper sediments due to the fractionation effects of this process.I don't doubt that there are chemical processes going on. They may well be the prevalent processes in some areas. Whether they have an effect on Radio-Carbon dating is the question.
Either way you cannot entirely discount nuclear processes. They undoubtably happen. Again the question is to what extent? I wouls suggest that in certain places the nuclear processes would likely be prevalent. places like deep dry soil with a high content of granite would be the kind of place where it would likely be so.
Wet marshy soils would be the most likely candidates for chemical processes to prevail.Over the next day or two I will carefully read your article and also do as JohnF suggested and see if I can find any relevent research papers through the university systemI have to say that it makes a really nice change to actually discuss the science for both sides of an argument in one of these threads instead of mudslinging

One could also email Dr Gove and get an update -- I'm sure more information is available now than when the coal article was written in 2002.Or follow up on the references on Ms Hunts paperEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

This concept is as falsified as your leaching one by the data from Lake Suigetsu when analysed over the known time intervals -- see Carbon 14 Dating and the possible effect of "leaching"Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The Article referenced specifically addresses "Gassy Sediments".
I haven't read the whole thing yet but it is appears to be very specific in the type of sediment effected.
I don't think that Lake Suigetsu falls under than catagory anyway so for this particular case it is not even relevent.

Hi PurpleYouko,I just wanted to say that I've found your recent posts to be some of the best examples of objective investigation here since Sylas. You're reporting what the research says regardless which side of the debate it supports. This must be time-consuming for you, so I just wanted you to know that it is much appreciated.To everyone else, this isn't to denigrate anyone else's contributions, including my own that PurpleYouko has corrected several times. Her background seems to line up pretty well with this topic, and it just seems like she's making the most successful effort right now to get below the surface to find the accurate information.I don't know if this analogy works for everyone, but sometimes scientific analysis seems similar to analyzing a photograph. Sometimes the closer you get the more detail you see, but the more you lose sight of the subject of the photograph. Or sometimes, though the detail is important to answering certain questions, by the time you've dug deep enough to find the relevant details, how they relate to the original questions is often no longer clear. And finally, sometimes it seems like the deeper you dig the less certain you become of anything at all.Thinking about creationist questioning of evolution, I'll also offer a lawyer analogy. Good defense lawyers of course do their homework so they know the answer to questions before they ask them, but the best ones know to question everybody about everything because they know that they'll always get different answers, even when every witness had a front row seat for the entire crime. They are expert at picking apart these differences to raise doubts in the jury's mind. I think this comes to mind because of recent interactions with Randman. He's so good at this lawyerly tactic that even when no one's done anything he claims, I think evolutionists still come away feeling underhanded and disreputable.--Percy

I read the pdf version
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/...99/07-09.1999.04Martens.pdfAlso see Anaerobic methane oxidation in marine systems and Cafe Methane (nasa news stories)It also involves the methane banks off the coasts (applicable to several localities of marine sediments -- methane banks may be the next fuel source), and as such it is a deep marine environment that would then be depleted of atmospheric sources for 14C and so wouldn't be dated properly anyway. Of course it would then have more 12C than 14C, because the source of 14C was already depleted, not because of any effect of the leaching mechanism.His original comment was There are several problems with this, not least of which is that 14C dating is not done on mineralized fossils -- it is done on organic samples.Others have commented on the leaching in specific reference to Lake Suigetsu, so I thought I would put that canard to bed.And he is also now claiming on this one that there is 12C being imported into the material: Does he realize that there are 10^{^10} more molecules of 12C than 14C at the start?Any idea how much 12C you would need to import to change the date measurments?Thanks.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I am in the middle of a rather extensive search of all the relevent scientific literature I can find that relates to the issues of Radiocarbon dating and Uranium.
I am beginning to find myself drawn in directions that I did not anticipate. Yet what i am finding would tend to indicate that some of the things mentioned in this thread with respect to an in ground source of C14 may well be the case.Many researchers are describing a consistent trend of disagreement when comparing C14 dates to those obtained by other methods such as Uranium/Thorium dates and K/Ar to name a few.here are a couple of examples

quote:

---

Thorium-230/uranium-234 and carbon-14 ages obtained by mass spectrometry on corals. Bard, Edouard; Arnold, Maurice; Fairbanks, Richard G.; Hamelin, Bruno. Lab. Geosci., Univ. Aix-Marseille III, Marseille, Fr. Radiocarbon (1993), 35(1), 191-9. CODEN: RACAAT ISSN: 0033-8222. Journal written in English. CAN 120:12049 AN 1994:12049 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

Results are presented of the accelerator mass spectrometric (AMS) and thermal ionization mass spectrometric (TIMS) detns. on scleractinian coral samples from the Mururoa Atoll (French Polynesia) and from Isabela Island (Galapagos, Pacific Ocean). The 14C ages are systematically younger than true ages during most of the 14C application range; similar discrepancies are also obsd. between the 14C and K-Ar ages. An age of .apprx. 9700 14C yr BP is estd. for the midpoint of the Younger Dryas/Preboreal 2H-13C transition.

​

Indexing -- Section 53-8 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

Strangely though, Corals are of marine origin so I don't really understand how the C14 age could be expected to be correct. Maybe I am missing something here.

quote:

---

U-Th vs. AMS 14C dating of shells from the Achenheim loess (Rhine Graben). Innocent, Christophe; Flehoc, Christine; Lemeille, Francis. Service Analyses/Isotopes, BRGM, Orleans, Fr. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France (2005), 176(3), 249-255. Publisher: Societe Geologique de France, CODEN: BSGFAE ISSN: 0037-9409. Journal written in English. CAN 144:195480 AN 2005:683013 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

Shells extd. from loess deposits at Achenheim (Rhine Graben) have been investigated for AMS 14C and for U-Th age detns. by the isochron method on single shells. The two chronometers provide results that are not in agreement: the obtained 14C age is 38 ka B.P. In contrast, U-Th results provide much older ages. The 238U/232Th-230Th/232Th isochron diagram gives an age of 69 kyr, whereas a slightly younger age of 64 kyr is derived from the other (234U/232Th-230Th/232Th) diagram. 234U/238U ratios have not been found to vary from a shell to another: the av. value is 1.199, slightly higher than radioactive equil. For both isochrons, the Y-axis intercept is slightly neg., which indicates that there is no evidence for a significant detrital component. Thorium 232 that is present in the shells is probably incorporated in the material. The neg. intercepts suggest that the two ages have been probably "aged" resulting from a slight mobilization of uranium. By constraining the Y-axis intercepts at 0, ages that are in good agreement from one to another, can be calcd. at 60.9 kyr and 60.4 kyr, resp. In both cases, the statistical quality of the alignment is only slightly deteriorated. Since U-Th ages are in agreement with stratigraphic data, in contrast to the 14C date, one may believe that they date the end of early diagenesis, with uranium trapping. In contrast, the AMS 14C date is either thought to reflect anal. limitations of AMS 14C dating for such type of material, or to date a younger geol. event. In this latter case, a possible hypothesis is that this event has triggered the slight opening of the 238U-234U system. In any case, this study demonstrates once again that surface formations often tell such complex stories that only one single dating method cannot usually be sufficient to describe precisely these histories. Instead, informations derived from different independent chronometers have to be compared.

​

Indexing -- Section 53-8 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

Again these are shells though I don't know if they are of marine origin or not.This one shows an agreement but I don't put much stock in these results, even though they are peer reviewed. The U/Th ratios were obtained via ICP-MS and that methodoligy is not a very precise tool for high precision ratio measurements. I will have to read more on this to see what their claimed precision is.

quote:

---

234U and 230Th determination by FIA-ICP-MS and application to uranium-series disequilibrium in marine samples. Godoy, Maria Luiza D. P.; Godoy, Jose Marcus; Kowsmann, Renato; dos Santos, Guaciara M.; Petinatti da Cruz, Rosana. Instituto de Radioprotecao e Dosimetria, Comissao de Energia Nuclear, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity (2006), 88(2), 109-117. Publisher: Elsevier B.V., CODEN: JERAEE ISSN: 0265-931X. Journal written in English. CAN 145:95367 AN 2006:391645 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

A 234U and 230Th detn. method based on an extn. chromatog. sepn. on a flow injection system coupled to a quadruple ICP-MS was developed. Two-milliliter UTEVA (Eichrom Co.) cartridges were applied as sepn. tool and 236U and 229Th as spikes. Loading and washing steps were carried out in 3 M HNO3 soln. and 0.05 M ammonium oxalate applied to elute both uranium and thorium. The method was applied initially to the IAEA-327 soil ref. sample and NIST SRM 4357 ocean sediment ref. material, with the obtained 234U and 230Th concns. in agreement with the ref. levels. Samples from a deep-sea sediment core (2450 m water depth) were analyzed and based on 230Th/234U dating, a mean sedimentation rate of 3.3 cm ky-1 was calcd. Samples from two sediment layers were also dated by 14C-AMS and the obsd. ages agree with the 230Th/234U results.

​

Indexing -- Section 79-6 (Inorganic Analytical Chemistry)

---

Now this one is interesting. They artificially mixed some thorium in with a representative sample and experimentally proved an age bias can be introduced

quote:

---

New 230Th/U and 14C ages from Lake Lahontan carbonates, Nevada, USA, and a discussion of the origin of initial thorium. Lin, J. C.; Broecker, W. S.; Anderson, R. F.; Hemming, S.; Rubenstone, J. L.; Bonani, G. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, USA. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (1996), 60(15), 2817-2832. Publisher: Elsevier, CODEN: GCACAK ISSN: 0016-7037. Journal written in English. CAN 125:305306 AN 1996:561004 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

Five sets of coeval lacustrine carbonate samples from Pleistocene Lake Lahontan in western Nevada were dated by both the AMS 14C and 230Th/U isochron methods. All five groups of samples were analyzed for U-Th isotopes by alpha spectrometry and one of the groups was addnl. measured by thermal and secondary ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS and SIMS) for comparison. The 14C ages were cor. to calendar years using the calibration curve recommended by Bard et al. (1992). Without local reservoir correction on the 14C ages, mean 230Th/U isochron ages of some sets are apparently older than their calendar-cor. 14C ages by up to 2300 yr. Modern carbon contamination of these carbonate samples through recrystn. or deposition of secondary calcite is likely to be responsible for part of the age discrepancies. We explored addnl. biases assocd. with the isochron ages, maybe produced by the presence of initial Th copptd. from the lake water. It can be shown that if dissolved (hydrogenous) Th is directly incorporated into the pure carbonates, then the three-component mixing among (1) detrital Th, (2) hydrogenous Th adsorbed on detritus, and (3) hydrogenous Th incorporated by the carbonate can introduce a pos. age bias. We have developed an approach to est. the magnitude of this bias of the Lake Lahontan carbonates. The preliminary ests. suggest a pos. age bias of 1000 to 2000 yr for two sets of the samples.

​

Indexing -- Section 53-8 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

That is a big enough post for now. I will keep you all informed if i turn up anything else of interest.
I should note though, that I have been unable to obtain the papers cited in the post that Razd linked.

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.

Yes I noticed a number of references to "reservoir age" and even a number of papers dedicated entirely to it. I got the idea that they consider it a non-issue that just has to be corrected for.

Beryllium is purified from minerals within the earth so in this purified state its said to beable to liberate 30 neutrons for every million hits from an alpha particle. It forms various molecular compounds that due to the coloumb barrier no reason or evidence in the natural its releasing neutrons. Is there any evidence that beryllium molecular chemical compounds (not beryllium) that are found within the earth are violating the coloumb barrier?The alpha particle in air can only move 2 centimenters, even 1 layer of dead skin is able to absorb the alpha particle before molecular bonds (chemical reactions) supply (helium -4) the electrons to become helium.Beryllium - WikipediaIt is highly permeable to X-rays, and neutrons are liberated when it is hit by alpha particles, as from radium or polonium (about 30 neutrons/million alpha particles).

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

I think that even though many of the issues Johnfolton is raising have a strong "red herring" element to them, he does seem to be asking well thought out and relevant questions. There's a "grasping at straws" nature to a lot of this, the best example being his "¹⁵N enrichment" argument that when examined revealed that it diminished ¹⁴N proportions to something still above 99+%.But as for his last question, it seems that if one of the important sources of neutrons in the ground is thought to be beryllium because beryllium in elemental form gives off neutrons when exposed to alpha particles, how do we know that beryllium in molecular form also gives off neutrons when exposed to alpha particles?I'll go out on a limb and speculate that chemical bonds have little influence on atomic reactions, for the simple reason the energies involved are different by orders of magnitude. It's why traditional chemical bombs are used on small targets while nuclear bombs are used on entire cities. But I've been enjoying PurpleYouko's technical explanations, and maybe she'll chime in on this topic.--Percy

ITYM "nuclear reactions". Or maybe "nucular reactions" .