Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

A more likely way is as others suggested thru the alpha particle supplemental collisions produce spontaneous fission. Nothing has been proven but it sure sounds better than the alpha particle can be a source of neutrons. If the alpha particle was a source of neutrons then why are we not concerned about radon gas being a source of neutrons. Truthfully are they only concerned about the alpha particle in respect to radon gas.

If what you say was true then radon gas which has an alpha particle would be causing a neutron problem in basements through spontaneous fission. If the EPA does not believe the alpha particle is producing neutrons through supplemental fission why should we believe its so. If its not happening in ones basement then why should we believe its a fact that its happening within the earth. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

It appears the facts are pressing forward that the alpha particle (helium -4) is being deflected by the Coulomb barrier. In the process of breaking molecular bonds it secures electrons from molecular bonds to become helium. The alpha particle (helium -4) is only a molecular chemical reaction not a nucleur reaction and that the coulomb barrier is preventing transmutatation from taking place.The backround C14 radiation is explained by the leaching that mineralized the fossil. Leaching (the mineralization of the fossil) accounting for (the ratio being diluted) a disproportionate number of C12 atoms leached in comparision to C14 atoms being removed to the surroundings from the fossil being dated.This is how coal or any mineralized wood fossil thats only up to 11,500 years could date 35,000 to 50,000 years.Coulomb barrier - WikipediaThe Coulomb barrier, named after physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736”1806), is the energy barrier due to electrostatic interaction that two nuclei need to overcome so they can get close enough to undergo nuclear fusion. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Thats quite the senerio however it appears your varves are indeed floating therefore to me your 45 degree line might actually be the rate the C14 is being diluted. It only takes a couple of atoms of C14 to affect the ratio and there exists a whole lot less of them than exists of C12.Your entire lake bed appears to be floating within water. However the multitude of varves could of easily formed when the sediments were lain down in the creationists flood. The organic material that decomposed into solution thats not undigestable cellose would put more C12 into solution to be mineralization within the pourous cellose.Given the pourous nature of cellose and you might well have a proportional dilution of the C14/C12 ratio in agreement with your chart.It is however interesting that your chart agrees that ratio has been diluted from a creationists perspective. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

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.

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).

The earth has sediments and are they not shielding the beryllium from the alpha particle? In the air the alpha particle can travel a couple of centimenters before its energy has expired, yet within the earth is not the problem that "the alpha particle is immediately absorbed by the sediments"?The molecular compounds, nitrogen oxides (n14) would not produce neutrons and if beryllium did by chance get hit directly by an alpha particle. Would it not take 1,000,000 direct hits before 30 neutrons could be generated?Would not those direct alpha hits on the beryllium in an beryllium compound need to be not shielded by the surrounding sediments so the alpha particles energy would not be depleted in anyway below the coloumb barriers strength?Why would not the sediments that are not beryllium not immediately absorb the alpha particles energy depleting its ability to overcome the coloumb barrier?The sediments that are shielding the beryllium within the earth could explain why an alpha particle would not overcome the coloumb barrier? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

correct incorrect Penetration and ShieldingAlpha particles interact with matter primarily through coulomb forces between their positive charge and the negative charge of the atomic electrons within the absorber.Edited by Admin, : Shorten URL.

I agree with Jonf that the accelerated decay likely is not explained by the flood. If the elements were created in a big bang it could of accelerated the elements sythesis. There is no need for an accelerated decay before the earth itself was created. The earth has an appearance of age but its not the age of the earth.The whole world Noah Flood that jonf mentioned in respect to this thread explains backround C14 radiation is explained by the incredible amounts of organics (YEC perspective)of all the dead fossils in the sediments. In that these fossils organics were digested by normal chemical reactive reductive like processes (like anaerobic digestion) which naturally would of
caused the releasing of incredible amounts of C14 to the sediments( the backround C14 radiation).This is why the coals, oils, fossils, and varves have been compromised due to dilution (natural processes) and anaerobic & aerobic(chemical reactive reductive like processes).However even if the coloumb barrier was being violated by the alpha particle there still is not enough neutrons from a evolutionists perspective (to explain them affecting the initial setting of the various radioactive clocks) to explain away a young earth.I only see the beryllium compound binding not with the radioative elements emitting alpha particles. This increases their combined compounds coloumb force preventing the alpha particle from bouncing from beryllium atom to beryllium atom as appears whats happening within pure beryllium crystals.The combined coloumb forces of additional millions (perhaps billions) of atoms separating these beryllium compounds (coloumb barrier) from being hit with enough energy to created even 30 neutrons (perhaps none) within the earth.Looking at the formula weight of these beryllium compounds it would only increase the coloumb forces surrounding the beryllium atom.Its not like whats happening within a crystallized beryllium solid state. Where the reflective coloumb forces would be reflecting the alpha particle (trapping the alpha particle) temporarily within this crystallized hexagonal close-packed pure beryllium state. It appears its only within this crystallized close-packed state that its said its only able to produce 30 neutrons with a million direct hits. Is there evidence to the contrary?Error 404 - non-existent addressCrystal structure of solid beryllium
When solid, the crystal structure of beryllium is hcp (hexagonal close-packed).WebElements Periodic Table » Beryllium » compounds informationFluorides
Formula Data
BeF2 name: beryllium (II) fluoride
formula weight: 47.009
formal oxidation number of Be: 2Chlorides
Formula Data
BeCl2 name: beryllium (II) chloride
formula weight: 79.918
formal oxidation number of Be: 2Bromides
Formula Data
BeBr2 name: beryllium (II) bromide
formula weight: 168.82
formal oxidation number of Be: 2Iodides
Formula Data
BeI2 name: beryllium (II) iodide
formula weight: 262.821
formal oxidation number of Be: 2Oxides
Formula Data
BeO name: beryllium (II) oxide
formula weight: 25.012
formal oxidation number of Be: 2Hydrides
Formula Data
BeH2 name: beryllium (II) hydride
formula weight: 11.028
formal oxidation number of Be: 2Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Why wouldn't its positive charge seek out the coloumb forces till it was able to steal a couple of electrons. Shortened Link
(Shortened by Admin Faith)Penetration and ShieldingAlpha particles interact with matter primarily through coulomb forces between their positive charge and the negative charge of the atomic electrons within the absorber. If out of a million alpha particle reaction paths was directed at a pure beryllium hexegonal close-packed crystals. I can understand the one alpha particle but question if it was reacting to only one beryllium atom nucleus? If its a crystal wouldn't it be reacting to millions of beryllium atoms(not one atom), or ever how many is needed till it was able to steal some electrons. Not sure, Beryllium compounds don't react to water but uranium might mitigate through dilution. It appears its harder for the alpha to breakin than it was for it to breakout. I agree the alpha has the greater energy but the electron shield (coloumb barrier) appears to be quite resistant (after a million alpha particles) only 30 neutrons. If it was just a matter of energy why so few neutrons generated? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : edited to add link. Edited by AdminFaith, : to shorten URL

If the earth is only approximately 13,000 years old (2 peter 3:8) then your ponderosa pine 11,000 approximate age correlates to the scripture that we must not be ignorant of one day is as a thousand years. However confirming evidence of your ponderosa pine age is carbon sources of (peat) dated beneath glaciers to be approximately 11,000 years old(frozen unbiased no natural or biological diluting factors).Your varve study biggest flaw appears that you calibrate your C14 method beyond the 11,000 year (tree ring correlations) because you have additional varves (to a creationists varves formed after 5,500 years are from the flood sediments)(Why would their not be additional colloidal sorting happening within these floating varves)?The organics of the flood would of bacterially digested and by the biogically chemical processes produce colloidal claylike byproducts. Why would not these byproducts sort proportionally based off pressures in liquid varve state.The claylike consistency of your lower varves, too me its just a byproduct of the creationists flood models. To you are an example of annual varve deposition.The upper varves if the world flood happened 5,500 years ago is in agreement with your ponderosa pines correlation back 11,000 years. These upper varves appears not to have to degraded much because of the clays and lesser water pressures slowing the upward mitigation of C14 upward.Why would biological processes not affect the lower varves more because the particles would have more pressure exerted upon them by the water surrounding these particles allowing more Co2 to mitigate upwards? The closer to the surface would you not have less water pressure exerted upon the colloidal particles helping to slow Co2 migration upwards. This probably explain why your varves chart are fluctuating a bit past 8,000 years.Your not factoring in all the natural and chemical biological processes that could easily have affected your ratio's upwards. Then again your not factoring in the flood model, so too you its not a factor.O'well what the use if your not going to factor in biologicals and continue to say the ratios are not affected cause of climatic correlations. Because of this your lake varve study is flawed. I'll conceed however that the ponderosa pine likely can be correlated to approximately 11,000 years (tree ring correlations) which is in agreement with 2 peter 3:8(that the earth is approximately 13,000 years old). Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

If one day is a thousand years it can be deduced that life has only been on this planet approximately 11,000 years. If your a gapest (genesis 1:1-3) I'll conceed that there is wiggle room that the elements of the earth existed before the earth was (the beginning verses that first creation day) that the first day the earth going forward from that point in time would be approximately 13,000 years. They also estimated one shrub was 12,000 years, then another shrub they estimate 43,000 years. How was it estimated? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmThe Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves.

Read verses 3,4 & 9 so your not ignorant of this one thing that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

Ok, however does not mean the varves are solid clay samples. The coring sampler appears was piston corer and this corer is used in sampling cores from peat bog and small lakes (Lake Suigetsu).There was no mention of the water density test or bulk density test this (lack of mention of this test data) does not mean the varves would of been solid clay. The reason they used a piston corer probably was it was likely a quite mucky sample core. Colloids from biological processes can make things seem solid yet have low bulk densities. The link in respect to lake suitstu floating chronologies appears to be a poorly documented study(couldn't find anything on Lake Suigetsu cores wet bulk density analaysis).Do you have any evidence that cores taken are very solid, not mucky?Limnological Research Center | Department of Earth & Environmental SciencesCoring Systems
Coring technology is more than simply pushing a tube into mud. The LRC coring systems are designed to recover optimal cores with minimal sediment distortion. For water depths under 30 m, choices include a Wright-Livingston piston core and the MUCK corer, both multiple-entry push rod corer suitable for recovering varying-length cores from peatlands and shallow lakes.Water Content, Dry and Wet Bulk Density Analyses
Water content is determined by weight loss of a sample upon drying either in a drying oven (often as part of a loss on ignition analysis for carbon and carbonate), or in a freeze drier. Bulk density determinations can be made using volumetric sampling techniquesEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.