Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

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

I know this is OT, but I gotta mention it; the RATE group is porposing accelerated decay, much of it during Noah's Fludde, when the water would shield Noah and his animals from the radiation. Supposedly. One of these days I'm going to get aroudn to figurign the aount of ⁴⁰K in a 100 kg human, and the effect of speeding up the dacay of that ⁴⁰K by a factor of a million or billion.

The Health Physics Society website gives some info to help get you started. This source linked from Wiki gives a value of 266,000 ⁴⁰K disintegrations per minute, roughly 4400 per second which is more or less in the same ballpark.The disintegration energy of ⁴⁰K is apparently about 1.35MeV. So the energy released per second in a 70Kg man is So roughly 5.75 GeV per second.The ever-handy OnlineConversion.com says 5.75GeV is 9.212519475e-10 joule - so we have 9.2x10^-10 Joules per second - i.e. 9.2x10^-10Watts.So if the decay rate was accelerated a million or even billion fold the heat generated in the body wouldn't be too bad. Kind of disappointing - I hoped it would pan out that Noah would have been nicely cooked from the inside out Of course, this doesn't mean all that Beta radiation happening inside your body wouldn't be seriously bad for your health. It's too late to work it out now but a quick look at the dosage levels this would equate to a dangerous level of Sieverts.Mind you, I haven't done any of these sort of calculations since I left University 26 years ago so there may well be one or more howling mistakes in my working out.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

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.

PurpleYouko, I take you haven't got to your university library yet. Here is the abstract from the first reference I gave you. Kuhn et al in the second paper made field measurements of thermal neutrons in mines deeper than 800m which yielded counts varying from 1.1 to 33 n/cc/yr with larger counts of up to 116 from shallow subsurface. Using a conversion factor of (say) 4 g/cc these figures are in fairly good agreement with Feige and indicate that there is a pretty sizable subsurface neutron flux despite JF's denial.This reply may be a bit OT to the topic of your post 165 - perhaps more to the point is the magic figure 3.72.10e10 - the number of alpha particles emitted each second for each gm of product of the decay series (determined by Rutherford and Geiger over 90 years ago).Chris

You are blathering worse than ever. I can't detect any relationship between your post and the issues we are discussing.

1. The colomb barrier is not being violated. It is being overcome by a sufficiently energetic particle.
2. The initial settings of the clocks are not what is being changed. What we are seeing is a decrease in the C14/C12 ratio with depth of sediment(age of artifact) that tails off to a continuum (but incredibly small) level. ie. beyond a certain age reading, all readings give the same result.
3. The continuum level has been shown to be proportional to the concentration of radioactive isotopes in the samples but only when the sample has a lower ratio than can give an accurate age reading..

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm also not sure what relevence you ascribe to an alpha pareticle bouncing around. Coulomb forces do not combine in this way. The coulomb force we are discussung is the repulsive force between an alpha particle and a single nucleus of beryllium. Atomic nuclei are way too far apart for any one of them to have any effect on another one.
If you mean "combine" in the sense that coulomb forces from other atoms will have an effect on the mean free path of an alpha particle then I'm not arguing with you. The mean free path is incredibly short. I would be surprised if it was any more than a fraction of a milimeter in soil.What is it that makes you think that some Be atoms are not allowed to be right next to a U238 atom though? This isn't the way it works.
An alpha from a U238 has way too much energy to be reflected. It is going to travel in a pretty much straight line till it directly hits something, encounters an atom with a coulomb barrier higher than its own energy or simply picks up stray electrons to become Helium.The 30ppm cited in this thread is an experimentally derived fractional reaction path based on the successful fusions between a Be nucleus and an Alpha particle.
out of 1,000,000 successful fusions, only 30 produce a fast neutron. The rest produce something else.
It has nothing to do with the crystaline structure of Beryllium. All that serves to do is to narrow the inter neucleic distance and therefore make direct collisions a little more likely. Molecular weight has absolutely nothing to do with the coulomb barrier of a single atom. I have already shown in message 156 Message 156 that the energy of an energetic alpha particle has more than 4,000,000,000 times the energy of the strongest known molecular bond.What you suggest is a little like saying that by hanging a sheet of paper in front of a glass window, it will help to prevent the cannon ball that I have just fired, from breaking it.Molecular effects on neucleic coulomb barriers are less than negligable.

I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed something ...Can you fill in the missing information?Such as where you provided the information you must have to show how this "leaching" can result in an exact match of varve dates to decay dates, when one is linear and one is exponential.While you are at it, also explain how the samples of the Bristlecone Pine are also affected by some (as yet unknown process) even though they have an exact correlation between tree ring age and decay age from trees that are either (a) living, with a tree ring counted age of 4,844 years when it was cut down in 1957, or (b) lying on the ground in the same area with exact correlations of overlapping ages for climate changes year by year, extending the tree ring verified age to nearly 10,000 years (and still matching the decay age in the process ... and remembering that one process is linear (tree rings) and the other process is exponential (decay).AND while you're at that, also explain how the european oak tree ring data that also extends to 10,000 years by the same process of matching specimens by annual ring climates, and which also corroborates the Bristlecone Pine climate data AND correlates directly with the decay age for those specimens - even though they include specimens buried in the peat bogs of europe.AND then while you are finishing that up, you can explain the mechanism that makes the lake varves and the tree rings all seem to have the appearance not only of annual markers but correlate with each other on climate changes --- something that operates in three different parts of the world with at least two entirely different mechanisms, yet produces an identical result.Then you can move on to the other piece of missing information that you must have provided somewhere on how the ancient coal and oil correlate with radioactivity, and how the known mechanisms for releasing sufficient energy and the correct kinds of particles under radioactivity ... how this results in too much age for some and too little for others by your method of "dilution" along with demonstrating where the missing 14C has gone (if everything died 5k to 6k years ago, and thus should have had half of the original 14C content, so for it to "leach out" to give the appearance of great age it must have accumulated somewhere with WAY TOO MUCH 14C for anything living today).Think of it this way: your queen is unguarded and under attack, and your king is in check, you cannot block the check without sacrificing the queen, and you are trying to move a pawn forward that does nothing to help the king. It's a false move.Your assertions have been challenged and until you answer the challenges, continuing to assert them is childish. Deal with the issue or be honest and say you can't.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.

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.

umm just to make this point 2 peter 3:8 is not about how old the earth is john its about the fact that being with the lord is basicly timeless, stop trying to pull out scripture to try to make yourself look right, it doesn't workother than that your post doesn't work, the earth is not 13 thousand years old, neather the earth nor the bible props this assertion upits sad that you don't understand geology but you don't even understand your own religious textoh yes and you have no idea how a flood works, a flood would leave one layer not many layers and they would all date the same, you are just making stuff upby the way the oldest living plant is estimated at 43 thousand years old so no your junk still doesn't work
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm#oldestEdited by ReverendDG, : 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.

Because it is going WAY too fast to be affected by a much smaller particle such as an electron.
An alpha particle has a mass of approximately 6.645 E-24 gram and a charge of +2
while an electron has a mass of 9.10956 E-28 gram and a charge of -1.The Alpha is 10,000 times more massive than an electron and is travelling at about 2E7 meters per second. It isn't going to be deflected by the negative charges from the electrons.
Come to that it isn't going to be deflected much by the coulomb forces surrounding the nucleus either.Have a read through this article on Rutherford's experiment on alpha scattering and you will see what i mean.
Alpha scattering

quote:

---

Note that since the alpha particle has mass 6.7x10-27 kg, from F = ma, the electric force at the atomic surface above will give it a sideways acceleration of 5.4x1020 meters per sec per sec (compare g = 10!). But the force doesn't have long to act - the alpha is moving at 1.6x107 meters per second. So the time available for the force to act is the time interval a particle needs to cross an atom if the particle gets from New York to Australia in one second.

​

The time t0 = 2r0/v = 2x10-10/1.6x107 = 1.25x10-17 seconds.

​

Thus the magnitude of the total sideways velocity picked up is the sideways acceleration multiplied by the time,

​

1.25x10-17x5.4x1020 = 6750 meters per second.

​

This is a few ten-thousandths of the alpha's forward speed, so there is only a very tiny deflection. Even if the alpha hit 400 atoms in succession and they all deflected it the same way, an astronomically improbable event, the deflection would only be of order a degree.

---

Also note that this experiment was performed using a Gold atom with a mass of 197 rather than beryllium which is only twice the size of an alpha particle. No it couldn't react with more than one of them.
It may be slightly deflected by a few of them but it will only actually react with one.
Remember that the nature of the reaction is a "fusion". That means that the Berylium atom and the alpha particle both cease to exist when such a reaction occurs. They are both replaced by a single atom that combines aspects of both. The Alpha-N reaction goes like this.Alpha + Be9 ---> C12 + NOther paathways are also possible. While in natural sediments it is common enough for atoms of certain elements to conglomerate or form small crystaline latices, it is pretty easy to demonstrate that all the elements are spread out pretty homogeneously throughout most soils. (I have to face this potential issue every time I sample soils for analysis and I can say that so far I almost always find that any microgram of soil contains the same constituents as any other microgram for a given sample.)
I don't think we should be overly concerned about spatial arrangements in the soils. I think you are still misunderstanding the nature of the "coulomb barrier"(either that or you are not descibing it well)
While the electrons in an atom undoubtedly have coulomb force, they do not constitute the "coulomb barrier". The actual barrier is the repulsive force between the protons in the two nuclei that are on a collision course. The size of the coulomb barrier is proportional to the number of protons in the nucleus but is moderated to some degree by the neutrons that are also there.
For Be, the barrier is 2.9MeV so if a particle on a collision course has more than that, there can be a direct nucleus-to-nucleus reaction. This will result in a number of possible interaction, one of which is a fusion that results in the emission of a fast neutron. Another is a fission which results in a couple of smaller atoms such as Lithium and a couple of hydrogens. I am having trouble finding references for exactly what happens here. I will post some if i can find them.Just think of it this way. You are going to get an unstable roiling mass of protons and neutrons with a total mass of 13AMU, a total charge of +2 and a whole bunch of energy (up to 3MeV) . pretty much any stable combination of atoms that can be made out of this mess will happen at some time and each possible outcome has a certain percentage chance of happening. 12C + N is one combination and the chance of it happening is 30ppm.
The actual outcome is just as random as a radioactive decay. We can't predict what any one reaction will yield. We can only measure millions of reactions and predict a probability.
Obviously other outcomes are way more probable.

One question here.
Why do you keep refering to the lake varves as "floating"?
As far as I can tell they are a clay-like very solid and very deep lake bed that isn't floating in any way.
Could you explain please?

FWIW, I'm very interested in studying that articl and having it for reference, so I pumped it into OmniPage, which did a pretty good job of recognizing it. I cleaned it up some, but there are probably a few mistakes left. The Origin of Neutron Radiation. I'm not guaranteeing the link will work forever.