Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 357 (347121)
09-06-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hughes
09-06-2006 12:39 PM


and Time to Run ...
Not possible.
In other words you have a closed mind.
You are unwilling to even consider the validity of 10,000 years of age marked by tree rings in two differrent species on opposite sides of the earth, it's too dangerous to your worldview, one best described as fantasy. When confronted with the reality you claim
Not possible.
You raised the issue, but when confronted with the evidence and asked to deal with it you say
Not possible.
When faced with evidence that counters your pet fantasy you run from it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : toyp

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hughes, posted 09-06-2006 12:39 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Hughes, posted 09-06-2006 9:56 PM RAZD has replied

Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 357 (347142)
09-06-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
09-06-2006 8:51 PM


Re: and Time to Run ...
In other words you have a closed mind.
You are unwilling to even consider the validity of 10,000 years of age marked by tree rings in two differrent species on opposite sides of the earth, it's too dangerous to your worldview, one best described as fantasy. When confronted with the reality you claim
I was asked about Millions of years not 10,000 years.
I said more than once that tree rings are probably the strongest/best test of time.
Then I was asked about calibration.
If you what you mean by calibration, "large amounts of unsubstantiated extrapolation" then yeah I suppose you have what you wanted.
Your continued characterization that my position as fantasy, and that I lose, or am running from the evidence is not even close to being true.
First, if I learn. I win. If I'm proven wrong. I win. If I'm right, I win. There is no losing in this debate (at least from my perspective).
I'm running from nothing. I made an attempt to start from a simple point, "Testing tree rings/ oscillations /patterns +extrapolation) is not a strict test of time."
I expected that maybe, just maybe someone might say, "you know you're right, *strictly speaking*." Because, strictly speaking the past isn't repeatable, and all we're testing are tree rings and things we observe today, and extrapolating these events to the distant past.
Oh well. I was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2006 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2006 10:44 PM Hughes has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 357 (347150)
09-06-2006 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hughes
09-06-2006 9:56 PM


oh stop complaining and deal with it
Your continued characterization that my position as fantasy, and that I lose, or am running from the evidence is not even close to being true.
There is one simple way to disabuse me of this impression: deal with the issue.
Do you agree or not that tree rings count actual annual layers of years that are the result of the earth's orbit around the sun -- that the tree rings correlate with the annual orbits?
(note: we don't need an exact correlation to calibrate the tree ring chronology -- it can be valid for 10,000 years +/- 5% say -- if that makes you more comfortable, after all good calibration identifies and quantifies sources of error eh?)
If not, why and by what evidence -- support your position.
If you agree we'll move on to the next issue.
Stop shuckin and jivin and deal with the issue.
Demonstrate that my impression is wrong.
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hughes, posted 09-06-2006 9:56 PM Hughes has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 357 (363246)
11-11-2006 3:47 PM


bump for Tranquility Base
From Message 32 Tranquility Base asserts
I mentioned the varves or micro-layers of Mt St Helens to demonstrate that they can form rapidly.
I can't help but notice that you failed to attempt to discuss the tree ring information, ...
... or the in fact annual varve layers of Lake Suigetsu (which are formed by an entirely different process than the micro-layers of Mt St Helen), ...
... prefering to restate your straw man position that is unrelated to actual dating methods actually used by actual scientists.
From this I assume that this is the best information you have, and it is insufficient to disprove the ages measured by these systems:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
quote:
... the minimum age of the earth is:
  • 8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
  • 10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
  • 45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
  • ... corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)

And that is just for starters.
THIS is the thread to discuss this issue -- if you care to back up your assertions.
I also notice that YOU asked if there was a dendrochronology thread, and that until you address them here you are avoiding addressing the issue YOU raised.
Enjoy.

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.

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 357 (367425)
12-02-2006 8:56 AM


Bump for Confidence
In replying to Message 1, my post, Message 12, quoted material that also addressed misuse of radiocarbon dating to date diamonds:
quote:
...
Humphreys also discussed how he and his fellow creation scientists have been finding radiocarbon in diamonds, regarded as far too old (billions of years) to have any amount of fast-decaying radiocarbon left in them. In this regard, I had contacted Dr. R. E. Taylor, of the Department of Anthropology at University of California, Riverside, and the Keck Laboratory for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at University of California, Irvine. Taylor is a serious radiometrics scientist. Like Humphreys, he also looks for radiocarbon in diamonds, but Taylor does so as a way to monitor instrument background and noise. Diamonds are so old, they shouldn't have any residual radiocarbon (C14 decays with a half-life of under 6,000 years), and indeed, they don't. So diamonds are as close to a carbon-containing C14 "blank" as scientifically possible.
The abstract that got me talking to Taylor is called "Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor Radiocarbon AMS Instrument Backgrounds." I contacted Dr. Taylor late last year, and inquired about the creationist group's misuse of radiocarbon methods.
On October 18th, 2005, Dr. Taylor replied (with his permission to cite) that
My take on their problem is that they [RATE creationists] apparently have little or no understanding of operational details involved in AMS technology and the nature of how ion sources and AMS spectrometers work since, as far as I know, none of these people have any direct research experience in this field. They are thus not aware of the many potential sources of trace amounts of radiocarbon in the blanks and how a detector can register the presence of a few mass 14 events that are not radiocarbon.
Regards, Ervin Taylor
When creationists crow about radiocarbon in diamonds proving that the diamonds are only thousands of years old, you can remind them that they're just measuring noise in an atomic mass spectrometer!
It would appear that your source is ignoring evidence that contradicts his precepts. That is not science, it is delusion.
Confidence replied with Message 39:
They are thus not aware of the many potential sources of trace amounts of radiocarbon in the blanks and how a detector can register the presence of a few mass 14 events that are not radiocarbon.
quote:
In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ”shouldn’t have been’...
...This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior...
...Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ”contamination’ and ”background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp
And my response was Message 47:
I looked over the article, but could find absolutely no reference to the methodology used or the criteria applied to eliminate contamination.
The closest I could find was:
quote:
C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ”vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14. Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ”contamination’ and ”background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown.
And in under "references and notes":
quote:
2. Even with the most sensitive AMS techniques used today, nary an atom of C-14 should be present after 250,000 years.
This last statement is false, on two levels. First, the amount of 14C in a specimen does not depend on the method of measurement -- it is there or it isn't. Second, radioactive decay does not eliminate ALL radioactive elements by decay, no matter what the half life is there is always the possibility of some remaining in a sample. It is more likely that such small levels will be detected with more advanced and sensitive instruments. This of course is one of the sources of the background radiation levels that they say they have eliminated in the first statement.
Of course dismissing the evidence of contamination and background as being "completely unhelpful in explaining its source" does not mean that this has been SHOWN to be the case, they are just denying the evidence that contradicts their position.
The kicker is when they state "as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown" ... and don't give a single reference. Not one. Could it be that they are making a bare unsupported assertion while using KNOWN cases of contamination to INTENTIONALLY provide false samples?
quote:
The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ”old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels.3 This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.
Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have C-14 present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount of C-14.
This too is a false statement: 14C dating is only good for samples less than 50,000 years. Anything older than that is misuse of the dating method -- and likely intentionally by Baumgardner et al -- because (could it be?) that is where background levels and contamination are KNOWN to make the results unreliable.
"reference 3" is Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model available in PDF at
Error | The Institute for Creation Research
quote:
14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’
And "fossilized organic material" is by definition contaminated:
quote:
fos”sil”ize”- verb, -ized, -iz”ing.
1. Geology. to convert into a fossil; replace organic with mineral substances in the remains of an organism.
But there is one more issue to deal with in this "paper" ...
quote:
... because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.
The issue of contamination is not just biological contamination - that is a straw man fallacy. Contamination can also come from non-organic sources, and it can also be radioactive. The easiest way to contaminate samples for 14C testing is to subject them to radiation that reconverts 14N to 14C and thus results in false elevated levels of 14C for detection.
Curiously the false young dates for ancient coals and oil is directly related to radioactive contamination and not related to geological age of the sample -- thus indicating a high correlation with radioactive contamination.
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote:
The 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.
It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos.
So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10^-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected.
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. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!
Unless of course you WANT false results ... then you go LOOKING for radioactive contamination of fossils.
This demonstrates that the opening statement on radiocarbon dating in the "RATE" article is and outright falsehood:
quote:
It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most2) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ”millions of years’ old.
Not just because of the errors listed previously but because the sources they are intentionally using for samples are those specifically listed that are known to be contaminated by radioactivity from other sources.
Curiously the issue of 14C dating has nothing to do with starlight and fantasy models of a universe and it's effect on explaining the astronomical age of the universe and the earth.
What it does show is that Humphreys ... and Baumgardner and others ... are not interested in eliminating sources of errors to develop scientific conclusions, but in actually using known sources of errors to create false impressions for gullible people.
Meanwhile the evidence of annual layers still shows the world is older than any YEC model I know of.
Message 40
Many claims that Humphrey is not a real scientist are not founded on good arguments.
quote:
What part about the argument from authority being a logical fallacy DO you understand? A blind man shooting at a target will occasionally hit a bull's eye but that does not make him a marksman.
The claims that Humphrey's work is not valid science is based on evaluation of that work by scientists that show where, how and why it is wrong. Those are the GOOD arguments.
and btw, some of the best writers of Science Fiction are scientists.
Where I noted that I could not find any information on how they had eliminated background radiation and contamination levels, just the assertion that they had done so.
Confidence responded with Message 51:
It is true that they do not give to many clues on where and how they got those results. I will continue looking for now, your references are helpful though.
My latest response, Message 52, is to direct this discussion to this thread:
Reply should be on
Thread Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III
As that thread deals specifically with age dating methods, and discusses Radiocarbon as it corroborates other systems.
Of particular note is that the effect of climate on carbon 14 dating is also matched by the effect of climate on the annual layer systems, and that any criticism of carbon dating needs to address how this correlation occurs.
Thus I have transfered the arguments to this post for continued discussions.
It should be noted that the constraints on radiocarbon dating include
  • the sample must come from an uncontaminated organic source (so any sample with intruded mineral or other material, as in partly fossilized, or any sample subject to radiation, is of questionable value),
  • the sample must come from an organism that acquired its carbon from atmospheric carbon (either plant material or consumers of plant material or consumers of consumers of plant material that used atmospheric CO2 and other gases that can include the atmospheric altered Nitrogen 14 to Carbon 14),
  • it is incumbent on the sample collector to ensure that these conditions are met, and not on the testing lab, and
  • the maximum age that can be detected with repeatable reliability is 50,000 years (after that the sample size of remaining 14C is so small as to be highly variable due to the probabilities of radioactive decay, and it is near the level of normal background radiation that causes false positives)
There are known sources of non-atmospheric carbon - marine organisms that use or reuse old carbon (shellfish, consumers of shellfish, etc), called the "resevoir effect" - and there are known sources of radioactivity contaminated oils and coals and the like.
Thus it is easy for an unscrupulous sample collector to achieve false results by intentionally collecting bad samples, and at least ONE indicator that someone is intentionally misusing the dating method is if they cite dates beyond the capability of the method.
Enjoy.

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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 1:04 PM RAZD has replied

Confidence
Member (Idle past 6317 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 51 of 357 (368470)
12-08-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
12-02-2006 8:56 AM


Re: Bump for Confidence
It should be noted that the constraints on radiocarbon dating include
* the sample must come from an uncontaminated organic source (so any sample with intruded mineral or other material, as in partly fossilized, or any sample subject to radiation, is of questionable value),
* the sample must come from an organism that acquired its carbon from atmospheric carbon (either plant material or consumers of plant material or consumers of consumers of plant material that used atmospheric CO2 and other gases that can include the atmospheric altered Nitrogen 14 to Carbon 14),
* it is incumbent on the sample collector to ensure that these conditions are met, and not on the testing lab, and
* the maximum age that can be detected with repeatable reliability is 50,000 years (after that the sample size of remaining 14C is so small as to be highly variable due to the probabilities of radioactive decay, and it is near the level of normal background radiation that causes false positives)
It is true that these are limitation to find out a accurate age of the specimen.
However, if we detect c-14 in diamonds then either all this c-14 is contamination, or 'background' noise, or these diamonds were formed before all the c-14 had a chance to decay to c-12.
In an evolutionary mind, it does not make sense to put diamonds to the carbon dating method. Since evolutionists believe the earth to be billions of years old, no c-14 should remain.
So when Creationists find c-14, the first thing evolutionist do is ridicule them for trying carbon dating on something they think is so old. But creationists believe that diamonds, if the earth is young, could contain c-14 depending if the radioactive carbon was available when the diamond was made. Not only that but [quote]14C/C ratios from all but the youngest samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’
((AbE - links do not work, I am linking to possible sections that contain what you wanted to link....The Queen))
The Radiometric Dating Game
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/Recent.ppt
So, is this contamination?
quote:
when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the fossil record show detectable amounts of 14C!
quote:
Some of the researchers tried to explain this carbon 14 as contamination, but none of their attempts to clean it were successful.
So, given that it is contamination, you need to come up with a plausible reason for carbon to still interact with non-living species. How does c-14 find its way into these specimens? Is it by just osmosis? C02 just seeps in the cracks and reacts?
The point is, labeling it as contamination doesn't help when you do not have a mechanism for it. For CO2 doesn't react readily just by passing the fossils or diamonds.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : took out LONG nonworking links

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’
*
Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2006 8:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 12-08-2006 1:38 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 12-08-2006 3:55 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 7:18 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2006 4:50 PM Confidence has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 357 (368479)
12-08-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Confidence
12-08-2006 1:04 PM


The topic is Correlations
Confidence, the topic here is the correlations between dating methods. Your objections to C14 dating have to explain the ones given in this thread and explain the relationship between the "noise" C14 signel in diamonds and other materials and their relationship to radioactive sources that can create C14 in situ.
Ignoring these relationships means you are not offering a complete objection to C14 dating.
You also need to explain the many, many cases where C14 dating correlates well with other dating methods when the ages are under the calculated limit of C14 dating.
You have to explain why the residual (as called by geologists and physicists) problems arise starting just where the half life of C14 suggests that it should (circa 50 kyrs).
You are floundering around trying to get something to defend your view without accounting for more than a small part of the available data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 1:04 PM Confidence has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 357 (368509)
12-08-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Confidence
12-08-2006 1:04 PM


Re: Bump for Confidence
Hi Confidence,
Nosy is correct that anomalous 14C measurements do not address the age correlations with other methods. So even if there were no explanation for the background levels of 14C, you still have a problem. Why does 14C dating correlate with lake varve dating and tree-ring dating and glacier layer dating?
JonF noted back in Message 5 of the Carbon 14 in fossils? thread that there may be 14C production paths from other isotopes of carbon due to background radioactivity caused by the presence of radioactive elements in the ground such as uranium, thorium and radon. Diamonds are almost pure carbon, so neutrons from radioactive decay that strike the diamond have a high probability of striking carbon atoms, unless they go right through. But I wasn't able to find information on such production paths, and so I don't think it likely that 14C can be produced from other isotopes of carbon, not that we know of, anyway.
However, note that I said that diamonds are *almost* pur carbon. The reality it that diamonds often contain impurities. Coloration is the most obvious sign of impurities. Remember that the main production path of 14C in the atmosphere is from 14N, and guess what the most common impurity in diamonds is? You guessed it: nitrogen!
Nitrogen causes yellow coloration, so if the levels of 14C in diamonds are proportional to yellow coloration, then that's your answer. It would also expected that the 14C levels would be proportional to background radiation levels in the ground.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 1:04 PM Confidence has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM Percy has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 54 of 357 (368515)
12-08-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
12-08-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Bump for Confidence
Carbon 13 makes up 1.1% of carbon on Earth, and has a non-zero neutron capture cross section. Therefore, diamonds + neutrons ---> diamonds with non-zero carbon-14 content. I don't know the jargon well enough this afternoon to figure out how much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 12-08-2006 3:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 7:59 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 12-08-2006 8:01 PM Coragyps has replied
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2007 4:29 PM Coragyps has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 357 (368554)
12-08-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Confidence
12-08-2006 1:04 PM


Reply for Confidence
Thanks for the reply, Confidence.
As you will already have noted there is a substantial need to not just critique 14C dating, but why all the various dating methods correlate so well. We can come back to this issue later, but first let me say that these involve several different annual layer systems, several radioactive systems and one astronomical system that all give data consistent with the rest of the data -- in spite of being three entirely different mathematical trends (linear, radioactive decay and planetary rotational decay) and that the annual layer systems also capture climate information that is also consistent between them.
This gives a very high degree of reliability to the ages measured by these systems, ages much in excess of 6,000 years by any count.
So when Creationists find c-14, the first thing evolutionist do is ridicule them for trying carbon dating on something they think is so old.
That they have such a high degree of reliability on the age of these things goes far further than just thinking up how old things are, it is a well measured and deliberated, discussed and dissected age that we are talking about.
And where the reliablity is low, due to any number of factors, scientists are happy to note "age - indeterminate" and say "we don't know" rather than post some arbitrary date.
So, is this contamination?
quote:
when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the fossil record show detectable amounts of 14C!
Can you absolutely guarantee that there has been absolutely no contamination by current modern air-born 14C in any of those samples?
Can you absolutely guarantee that there was no contact with other contaminated material?
Or is it reasonable to say that below a certain level we just cannot guarantee that a sample won't show some contamination from being handled, and say below this level we cannot measure with any accuracy?
The fact that this limit -- 45,000 to 50,000 years -- is STILL far older than any YEC scenario should mean that this is not what the real problem is for YEC's creatortionistas (those who intentionally distort the truth).
When done with proper scientific controls the ages measured by 14C are sufficiently consistent from the present through to 50,000 years ago to render critiques like the ones by the 'RATE' group to be insignificant.
If they vary wildly after that, it still does not invalidate ages up to 50,000 years ago, does it?
Age is also usually measured by at least two different methods, to ensure contamination is not involved or some other anomaly (like the resevoir problems), and both ages are usually reported for comparisons. When you get two consistent ages you have reliable data, and when you get two inconsistent ages you have unreliable data.
The 'RATE' group looks for unreliable data to evaluate: that is not honest science. All they prove is that they have found a specific set of unreliable data, but that does nothing to invalidate those cases where the data IS reliable.
One thing the 'RATE' group has NOT been able to do is collect samples that date anomolously by two different methods to the same anomolous young or old age: when they can do that - have a two to one advantage - then and only then will their claim of eliminating contamination and background radiation have some relevance.
So, is this contamination?
quote:
Some of the researchers tried to explain this carbon 14 as contamination, but none of their attempts to clean it were successful.
I still only see denial of contamination and background radiation and not evidence to the contrary.
As noted by Percy in Message 53 and Coragyps in Message 54 there is ample sources for radioactive contamination in diamonds, both from 13C being converted to 14C by neutron accumulation or by 14N being reconverted to 14C in a manner similar to how it is converted in the atmosphere.
As noted in previous discussions regarding coal and 14C, there is also a high degree of correlation of anomalous high 14C content with radioactivity and none with age once past 50,000 years.
BUT: the end argument is that age measured out to 50,000 years by 14C is an accurate and dependable method when done correctly and with the proper sample controls and with the constraints on 14C noted (and quoted by you).
This age alone is enough to refute a YEC model of the earth: falsifying it at 51,000 years does you no good.
If you don't believe me then start at the beginning of this thread, Message 1, and walk through the tree rings and the climate information, through Lake Suigetsu and into the 14C correlations, and then ask again.
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Confidence, posted 12-08-2006 1:04 PM Confidence has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 357 (368563)
12-08-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coragyps
12-08-2006 4:24 PM


Proportions of 12C, 13C and 14C in the atmosphere
Carbon 13 makes up 1.1% of carbon on Earth,
And something like one in a trillion atmospheric carbon atoms are carbon-14, so the beginning amount of 14C in any organism is very very small, much less than 13C and much much less than 12C.
And after 57,300 years (10 half-lives) it is reduced by decay to (1/2)^10 = 0.001 or 0.1% of that original amount.
When do you reach the point where +/- one atom makes a big difference in the measured age eh?
And how easy is it for one nitrogen atom or one 13C atom being converted to 14C to make a big difference in the measured age when you get to that point?
Thanks.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 357 (368564)
12-08-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coragyps
12-08-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Bump for Confidence
One I started using "neutron capture" in my Google searches I started getting meaningful hits. One of the hits said that Chernobyl was probably producing 6 Ci/year of 14C via neutron capture by 13C in the graphite control rods. Is that very much?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2006 8:56 PM Percy has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 58 of 357 (368568)
12-08-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
12-08-2006 8:01 PM


Re: Bump for Confidence
They measure radioactivity around the house or workplace in picocuries - pCi or trillionth of a curie - so one Curie is pretty big. Approximately the radiation of a gram of pure radium-226. And radium and its salts are radioactive enough to heat themselves above the ambient temperature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 12-08-2006 8:01 PM Percy has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 59 of 357 (368576)
12-08-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-15-2005 8:24 PM


contamination trumps correlations
What prodicals were done in the testing of the cores taken, were they frozen before testing to prevent contamination.
What was the water content in the cores sampled, did they test for methane gases, Co2, carbonates, percent solids. What was the grams tested for C14, N14 etc...
Biological Questions need to asked, humic colloidals how they form from anaerobic processes and how they sort off density pressure not to disclude dual porosity, etc..., bringing questions of tests that were not done in the lake suitsu study (mineral analysis of the clays, kerogen (the mineralization processes involved) of the fossil tested in not only the lake suitsu but other correlative lakes mentioned.
One can not discount methane gas, was there Co2 gassing, nothing mentioned in the lake suitsu study or the other lakes correlated to lake suitsu, etc...
Link questions contamination, sample integrity, questions that need to be answered because contamination trumps correlations.
ttp://Lake Varves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 9:52 PM johnfolton has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 357 (368577)
12-08-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by johnfolton
12-08-2006 9:47 PM


contamination cannot trump correlations
hello again, whatever.
contamination cannot trump correlations because it cannot explain the correlations -- why they exist instead of random numbers.
Enjoy.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by johnfolton, posted 12-08-2006 9:47 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 12-09-2006 12:16 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024