|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
This might need a different thread, but could you give an example or two of archaeological discoveries that correspond...etc.? Atheist little me thought it was fairly cool when C13 dating on the Tunnel of Siloam matched up with historical dating. Do you have any more examples? Juping in here if I may... the Siloam tunel dating was actually two methods, 14C on a leaf in the plaster to provide an upper bound on the age and U-Th disequlibrium dating on a stalactite to provide a lower bound. Of course the classic example is Ar-Ar dating of the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. That's a bit of a tour-de-force since so it is so recent; I've heard it said that no other lab in the world could have done it. url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we... Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger[/url]. One of my favorites is dating bread from Pompeii via 14C. Alas the paper is behind a paywall at Nature: "Radiocarbon measurements on samples of known age".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No significance at all, assuming for the sake of argument that the effect is real. Which is still questioned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
... how come there is measurable amounts in diamonds, fossils and coal seams?
Because 14C can be created from these materials when they are subject to radiation, as occurs with carbons rods used in fission generators to control the rate of reactions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.
The person he criticizes is John R. Baumgardner a geophysicist. You have to be kidding.. Baumgardner who has no training or experience in 14C dating and avoidance of contamination and how to measure background, yeah, that's him.
Went threw that citation of yours but did not find a significant argument against 14C in diamonds. Of course you didn't. Morton's demon prevented you from seeing what was there.
Otherwise I will view your opinion as just an opinion It's the opinion of a recognized expert in the field, and backed up by evidence. {ABE} I'm not sure if you are acknowledging Dr. Bertsche's (I spelled his name wrong earlier) expertise. He is a physics PhD from UC Berkeley, has conducted many 14C dating studies, and is currently at the Stanford Linear Accellerator. Oh, and he's a comitted evangelical Christian.{/ABE}
14C was detected, does that stament hurt that much? Oh, certainly 14C was detected. That 14C has no significance as to the age of the samples, as Dr. Bertsche demonstrated. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That is a ridiculous claim You might as well say all the surrounding rocks are radioactive, not just background but radioactive enough to cause contamination.
Background radiation is everywhere, including in rocks and coal and diamonds. The issue is whether there's enough to cause the observed results. guesses by someone as ignorant as yourself are not evidence. It seems that in Baumgarrdner's studies in-situ production probably isn't the major source. Contamination and background are. remember this?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It's not contamination. It's fresh C-14. Depends on your definition of contamination. If "contamination" is non-age-significant 14C, then it's contamination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I am not aware that 14C in rocks has that much relevance for dating them, I thought Potassium Argon dating was predominate for rock dating. OT, but it's hard to even find a lab to do K-Ar dating any more. By far the most widely used method over the past few decades is U-Pb concordia-discordia. Ar-Ar dating is also widely used. It's based on the decay of 40K but is much more robust than plain K-Ar dating. K-Ar is beloved by creationists because it is possible to get incorrect results, especially when committing deliberate fraud a la Snelling. We do know that most K-Ar results are accurate because of their consilience with other more robust methods. But real scientists have moved away from K-Ar. Your ignorance is showing. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Or the people who tried to carbon date diamonds and coal and expect a reliable date for the formation of these are either idiots or want to mislead people. Baumgardner isn't an idiot. He's done some good and significant mainstream work. His study of diamonds and coal is well outside his area of expertise, and it's possible (although I doubt it) that he did his best to produce an honest study but failed because of his lack of expertise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Good post. very substantive. Cheers! You omitted the part where you acknowledge that your claims have been destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There's no prediction that 14C would be found in diamonds in barely detectable amounts.
We know that some 14C forms in diamonds because they are exposed to radiation, as are all things. I doubt that anyone including Baumgardner has calculated how much 14C would be expected in the diamonds they measured, because nobody knows what radiation exposure they have had. COuld go either way. But you (and RAZD) are ignoring the fact that Dr. Bertsche's article destroys Baumgardner's claims without reference to intrinsic 14C in the sample, no matter what the source of that 14C is. There was no measurable 14C in the diamond samples, as Dr. Bertsche demonstrated that the evidence indicates the detected 14C was all contamination and background. However, we do know some things:
Therefore:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Until we can identify a cause, we can postulate that the variations are produced by some phenomena that might have had greater magnitude in the past. Yes, but we can put some tight boundaries on the possible extent of such variation from astrophysics, and from the heat/radiation problem. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, especially in the case when dissolved 234U decays to insoluble 230Th. Do you happen to know if the 230Th and its daughter elements produce neutrons that could drive the 14N-14C transition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
40k - > 40Ar is electron capture. I don't know if all electron captures are the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
This is actually a non-issue for the diamonds in the Baumgarder experiments as those turned out not to have any C-14 in them at all.
I did not see a citation for your above statement Try Bertsche and thre previous messages in this thread. From your reference:
quote: Bertsche mentioned ion source contamination and several other possibilities for the results. Baumgardner fail.
quote: Now there's a knee-slapper! Both the presence and absence of silver powder cause the effeect, therefor the effect is caused by silver powder! I'm getting a copy of the Taylor and Southon paper. Bet Baumgardner's misrepresenting it.
Here are diamond fragments measured for calibration... note the ages.
quote: Those are not ages. Those are, as explicitly stated, age equivalents. From samples measured by other valid methods as over 100 Ma. For the specific purpose of monitoring measurement background. Current instrumentation is incapable of measuring 14C in samples that are really that old (much less 100+Ma), and there's pretty good reason to believe that the range of valid ages will be extended to there or far beyond. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025