|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I did not claim that 14C varied significantly as measured today. If 14C is in diamonds or coal they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way. One or the other. If radio active decay varied at all, even .01% (not just error in measurement) then the principle of radio decay invariance is nonsense. But maybe you prefer Dr. Bertshe the MD (Sorry he is a physicist (Kirk)) tell you that a geophysicist is wrong. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I do not contest 14C dates we observe today. maybe they varied in the past, if they did not please explain 14C in diamonds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Went threw [sic] that citation of yours but did not find a significant argument against 14C in diamonds. The diamonds experiment was done by Taylor and Southon. You might try reading the original article for yourself. There is no help there for creationists trying to deny science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1657 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The person he criticizes is John R. Baumgardner a geophysicist. You have to be kidding.. Curiously none of his creationist papers are in peer reviewed science journals, including any articles about 14C in coal and oil ... care to guess why? See Message 283 quote: Now I am sure that Baumgardner was familiar with the process of radiation contamination of diamonds and coal and oil and other such substances, and so he knew that all he needed to do was find some materials contaminated in this way, submit it to a testing lab and await the predictable results. As far as coal and oil goes see Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote: The variation in 14C levels in different coal samples of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the coal. Consider that it is highly likely that Baumgardner knew this, or he wouldn't have paid the relatively expensive testing costs on something one would ordinarily expect to return unmeasurable results. Now I get a little peeved when people take information from science and intentionally misuse it to create a false impression, don't you? Curiously I'll put Dr. Harry Gove, "an expert in the development of the AMS method of 14C dating" up against your John R. Baumgardner "a geophysicist" any day you want to have a battle of the fallacy of appeal to experts ... rather than look at the evidence and what it tells you when all the facts are known. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : corrected phrase "The variation is 14C levels in different rocks" -- 14C not used on rocksby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
If 14C is in diamonds or coal they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way. One or the other. Unless that residual C14 is coming from various contaminants and instrumentation residues. Then where are you?
If radio active decay varied at all, even .01% (not just error in measurement) then the principle of radio decay invariance is nonsense. But C14 ages are calibrated against the calibration curve, so any such factors are taken into account in the resulting date. And that right there is enough to blow the 6000 year belief right out of the water.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1657 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I do not contest 14C dates we observe today. ... Good, because I can demonstrate that it correlates with historical data back to the Egyptians, and I can further show you the correlation with tree rings and lake varves for continuous annual layers back to the limits of 14C dating (40,000 to 50,000 years). The correlation is necessary for increased accuracy due to the known variation of 14C in the atmosphere from the production of 14C by solar cosmic radiation. From the correlation we can now use the actual 14C/13C ratios in objects to determine their probable ages within a known margin of error.
... maybe they varied in the past, ... Whether they did or did not is irrelevant now. All we need is the measured 14C/13C levels and use the correlation curve derived from the annual layers to provide the likely age of an object that obtained 14C directly from the atmosphere.
... if they did not please explain 14C in diamonds. Radiation from surrounding rocks. The 1977 paper in Message 283 tells you that close proximity to radioactive materials can cause 14C to form in the carbon control rods used in reactors. The rods are almost pure carbon, as are diamonds. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Yes, regardless the credential a creationist is labeled a outsider.
quote: Carbon-14 is most commonly produced in the upper atmosphere from Nitrogen-14 not in diamonds or oil. How much Nitrogen-14 is in diamonds? Small amounts I would guess, so production in that way would be rare in diamonds. I would think that would be the same case for oil and coal right, just trace amounts. You could then assume that Carbon-14 production is rare in the host materials. I have every confidence that professor Baumgardner is familiar with sample contamination. Path for the rarer production of Carbon-14 like from your post.
quote: quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Good, now you can define a date of a diamond with 14C present? I do not contest the dates of Egyptian culture, simply because most dates correspond to dates in the Bible. You know that those older dates for 14C percentages are recalibrated to other dates to increase accuracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I am not aware that 14C in rocks has that much relevance for dating them... You mean rocks, like diamonds and coal?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod.
They are composed of chemical elements such as boron, silver, indium and cadmium wiki Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I am not sure... that was from RAZD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
How much Nitrogen-14 is in diamonds? Small amounts I would guess, so production in that way would be rare in diamonds. "I would guess"? Really, zaius137? Crystallographic defects in diamond - Wikipedia
quote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.2518.pdf
quote: You could then assume that Carbon-14 production is rare in the host materials. Only if your goal was to assert and be wrong. Don't you ever check anything?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod. Yes, graphite is used as a component of control rods. The carbon does not have a large cross section for absorption, but that is not it's function. Carbon acts as a moderator to slow down fast neutrons so that they are more readily captured by boron or material effective at neutron capture. But almost all sources of natural sources of carbon incorporate some nitrogen. That's where the C-14 comes from.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1958 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I did not claim that 14C varied significantly as measured today. If 14C is in diamonds or coal they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way. One or the other.
So, let me get this straight. You want to produce an extreme discrepancy with an insignificant process. Do I have that right?
If radio active decay varied at all, even .01% (not just error in measurement) then the principle of radio decay invariance is nonsense.
Oh, I have little doubt that rates vary, but for me the question is how much? We also know that the speed of light varies depending on the medium, but it still makes sense to call it constant by referring to the speed of light in a vacuum.
But maybe you prefer Dr. Bertshe the MD (Sorry he is a physicist (Kirk)) tell you that a geophysicist is wrong.
Well, in this case the geophysicist is wrong and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 228 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
zius137 writes:
Ah, the persecution complex. It's all a global conspiracy, I guess? Yes, regardless the credential a creationist is labeled a outsider. What you didn't mention was that he's been shown to be dishonest. For example, from his paper here:Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages | The Institute for Creation Research Baumgardner writes: Nope. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts. Uniformatarianism does not ' assume' anything like that at all. Catastrophism was an assumption, before studying the rocks. Uniformatism was a conclusion, after studying rocks. From Message 470... Adam Sedgwick, the last famous defender of the Flood, retracted his claim that glacial sediments were diluvial in a speech to the Geological Society of London, of which he was then President:
The magic Flood was thus the assumption. They studied the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no global magic flood.Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood. Now, for what Uniformatism actually is: From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute:
quote: The term uniformatarianism thus refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Some processes are very slow. Some are very fast. And everything inbetween. Geologists can recognize those processes in the rock record. Uniformatarianism certainly does NOT assume slow processes. Baumgardner told an untruth about one of the basic principles of geology. He has an agenda. He knows that if he publishes that research in peer-reviewed journals, his untruths and terrible 'science' will be pointed out. By people who actually know something about the subject. The experts. That's why he didn't publish that research in peer-reviewed journals. Now, can you get back to the topic of the thread? Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentences Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024