Question About the Universe

Here is a possible creationist argument:The decay rate varies tiny amounts, but despite the researchers claims, the amounts are not linked to solar activity or any thing else we can identify.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.
-------Of course we can rule out the stuff we've tested for like pressure, temperature, magnetic fields, etc. which are known not have any appreciable affects on decay rates of atoms of interest.The counter argument for C-14 dating is that we actually have correlations with non-atomic sources for ranges that invalidate YEC dating. C-14 dating is of absolutely no use for dating the universe, but it is perfectly fine for the YEC busting like proving there was no recent global flood or demonstrating that human beings were alive a mere 30-40,000 years ago.

quote:

---

New, fresh C-14 formed regularly. C-14 has got a half-life. Thus, we would expect to find C-14 in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.

---

now all you have to do is show me where C-14 was predicted to be in diamonds before it was discovered in diamonds.Citation please

quote:

---

It's not contamination. It's fresh C-14. Doesn't matter what the deviation is; we expect to find fresh C-14 to detect in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.

---

To assume that C-14 just arrives at random in diamonds is alchemy. If there is no source of radiation (lots of it) C-14 can not form spontaneously.Citation pleaseUnless you want to claim God put it there

Good post. very substantive. Cheers!

quote:

---

Ever been in a coal mine? Ever seen how wet the coal is? It's groundwater. And groundwater is replenished with fresh C-14 every time it rains. And that water gets adsorbed in the coal. Together with the C-14.

---

You know, you coal miner folk are the heart of Americas working force. My utter respect for the coal you produce.Unfortunately, there is not much science coming out of coal mines these days.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

You omitted the part where you acknowledge that your claims have been destroyed.

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:

• When Baumgardner eliminated the preprocessing of the diamonds, the amount of 14C detected went way down by an order of magnitude of more.
• When Baumgardner eliminated the preprocessing of the diamonds, the amount of 14C detected was about the same as reported by other researchers.
• The other researchers reported more 14C detected when source current increased, which would only be the case if the 14C detected was instrumental background rather than 14C from the sample.

Therefore:

• The vast majority of the 14C reported originally by the RATE group was introduced during sample preparation.
• The remaining 14C reported by the RATE group is instrumental background.
• No problem for mainstream science and dating.

Right about what zaius? Your question regarding C-14 in control rods? Your useless and irrelevant statement about the effectiveness of carbon as an absorber of neutrons decreasing due to exposure to neutrons, when that is true for every element used as an absorber? Particular when carbon is not used for that purpose? As a moderator for the reactor, yes. That's a different topic zaius137. Your google and post research has betrayed you again.Exactly what were you right about? Your post was an attempt to raise questions that were totally besides the point. The point was that we have experience and data confirming that carbon laden control rods exposed to radiation from reactors produces C-14. Your attempts to cast doubt on that were total BS. Not sure about the danger aspect. Perhaps that's right. Water is a far better reflector/moderator and it is off course much cheaper.The distinction you are missing here is graphite used as a moderator for the reactor in general, where the function of the moderator would be to slow down fast neutrons to enhance fission, and graphite as a moderator used in the control rods for the purpose of enhancing the absorption function of the control rods. That latter use is relevant. The former use is not.Even modern US reactors which often employ hafnium as the neutron absorbing element routine employ that element combined with boron carbide. That's right. Modern control rods have carbon in them.Full disclosure. I used to operate fission reactors for a living. You aren't going to sneak this stuff by me.Edited by NoNukes, : add info re: irrelevant

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.

Tight enough for some purposes. Perhaps not tight enough to rule out 'gap' theory creationism which allows for an old earth.I'll admit that I haven't totally thought this through. I don't see any motivation to do so given the poor evidence that there are any significant variations in decay rates. The Fischbach and Jenkins solar flare detector does not even work. There's just enough chaff in the air to give hope to a creationist.

Not sure what you mean by this, but there are probably some who would disagree.

Why would anyone have predicted it? The point is that there is an explanation for unexpected C14.

Heh, heh...That sounds about right.All we have to say is 'God didit' and we are relieved of the burden of supplying support.

When sources of error are accounted for so that you can show me that the 14C came from the atmosphere and was absorbed by a living organism.If you can't show me that, then (a) 14C dating does not apply and (b) the sources of error that have not been removed are the probable sources.(a) because the rational for 14C dating is that living organisms take up atmospheric carbon while they grow, with the relative proportions of 12C, 13C and 14C then current in the atmosphere, and when the organism dies then this take-up ceases, so the 14C decay curve starts, and(b) because there are known sources of 14C that don't come from atmospheric carbon taken up by the organism, such as contamination when the samples are prepared, contamination from water flow, 14C left in the machine from previous tests, and background levels of 14C from radioactive materials in the ground near the specimen collection site.As noted in other posts, diamonds trap nitrogen during formation, so any nearby radiation can cause new 14C to form, the amount dependent on the amount of radiation rather than the age of the diamond. The raw uncalibrated dates are younger than the calibrated dates, so the process of calibration of 14C against objects of known age -- tree rings, lake varves, etc etc etc where layers ages are determined by direct count of the annual layers -- results in slightly older ages for the items in question.With these calibration data we do not even need to calculate 14C age, all we need to do is compare actual 14C/12C ratios in specimens to the 14C/12C ratios in the calibration curves. This is because the original 14C was taken up from the atmosphere when the organism was alive, and virtually all air breathing living organism would take up the same 14C/12C ratio from the atmosphere (there are some special cases where other sources of carbon are acquired but these are special cases, dealing with "reservoir effect").Thus it does not matter whether or not the decay rate of 14C changed -- all organisms of the same age will have essentially the same ratio of 14C/12C.Finally I will note that the evidence of old age for the earth does not rest on 14C content in coal, oil and diamonds -- that these are red-herrings rather than contrary evidence -- we know the ages of these deposits from surrounding rocks and other radiometrics dating methods. Rocks are usually dated by multiple means, so if I have three consilient dates for rocks above the deposits and three consilient dates for rocks below the deposits then logically the real age of the deposits lie between these dates. Anomalous 14C dates would not upset nor challenge the dates from multiple other sources, rather the error would be considered to lie in the 14C data -- for the reasons already discussed.Enjoy.

And 1% is WAAAY higher than the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere.So yes converting 14N to 14C by radioactive bombardment can result in sufficient 14C to be recorded as a measurable age, however it should also be noted that one of the things creationists are known for is omitting the ">" from the reported results (ie >50,000 years is reported as 50,000 years when it could be anything from 51,000 years to 1 billion years).Enjoy