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 Gamehttp://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.
™ Version 4.2
