Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
Of course I'm not terrified. It would be a real fun thing to see.
This is the first evidence of your nerdism.

What I like to see and think it's fun is the beauty and complexity of the universe. We saw that in the video. It's why the presenter had a large picture of what she showed in her office. Such things as the aurora borealis with its lights that light up the night sky.

 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
It isn't contamination.
Yes it is.
"contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating"
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Of course I'm not terrified. It would be a real fun thing to see.
This is the first evidence of your nerdism.

What I like to see and think it's fun is the beauty and complexity of the universe. We saw that in the video. It's why the presenter had a large picture of what she showed in her office. Such things as the aurora borealis with its lights that light up the night sky.

It was sarcasm.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
It isn't contamination.
Yes it is.
"contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating"
Are you talking about RATE dating? I doubt we are talking about the same. Where is the link to your claim above? Not only that, we have even more contamination with the radiometric dating. Are you going to deny that?

"During the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) research project at the Institute for Creation Research, co-sponsored by the Creation Research Society, some of the research effort was focused on investigating radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. This is one of the radioactive dating methods, but because carbon-14 decays relatively rapidly it only provides “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years. In fact, if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away, based on today’s measured half-life! That’s why radiocarbon dating isn’t used to date rocks at millions of years.

The RATE radiocarbon research first focused on demonstrating that significant detectable levels of carbon-14 are present in ancient coal beds.1,2 Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either in situ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory. Of course, these would not be the true ages of these coal beds, because these 48,000–50,000 year ages are calculated at the present-day level and production rate of radiocarbon. The fact that all these coal beds yield radiocarbon ages in the same “ballpark” is consistent with them all having been formed at the same time in a recent catastrophic event. This is, of course, consistent with masses of pre-Flood vegetation being swept away and buried on a huge scale globally during the cataclysmic Genesis Flood."

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

You also need to acknowledge that the dating of the universe and Earth is not accurate when the dates have changed so much. Now, there is a group claiming the universe is younger. Again, the big difference is creation states both the Earth and universe are the same age and they are both young. Can you walk around for a day and picture a young Earth? The evos believe the Earth and universe are not the same age, but billions of years apart? I can't walk around and think Earth is that 4.5 B years old when we still have the magnetic field and know the continents have shifted from one large one. That goes against the present is the key to the past right there. Also, what caused all the water to be on the surface of the Earth?

How did life even start on Earth? You can't even form a cell whether in a lab or in nature. That is the supernatural part of creation. If one can create life from non-life, then we should see it in the lab and it happen in other parts of the universe.

I notice you are not answering my questions now, so I think you are stumped. You did not know the name of the person who found the long time age of the Earth. You're focusing on the contamination which is just one of the pieces of evidence, and I debunked you above.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Are you talking about RATE dating?
No. You cannot glean any knowledge of the age of the earth or universe from diamonds or coal because the carbon decays to an immeasurable value. You have to rely on the many other elements such as radium, etc. that have a longer lifetime for RATE.
Where is the link to your claim above? Not only that, we have even more contamination with the radiometric dating. Are you going to deny that?
This is the link: Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Contamination always causes the instrumentation to give a false younger date.
The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either in situ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory.
Even if you put a vacuum as a sample for the instrumentation you would still get roughly 50,000 years because of residual cosmic rays that escaped the phoswich filter and spurious electrical discharges in the photomultiplier, and noise in the amplifier. That interference is always present and will always give a false indication that the age of the vacuum is 50,000 years.

I notice you are not answering my questions now, so I think you are stumped. You did not know the name of the person who found the long time age of the Earth. You're focusing on the contamination which is just one of the pieces of evidence, and I debunked you above.
No. I am not stumped. The creationism questions you raise have been answered many times in many sites. I want to focus on the questions that are useful and relate to dating very early events on earth. This is a question of basic physics. If you don't understand it there is no point in other topics.

As far as the accuracy of carbon dating having an instrumentation limit, here is a simple analogy.

Suppose you have a digital timer with a one-tenth second resolution. You can time lots of things: how long to do 20 push-ups; 100 yard dash, etc. Suppose you wanted to time a bullet from a gun to a 10 foot distant target. If you press the timer button on and off as fast as you can, all you can do is say it's less than a tenth of a second.

That is similar saying when you get a reading of 50,000 years on a C14 dating instrument, all you can say is that it is greater than 50,000 years. There is zero confidence that it is even close to 50,000 years.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
No. You cannot glean any knowledge of the age of the earth or universe from diamonds or coal because the carbon decays to an immeasurable value. You have to rely on the many other elements such as radium, etc. that have a longer lifetime for RATE.
Why would the C-14 decay to an immeasurable value? I don't think you read my link to what RATE scientists measured and how it was done. Are you basing it on circular logic by assuming your radiometric dating is correct? Evolution needed long time and Clair Patterson gave it to the evolutionists. This you did not know. He used rocks to do the same thing, but for different elements. Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson And the evos wasted no time in coming up with their "precious" evolution layer chronology. It starts with the assumption the layers on the bottom are older than the ones on top. They do not believe in a global flood, but how does one get marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest. Or a whale fossil on top of the Himalayas? The evos think it walked up there :laugh:. How stupid af is that?

Is it any wonder that you do not want to bring evolution and evolutionary thinking into this?

Remember, I wanted you to visualize an Earth 4.5 B years old? Think about how much it has changed with little people on it. We started as one mass of land, a supercontinent, and the plate tectonics moved it to seven continents. No one believed such a thing could happen and it was only years later that we found out it was true.

This is the link: Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Contamination always causes the instrumentation to give a false younger date.
No evidence of contamination with RATE.

Who wrote that article? It's a farking atheist blog. Totally biased. No credibility.

Even if you put a vacuum as a sample for the instrumentation you would still get roughly 50,000 years because of residual cosmic rays that escaped the phoswich filter and spurious electrical discharges in the photomultiplier, and noise in the amplifier. That interference is always present and will always give a false indication that the age of the vacuum is 50,000 years.
Assertion.

No. I am not stumped. The creationism questions you raise have been answered many times in many sites. I want to focus on the questions that are useful and relate to dating very early events on earth. This is a question of basic physics. If you don't understand it there is no point in other topics.

As far as the accuracy of carbon dating having an instrumentation limit, here is a simple analogy.

Suppose you have a digital timer with a one-tenth second resolution. You can time lots of things: how long to do 20 push-ups; 100 yard dash, etc. Suppose you wanted to time a bullet from a gun to a 10 foot distant target. If you press the timer button on and off as fast as you can, all you can do is say it's less than a tenth of a second.

That is similar saying when you get a reading of 50,000 years on a C14 dating instrument, all you can say is that it is greater than 50,000 years. There is zero confidence that it is even close to 50,000 years.
No, I mean you haven't answered my other questions. I pointed out this coal and diamonds aren't the only evidence.

What I've shown with the Clair Patterson link is all evolution time chronology is based on older layers on the bottom and newer layers on top. What if the Earth was hit by a giant asteroid which caused a great flood and upset those layers in the billions or years? I showed massive changes occurred on the Earth's surface and your side claims massive changes occurred inside the Earth during this time.

That's why you are STUMPED.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Your post seems to be stream of consciousness with a gish gallop of issues.
Why would the C-14 decay to an immeasurable value? I don't think you read my link to what RATE scientists measured and how it was done.
I don't think you read and understood anything I posted.
I spent almost a year designing a C14 detector and I know what I'm talking about. Yes, I read and understand what RATE scientists are doing. Exactly.
You ask about decay to an immeasurable value, but you already answered your own question!! Here:
if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away
Let me try again.
  • C14 is measured by a radiation detector.
  • Each decay results a single particle being picked by the detector.
  • Connect the detector to a speaker and you will hear a click for each particle detected.
  • If a carbon containing substance is young, the clicks per minute will be high
  • If a carbon containing substance is old. the clicks per minute will be low.
  • If a million year old object with no contamination is tested, there will be no clicks due to C14 emission.
  • HOWEVER you will still hear clicks because, the detection system will pick up cosmic rays, photmultiplier spurious discharges, and perhaps "shot noise."
  • One cannot distinguish these three types of background sources from C14 decays.
  • Those spurious clicks are not contamination they are background noise.
  • Since those spurious clicks are indistinguishable from C14 clicks, you will get a few clicks per minute even if there is no contamination.
  • The researcher knows this and should understand that a measurement with very few clicks cannot be trusted.
  • The researchers in you RATE link shamefully ignored the possibility of spurious background.
That is an oversimplification, but I can't make it simpler than that.
As far as FAST research your link to Clair Patterson is correct -- the earth is billions of years old. You can't use C14 in FAST but as he says you can use radium and other isotopes for FAST research.

Who wrote that article? It's a farking atheist blog. Totally biased. No credibility.
Well, we are on the same page. To me the Bible is not credible as far as a scientific source for the age of the earth or universe either.

.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
Your post seems to be stream of consciousness with a gish gallop of issues.
It goes to show you do not really understand science. Did you go to college? You seem to hold education to a high esteem and sound like an international poster. What do they teach in China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong higher institutions?

It's real science that provides further evidence than just C-14 left in carbon and diamonds measured by RATE scientists.

Don't give me that Gish gallop stuff. That is an argument for internet atheists to dismiss what creation scientists tell them. The internet atheists are of the lowest intelligence atheists on message forums and other parts of the internet where anonymous human interaction happens.

You didn't even know about Clair Patterson and how he found the Earth was 4.5 B years old. I gave you the answer. Now, you don't even want to talk about him. All you do is jump to conclusions and use it in your argument. Why don't you criticize him for contamination? What kind of scientist are you? He made some assumptions like the meteorite was the same age as the Earth. What was his logic for that? Who knows where the meteorite had been?
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
It goes to show you do not really understand science. Did you go to college? You seem to hold education to a high esteem and sound like an international poster. What do they teach in China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong higher institutions?
Try to calm down. Ad Hominem shouldn't be part of this discussion. You should know better.
It's real science that provides further evidence than just C-14 left in carbon and diamonds measured by RATE scientists.
Let's try again. This time I will number the facets of C14 detection. Which step(s) do you think are in error?
  1. C14 is measured by a radiation detector.
  2. Each decay results a single particle being picked by the detector.
  3. Connect the detector to a speaker and you will hear a click for each particle detected.
  4. If a carbon containing substance is young, the clicks per minute will be high
  5. If a carbon containing substance is old. the clicks per minute will be low.
  6. If a million year old object with no contamination is tested, there will be no clicks due to C14 emission.
  7. HOWEVER you will still hear clicks because, the detection system will pick up cosmic rays, photmultiplier spurious discharges, and perhaps "shot noise."
  8. One cannot distinguish these three types of background sources from C14 decays.
  9. Those spurious clicks are not contamination they are background noise.
  10. Since some spurious clicks are indistinguishable from C14 clicks, you will get a few clicks per minute even if there is no contamination.
  11. The researcher knows this and should understand that a measurement with very few clicks cannot be trusted.
  12. The researchers in you RATE link shamefully ignored the possibility of spurious background.
Which of the above do you think is in error?
Don't give me that Gish gallop stuff. That is an argument for internet atheists to dismiss what creation scientists tell them. The internet atheists are of the lowest intelligence atheists on message forums and other parts of the internet where anonymous human interaction happens.
?? You are the one giving me the Gish Gallop stuff. Look up the definition in a slang dictionary. That sort of "atheist" bitterness doesn't win any science arguments.

You didn't even know about Clair Patterson and how he found the Earth was 4.5 B years old. I gave you the answer. Now, you don't even want to talk about him. All you do is jump to conclusions and use it in your argument. Why don't you criticize him for contamination? What kind of scientist are you? He made some assumptions like the meteorite was the same age as the Earth. What was his logic for that? Who knows where the meteorite had been?
Yes, yes. It is common knowledge that the earth age was estimated using radiometric dating. It is known that meteorite samples were used because they were more geologically pristine. Also there are some areas on earth which are not from meteorites that verify the same age. Many isotopes can be used for dating periods millions to billions of years ago by looking at daughter products of decay.

If the earth were 6,000 years old, there would be negligible daughter products from any of the long lived isotopes because there would be negligible decay during that short time. However daughter products have been found.

What more do you want to talk about as far as the radiometric dating of the earth?

.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
Try to calm down. Ad Hominem shouldn't be part of this discussion. You should know better.
It's not ad hominem. I just wanted to know where you went to college. I went jb_california.PNG .

  1. C14 is measured by a radiation detector.
  2. Each decay results a single particle being picked by the detector.
  3. Connect the detector to a speaker and you will hear a click for each particle detected.
  4. If a carbon containing substance is young, the clicks per minute will be high
  5. If a carbon containing substance is old. the clicks per minute will be low.
  6. If a million year old object with no contamination is tested, there will be no clicks due to C14 emission.
  7. HOWEVER you will still hear clicks because, the detection system will pick up cosmic rays, photmultiplier spurious discharges, and perhaps "shot noise."
  8. One cannot distinguish these three types of background sources from C14 decays.
  9. Those spurious clicks are not contamination they are background noise.
  10. Since some spurious clicks are indistinguishable from C14 clicks, you will get a few clicks per minute even if there is no contamination.
  11. The researcher knows this and should understand that a measurement with very few clicks cannot be trusted.
  12. The researchers in you RATE link shamefully ignored the possibility of spurious background.
Which of the above do you think is in error?
Is that what you think RATE did? Do you want to know what RATE did? What you copy and pasted from some website may not be what happened. You have to be specific.

Now, what about Clair Patterson? Where did he get his meteorite? What did he assume in order to get the age of the Earth? Isn't discussing that more important as that refuted the Earth is young. Prior to the 1850s, the scientists thought the Earth was young. AFAIK, it was after Darwin that the evolutionists needed long time.

What I am getting at is the crux of our discussion. It is going to come down to each of us understanding how they got their ages. So far, I got what the Bible says and C-14 left in carbon and diamonds and measured by RATE. If also got soft tissues in dinosaur fossils and C-14 left in them and they were C-14 dated to 40,000 years. Now, you got Clair Patterson and his findings from 1956.

After we get this cleared, then we should be able to find further evidence to back up our positions. That is where I hoped this discussion would lead, but you're stuck on normal C-14 dating and dealing with contamination.

If you have the truth of old Earth, then what do you have to worry about? There should be plenty of evidence to back up your position vkODx6Pb.jpg .

Anyway, the following c&p refutes your claim above:

"Objections (technical) and answers
  1. The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).
  2. The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’s cluster decay of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.1
  3. The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out: ‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ.’2 Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.
  4. The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the biblical timescale. This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, creationist or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless. Also, 14C dating assumes that the 14C/C ratio has been constant. But the Flood must have buried huge numbers of carbon-containing living creatures, and some of them likely formed today’s coal, oil, natural gas and some of today’s fossil-containing limestone. Studies of the ancient biosphere indicate that there was several hundred times as much carbon in the past, so the 14C/C ratio would have been several hundred times smaller. This would explain the observed small amounts of 14C found in ‘old’ samples that were likely buried in the Flood.
Reference
  1. Rotta, R.B., Evolutionary explanations for anomalous radiocarbon in coal? CRSQ 41(2):104–112, September 2004. 14C in coal was reported by: Baumgardner, J., Humphreys, D., Snelling, A. and Austin, S., The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older Than 100 ka, Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84(46), Fall Meeting Suppl., Abstract V32C-1045, 2003. And also: Lowe, D., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31:117–120, 1989.
  2. Giem, P., Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon, Origins 51:6–30 (2001), grisda.org."
Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

?? You are the one giving me the Gish Gallop stuff. Look up the definition in a slang dictionary. That sort of "atheist" bitterness doesn't win any science arguments.
LOL.

Yes, yes. It is common knowledge that the earth age was estimated using radiometric dating. It is known that meteorite samples were used because they were more geologically pristine. Also there are some areas on earth which are not from meteorites that verify the same age. Many isotopes can be used for dating periods millions to billions of years ago by looking at daughter products of decay.

If the earth were 6,000 years old, there would be negligible daughter products from any of the long lived isotopes because there would be negligible decay during that short time. However daughter products have been found.

What more do you want to talk about as far as the radiometric dating of the earth?
Now, we're getting somewhere. Can you provide a link? Especially, if you have one of what Patterson did? I think there is a Cosmos show on it, but don't want to spend the time finding and watching it. I got my questions on what Patterson did above.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
Here's an article on what RATE did for those with open minds:

"Scientists prove earth is THOUSANDS not billions of years old.

Eight PhD scientists recently released their findings on the radioisotope evidence for the age of the earth. They were called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). They spent eight years on the project. They studied many radioisotopic dating methods including carbon 14.

You may remember the carbon 14 dating method from your high school biology class. Carbon 14 is useful only in dating samples containing carbon which usually means plant and animal matter (though diamonds also contain carbon).

Carbon 14 has a half life of only 5,730 years. This means an object 5,730 years old should have only half the amount of carbon 14 in ratio to carbon 12 as a new object.

Any object that is older than twenty carbon 14 half lives should not have any detectable carbon 14. In other words, since carbon 14's half life is 5,730 years, twenty half lives would be 114,600 years and there should be no detectable carbon 14 in a sample that old.

The RATE group tested ten samples of coal which it obtained from the US Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. The ten samples were of coal taken from coalfields all across the United States. The samples represented a wide range of standard time frames in the geologic column including the Cenozoic, Mesozoic and Paleozoic.

The coal samples were considered to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old by traditional old earth standards. However, in direct contradiction to the standard old earth timeframe, all ten samples of coal had significant levels of detectable carbon 14.

The fact that carbon 14 was detected in every sample of coal clearly shows that the standard old earth estimates for the age of coal are wrong by several orders of magnitude.

Old earth evolutionists assume that coal deposits and their accompanying fossils are many millions of years old because evolutionary processes require millions of years. Their presupposition of evolution distorts their ability to objectively date coal. A scientist is supposed to be objective and go to wherever the facts take him or her.

Carbon 14 dating, which is a highly accredited radioisotopic dating method, shows that the coal samples could not be older than 114,600 years. The objective scientific facts point to young earth.

To be fair, I will point out that the age of any object cannot be nailed down with absolute certainty because geologic dating is forensic science and deals with nonrepeatable events that occurred in the distant past.

Forensic science is the type of science used by a police detective to reconstruct the timing of past events that occurred at a crime scene. Experimental science, by contrast, deals with repeatable events such as what occurs with chemicals in a test tube. Forensic science, since it deals with the past, is more subjective and open to interpretation.

The ten coal samples had carbon 14 levels consistent with an age estimate of approximately 50,000 years. That 50,000 year age estimate is quite older than the biblical time frame of approximately 6,000 years. The Bible, through its listing of the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies, gives an approximate 6,000 year age of the earth since the creation.

The discrepancy is resolved when we take into account that the implied 50,000 year age of the coal is based on the assumption that the carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratio in the earth's environment was the same when the coal was formed as it is today.

Scientists at Answers In Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research who study the earth's magnetic field maintain that the earth's magnetic field was several times stronger in ancient times than it is today and therefore carbon 14 was formed in the upper atmosphere at a much slower rate. Therefore there was much less carbon 14 available in the ancient earth than there is now and this accounts for the low amount in the coal. This implies that the coal samples' actual age can reasonably be inferred to be within the biblical timeframe of 6,000 years.

To put it another way, the implied 50,000 year age of the coal blows away the old earth timeframe but even the implied 50,000 year age is likely much higher than the actual age of the coal. We can confidently say that the actual age is much younger than 50,000 years because carbon 14 levels were very low during the time of coal formation in the early earth.

The RATE group also tested twelve samples of diamonds and found detectable levels of carbon 14. This is especially significant because diamonds are not prone to any kind of potential contamination because of their extreme hardness. Old earth evolutionists claim that diamonds are up to 3.5 billion years old. The presence of carbon 14 in diamonds clearly shows the absurdity of that claim.

Other groups of scientists have found detectable levels of carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. I have read that scientists, even old earth evolutionist scientists, cannot find any fossil or coal that does not have carbon 14!

The RATE group was composed of scientists who believe in creation. Their work however, merely confirmed the work of noncreationist scientists who have measured carbon 14 in coal and diamonds since Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was used to measure carbon 14 beginning in the early 1980s.

As you can imagine, the discovery of carbon 14 in coal beginning in the 1980s sent shockwaves through the radiocarbon community. Dozens of papers were published in peer reviewed journals dealing with this embarrassing development. Painstaking efforts were made to eliminate any sample contamination or equipment malfunction yet carbon 14 kept showing up in coal and fossils!

One of the RATE scientists, John Baumgardner PhD, has cited many noncreationist scientific writings on carbon 14 in coal and diamonds. One of these is a 2007 paper by Taylor and Southon discussing the detection of carbon 14 in diamonds. Baumgardner also effectively rebutted a web posting by Kirk Bertsche that criticized the work of the RATE group.

Creationists claim that coal was formed rapidly during Noah's flood when "all the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen. 7:11 NASB.) This Bible passage refers to massive volcanism and tectonic shifts that occurred during the flood.

Huge land masses containing dense vegetation were subducted (buried) during the movements of the earth's plates. This resulted in vast stores of vegetation being buried deep beneath the earth's surface where temperature and pressure caused it to change into coal and oil. Some oil deposits are more than five miles below the earth's surface.

Coal formation had to happen rapidly because slow accumulation of plant matter allows the plant matter to rot before it can be turned into coal. Plant matter in today's Amazon basin rots far more rapidly than plant matter in more temperate climates.

Carbon 14 in coal and diamonds gives persuasive evidence favoring a young age of planet earth. Carbon 14, like the recent finds of blood remnants in dinosaur bones and other natural clocks showing a young age of earth are persuading an ever growing number of scientists.

It used to be that creationists were like a hidden guerrilla band among PhD scientists. Now with the rapidly growing Intelligent Design Movement a regular army of evolution denying scientists has emerged.

Creation of this planet occurred within the biblical timeframe. Young age of earth clearly disproves Darwinian evolution."

Read more: www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Carbon-14-In-All-Coal-And-Diam
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Is that what you think RATE did? Do you want to know what RATE did? What you copy and pasted from some website may not be what happened. You have to be specific.
I did not copy it from a website. It's what anyone (me)would know who has had first hand experience in C14 detection. I dumbed it down to several simple statements. Only step 3 is what a RATE researcher would not do.

Now, what about Clair Patterson? Where did he get his meteorite? What did he assume in order to get the age of the Earth? Isn't discussing that more important as that refuted the Earth is young. Prior to the 1850s, the scientists thought the Earth was young. AFAIK, it was after Darwin that the evolutionists needed long time.
Radiological dating using a variety of isotopes has been done countless times. The dating can reach back to millions and sometimes billions of years.
What Patterson and others wanted to do was date the earth back to the original cataclysm, but it was assumed the early earth was not stable enough to keep the daughter products of radiation from being compromised. So he looked at meteor fragments on earth and came up with 4.5 Billion years. As I remember there was an area that was thought to be undisturbed that agrees with the meteor date.

If also got soft tissues in dinosaur fossils and C-14 left in them and they were C-14 dated to 40,000 years. Now, you got Clair Patterson and his findings from 1956.
NO no! The article never said they tested the soft tissue for C14. It would have all decayed. They used three separate isotopes all agreeing to within 4% The age of the rocks in that area is 65 million years old.

Anyway, the following c&p refutes your claim above:
You don't trust work by "atheist scientists" and I don't trust work by creationists. The article didn't give enough information for evaluation. Any scientist will agree that proper preparation of a sample for testing is critical for confidence in the results. Just as critical is the validating and verifying accuracy of the instrumentation itself. I did not see anything written about the validation of the instrument.

Now, we're getting somewhere. Can you provide a link? Especially, if you have one of what Patterson did? I think there is a Cosmos show on it, but don't want to spend the time finding and watching it. I got my questions on what Patterson did above.
No I don't have a link. You already provided a link a few posts back. Just what do you want from me?

.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Here's an article on what RATE did for those with open minds:
"Scientists prove earth is THOUSANDS not billions of years old.
etc....
Creationists with open minds? Again they only dwelt on C14 and miscellaneous creationism. Scientists already know that C14 decays too fast for use in the 4.5 billion year old earth.
.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
I did not copy it from a website. It's what anyone (me)would know who has had first hand experience in C14 detection. I dumbed it down to several simple statements. Only step 3 is what a RATE researcher would not do.
So are you telling me that you've done radiocarbon dating? What kind of work did you do?

Anyway, your objection in bold above was answered by, "The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC)."

Radiological dating using a variety of isotopes has been done countless times. The dating can reach back to millions and sometimes billions of years.
What Patterson and others wanted to do was date the earth back to the original cataclysm, but it was assumed the early earth was not stable enough to keep the daughter products of radiation from being compromised. So he looked at meteor fragments on earth and came up with 4.5 Billion years. As I remember there was an area that was thought to be undisturbed that agrees with the meteor date.
What creation scientists think is the meteorites Patterson measured were not as pristine as you claim. Before Patterson, the Earth was theorized to be 3 billion years old. One of the assumptions we agree was Patterson claimed the age of the Earth to be same as that of the meteorites. He thought these meteorites were left over remains of material dating from the formation of the Earth and other planets. However, there was a 1972 research by a scientist named Gale, showing that Patterson's beliefs about where the lead in meteorites cam from, was provably wrong. Gale demonstrated that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. He said much of the lead was originally in the meteorite. Thus, the Earth was not shown to be 4.5 B years old.

Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites

NO no! The article never said they tested the soft tissue for C14. It would have all decayed. They used three separate isotopes all agreeing to within 4% The age of the rocks in that area is 65 million years old.
This wasn't from Dr. Mary Schweitzer. It was another testing.

"In 2012, researchers analyzed multiple dinosaur bone samples from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana. C-14 dating revealed that they are less than 39,000 years old. These remarkable findings were presented by the German physicist Dr. Thomas Seiler at a conference sponsored by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) in Singapore. But apparently this evidence was unacceptable to influential evolutionists who subsequently found out about it. The abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers!"

Carbon 14 Dating of Dinosaur Bones | Genesis Park

You don't trust work by "atheist scientists" and I don't trust work by creationists. The article didn't give enough information for evaluation. Any scientist will agree that proper preparation of a sample for testing is critical for confidence in the results. Just as critical is the validating and verifying accuracy of the instrumentation itself. I did not see anything written about the validation of the instrument.
I gave you the reference for the c&p. It is from a secular publication. Also, I posted what RATE did and it's a secular organization. No creation scientists.

Thus, I'm not sure where you are getting the, "I don't trust work by creationists." Aren't you being paranoid?

Furthermore, I already stated that there should be other evidence to back up our theories of young vs. old Earth. Where are some of you other evidence? If what your side claim is true, then there should be other types of evidence besides radiometric dating. Creation scientists have other evidence besides their radiocarbon dating.

No I don't have a link. You already provided a link a few posts back. Just what do you want from me?
I just wondered why you were quick to accept what Patterson did. You didn't ask me any questions. You didn't bring up any objections of contamination. That seems very biased of you and I thought you were jumping to conclusions.

Now, I've found more information on what Patterson did and there was a provable refutation of Patterson's work in 1972 that was largely ignored. There was way too much lead to be left over from uranium decay in the meteorites and that there was lead already present in the meteorites. It was published in Nature. This is the unfairness of evolutionary scientists of anything that goes against evolution. It's bias against anything that goes against an old Earth.

Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com

Instead of just arguing over these radiometric and radiocarbon dating, again I ask you for what other evidence do you have for an old Earth besides dating? Creation science has several, some of which I listed already.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
So are you telling me that you've done radiocarbon dating? What kind of work did you do?
The work was for tagging molecules in a medical diagnostic application. It was for looking at human carbon absorption and release of certain molecules. It was not dating. The dosage had, of course, to be low. Noise interference is always a factor for low dosages.

Anyway, your objection in bold above was answered by, "The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC)."
"counts atoms"? There is not enough information for me to evaluate how they did that. Where is the original research article? Was it verified by a second research team?

This wasn't from Dr. Mary Schweitzer. It was another testing.
That's right.

What creation scientists think is the meteorites Patterson measured were not as pristine as you claim. Before Patterson, the Earth was theorized to be 3 billion years old. One of the assumptions we agree was Patterson claimed the age of the Earth to be same as that of the meteorites. He thought these meteorites were left over remains of material dating from the formation of the Earth and other planets. However, there was a 1972 research by a scientist named Gale, showing that Patterson's beliefs about where the lead in meteorites cam from, was provably wrong. Gale demonstrated that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. He said much of the lead was originally in the meteorite. Thus, the Earth was not shown to be 4.5 B years old.

Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites
I'm willing to accept that some meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.

Now, I've found more information on what Patterson did and there was a provable refutation of Patterson's work in 1972 that was largely ignored. There was way too much lead to be left over from uranium decay in the meteorites and that there was lead already present in the meteorites. It was published in Nature. This is the unfairness of evolutionary scientists of anything that goes against evolution. It's bias against anything that goes against an old Earth.

Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com

Instead of just arguing over these radiometric and radiocarbon dating, again I ask you for what other evidence do you have for an old Earth besides dating? Creation science has several, some of which I listed already.
With three different methods for dating and getting 4% agreement it is pretty convincing that the age data Schweitzer got for her site leads to the conclusion that the earth is at least 65 million years old. That isn't the age of the earth, but it is a counter example to the 6,000 year hypothesis.

Now, I've found more information on what Patterson did and there was a provable refutation of Patterson's work in 1972 that was largely ignored. There was way too much lead to be left over from uranium decay in the meteorites and that there was lead already present in the meteorites. It was published in Nature. This is the unfairness of evolutionary scientists of anything that goes against evolution. It's bias against anything that goes against an old Earth.

Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com
I'm willing to accept that meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.

Instead of just arguing over these radiometric and radiocarbon dating, again I ask you for what other evidence do you have for an old Earth besides dating? Creation science has several, some of which I listed already.
The evidence I cited for a 65 million old site is just one example of countless other sites with many different isotopes used for dating countless different ages for the sites. It is very convincing evidence that the earth is many millions, if not billions of years old.

.
 

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
275
Points
80
What 007 says is very close to reality, but solely in part. Planet earth might be older than 50,000 years of age. However coal is not that old as earth because bones were found inside the coal.

Pictures come from an older internet webpage that is no longer online.

It had as title: Petrified human/hominid and other large animal bone in Carboniferous strata.

The samples were collected from coal mines in Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Here the picture of the coal mine of Shenandoah, Pa.

IMG_1447[1].JPG

As the legend explains, this is the tooth of a canine from a cat. You just can estimate the size of such cute kitty.

IMG_1442[1].JPG

Even soft body parts as this human lung were found

IMG_1446[1].JPG
Skull of ancient human.

IMG_1444[1].JPG

A closer look of the skull

IMG_1443[1].JPG

Even rests of tools were found inside the tons of coal in that mine.

There is no doubt that the current theories about coal from millions of years before species are simply dead wrong.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
The work was for tagging molecules in a medical diagnostic application. It was for looking at human carbon absorption and release of certain molecules. It was not dating. The dosage had, of course, to be low. Noise interference is always a factor for low dosages.
I'll go by what RATE said. Your statements are biased and not the work of someone working in radiocarbon and radiometric dating.

"counts atoms"? There is not enough information for me to evaluate how they did that. Where is the original research article? Was it verified by a second research team?
What about Patterson? It took until 1970 for a second research team. Too much lead in the meteorites means it was not a valid reading. Also, you have avoided providing other evidence, so I'm going to assume this is the only counter argument you have. Yours is too weak.

OTOH, I posted the link of what RATE did in post #71, 72, and here is one by the researcher -- https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-364.pdf.

With three different methods for dating and getting 4% agreement it is pretty convincing that the age data Schweitzer got for her site leads to the conclusion that the earth is at least 65 million years old. That isn't the age of the earth, but it is a counter example to the 6,000 year hypothesis.
Still, we have the soft tissue and that should've been gone in 65 million years. We do not know what happens in a million years. We probably cannot do an experiment over hundreds of years. So whatever Schweitzer hypothesized for the soft tissue cannot be tested.

Already, you've avoided the point I brought up a few times of a supercontinent breaking up into seven continents. We've discovered plate tectonics and how earthquakes cause these plates to move. That and the surface of Earth being covered by 3/4 water is evidence for a global flood. We also have marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and those are the majority of the fossils in the fossil record. We also have the walking whale fossil in the Himalayas and more.

Your 65 million years layers do not explain fossilized trees running through the layers. Also, it does not explain bent rocks. Bent rocks are formed by laws of chemistry not long time pressure of hardened rocks. This can be confirmed by the scientific method.

I'm willing to accept that meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.
Thank you. Yet, this is the dating that forms the basis of a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.

The evidence I cited for a 65 million old site is just one example of countless other sites with many different isotopes used for dating countless different ages for the sites. It is very convincing evidence that the earth is many millions, if not billions of years old.
It's the fossil that is supposedly around 65 million yrs old. I think you are saying the Earth is at least that old if not billions of years old.

I'm going with 40 K yr-old fossils and a young Earth.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
680
Points
155
The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This is not a mystery or the subject of any serious debate.
You cannot explain why they used a meteorite. Who did the research? What year was it done? It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.

ETA: You've lost science arguments to ding and Frannie in recent posts. You end up going to ad hominems after two posts.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top