Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.

Sorry,you fraud. What I know or don't know about science is immaterial to the fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate. Your idiotoc parlor tricks may work when brainwashing kids in Sunday school, but they dont work on rational adults. Only you delusional religious dummies think it is up for debate, and everyone else is laughing at you.

 

[james bond]

It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.

Sorry,you fraud. What I know or don't know about science is immaterial to the fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate. Your idiotoc parlor tricks may work when brainwashing kids in Sunday school, but they dont work on rational adults. Only you delusional religious dummies think it is up for debate, and everyone else is laughing at you.

I wasn't engaging in debate, but asking you questions to test your knowledge of science, so you'd have a chance to explain to me what I've learned and to impress others here with your knowledge. Again, you do not know and went to ad hominem attack in one post. Why do you even hang out in the S&T forum?

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[james bond]

~S~

Lot of colorful ingredients, but lollipops and cake do not seem appetizing. I think I'll let others go to the exoplanet first.

 

[sparky]

but asking you questions to test your knowledge of science,

~S~

 

[Wuwei]

I'll go by what RATE said. Your statements are biased and not the work of someone working in radiocarbon and radiometric dating.

Not biased. Hands on experience. The detectors are identical to those for RATE. The detection method is biased when it can't filter out all cosmic rays and electronic noise.

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.

AMS like any sensitive instrument has has an upper limit of sensitivity. A mass spectrometer works by uniformly accelerating singly ionized atoms (or molecules,) and running them through a uniform magnetic field that curves their orbits. The amount of curvature is a proxy for the mass of the atom. However in counting two atoms with a similar mass, there is an error if the two atoms have the same atomic number. For C14 and N14 the AMUs differ by 1 part per million.
Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870
That's just a 0.00012% difference. The samples must be totally clear of nitrogen because 96% of the nitrogen has ATNO 14. That means that the amount of N is billions of times the C14 content and that needs unprecedented purification. With AMS technology there are different reasons why there is an instrumentation limit that gives no reliable results older than roughly 50,000 years. A small non-uniformity of the fields and lack of perfect beam collimation also contributes to the difficulty in separating the isotopes to the extent needed.
Details are at Early expectations of AMS: Greater ages and tiny fractions: One failure. One success | Semantic Scholar

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.

Why do you say the soft tissue should have been gone. You are just guessing and that's not good enough. The article I cited shows how collagen can survive with iron creating many cross links between the molecules. Collagen was the only soft tissue that they found.

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 simply don't have the time to look at all the creationist arguments concerning

• Supercontinent breakup
• Plate techtonics
• Global flood
• Fossils on mountains
• Trees in layers
• Bent rocks

We haven't covered all the facets in the science of radiometric dating which involves fundamental nuclear physics and makes any other less developed creationist topics moot.

Thank you. Yet, this is the dating that forms the basis of a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.

I'm willing to accept that some meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.

I said some meteorites. I don't know if the one cited by Peterson is cherry picked to attempt to prove a point.

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.

Why do you want to ignore the three different methods of dating the area surrounding the fossils which all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? You will have to find a reason why all three are simultaneously invalid.

The lifetime of C14 is too short for carbon dating. There are other methods that ensure that there is no contamination, and are useful for the billions of years of the earth.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News
Dr. Steven Shirey has been looking at diamonds that completely enclose minerals -- called inclusions. That avoids contamination. He looks for diamonds that contain a specific sulfide inclusion. He is not interested in RATE, nor creationism. He is interested in tracking diamonds through the earth's mantle.

"The sulfide inclusion contains tiny amounts of a radioactive isotope of rhenium (¹⁸⁷Re), which decays extremely slowly over many billions of years to a stable isotope of osmium (¹⁸⁷Os). As the rate of radioactive decay is known, it’s possible to calculate the age of the diamond based on the ratios of ¹⁸⁷Re and ¹⁸⁷Os present."​

"A diamond crystal is a really good container for these exotic minerals, he says, and preserves them in pristine form on the way to the earth’s surface."​

Diamonds from Canada’s Ekati mine are the oldest yet known, at 3.523 billion years ... - an astonishing age, when the earth was a quarter of its age today.​

Creationists have a counter-argument that if all 75 electrons are stripped from the Rhenium atom the half life is only 33 years. If all electrons are stripped nuclear beta−decay the decay energy is comparable to the free lowest bound orbital state. The electron is captured in orbit.

That is easy to do in theory. But in experiment the completely stripped Rhenium atoms must be totally isolated from contact with any loose electrons. An accelerator and a heavy-ion storage ring are used for the isolation. Or in nature stripped rhenium could possibly occur in a stellar plasma at several million degrees.

The creationist argument is disingenuous. In the formation of diamonds the intense pressure totally prevents electron isolation and the temperature is not not even close to the stellar plasma temperature around 27 million degrees.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...rate_and_changes_in_beta-_decay_branching#pf8

One solid counter example entirely destroys a hypothesis. If you want to believe in creationism, so be it. But creationists should learn not to use the hard science of physics to rationalize their belief.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I wasn't engaging in debate, but asking you questions to test your knowledge of science, so you'd have a chance to explain to me what I've learned and to impress others here with your knowledge

Which is your cowardly and fraudulent way of changing the subject. All of your cheap tricks are older than dirt. Again, they may work when you are brainwashing children, but adults are laughing at you.

 

[james bond]

Not biased. Hands on experience. The detectors are identical to those for RATE. The detection method is biased when it can't filter out all cosmic rays and electronic noise.

The AMS used is that from tne of the better radiocarbon labs in the US.

How does the cosmic rays and electronic noise occur in the AMS labs?

There was a critic named Bertsche and he referenced a Taylor and Southon (2007) paper who claimed the C14 was not intrinsic to the diamonds themselves. I suppose that would include you cosmic rays and electronic noise. I copied and paste the following for diamonds from Dr. John Baumgardner as rebuttal:

"In his 2008 critique Bertsche references the Taylor and Southon (2007) paper describing their application of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to natural diamonds. Bertsche calls attention to the authors’ statement, “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.” He claims that this means that the measured 14C cannot be intrinsic to the diamonds themselves. What Bertsche fails to mention is that the correlation of low 14C level with high ion current was restricted to only a subset of the authors’ data. Such a correlation did not exist across all the samples the authors tested and reported. That pattern occurred only among the eight diamonds listed in part B of Taylor and Southon’s Table 2. Five of these diamonds were mounted with silver powder beneath them in the 1.6 mm holes drilled in the aluminum cathode sample holder, while the other three did not have the silver powder. The purpose of the silver powder was to enhance the thermal conductivity between the diamond and the aluminum sample holder. This difference in mounting procedure resulted in the surprising and unexplained increase in ion current and decrease in the number of 14C atoms detected as shown in part B of Table 2 for the samples without the silver powder.

How do the authors interpret this pattern? They state, “Previous tests showed that 14C count rates from silver powder cathodes were comparable with those from diamonds. Because of this and because the silver packing was largely shielded from the cesium beam by the diamonds themselves, the excess 14C was therefore probably due to differences between diamonds or run-to-run changes in the spectrometer, not from carbon in the silver powder.” Note that the authors emphatically do not attribute the higher 14C counts, as Bertsche claims, to ion source memory contamination. One good reason for the authors’ caution was the absence of this trend of higher 14C count with lower ion current in the measurements reported in part A of Table 2. Part A results are from a single diamond that was cleaved into six separate pieces. Results for these six samples show little variation in 14C levels despite moderately large differences in ion current. For example, samples 12674 and 12675 yielded the same 14C value of 0.015 pMC, despite the fact that sample 12675 displayed a 50% higher beam current compared with sample 12674. The correlation Bertsche is relying upon for his interpretation is altogether missing for the six samples listed in part A of Table 2. The simplest explanation for the trend in the eight samples in part B is that it is associated with the presence or absence of the silver powder. Precisely how the silver powder might be producing the observed trend is not clear. Indeed, the authors acknowledge their inability to provide a confident explanation.

Regardless of the actual cause, the glaring fact remains that Taylor and Southon detected levels of 14C in the diamonds they analyzed that were all well above the intrinsic sensitivity of their AMS hardware. That intrinsic sensitivity, typically observed with a blank aluminum sample holder (with no sample or silver powder present) is on the order of 0.00056 pMC, corresponding to about 100,000 years under the standard assumption of a constant past atmospheric 14C level. Note that the level measured for samples 12674 and 12675 are more than 25 times greater than this normal instrument background.

It is important to emphasize that placing the diamonds directly in holes bored in the instrument's cathode sample holder eliminates all of the potential sources of 14C contamination listed in Table 1 of Taylor and Southon's paper except for items (1), 14C intrinsic to the sample itself, and (7) instrument background. The authors argue that most potential sources of instrument background can be excluded for their system. They show from their investigations that contamination from CO2 and other carbon-containing species adhering to the diamond surface can now be effectively ruled out as well. This means that contamination from ion source memory is largely removed from the table. What then is left? It is item (1), namely, 14C intrinsic to the sample itself! The authors acknowledge this reality in the final sentence of section 1 of their paper when they state, “14C from the actual sample is probably the dominant component of the ‘routine’ background.” This statement directly contradicts Bertsche's assertion that these authors interpret their measured 14C values as “instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory.” The overall conclusion is that the 14C levels in natural diamond reported by Taylor and Southon are consistently far above the levels one would expect if these diamonds were truly more than a few hundred thousand years old. Despite the conflict it raises for Bertsche’s worldview, the Taylor and Southon paper tangibly strengthens the case that AMS instrument background can be eliminated, to a high degree of certainty, even as a remotely possible explanation for the substantial 14C levels measured so routinely in carbon-bearing samples from deep within the geological record.

Furthermore, despite Bertsche’s emphasis on the diamond measurements, to me whether or not there is 14C in diamonds is a relatively minor issue. The dramatically more important issue, as emphasized in our RATE report, is the consistent presence of even higher levels of 14C in all fossilized living things which still retain some carbon. That fact is powerful and indisputable support that the earth is young and that the Genesis Flood really did occur not so long ago.

John Baumgardner
November 2014"

Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?

Now, the carbon AMS measurements are a bit different. We have two different methods producing two different ages. Both RATE and the AMS lab seem to be saying there was no in situ or lab contamination added to the samples in the lab.

"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.

Buoyed by this success, the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. Sure enough, the diamonds submitted for radiocarbon analyses did contain detectable, significant levels of carbon-14, equivalent to an age of around 55,000 years. Again, the laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this carbon-14 was due to contamination, in situ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. At 1–2 billion years old, these diamonds, which are formed deep inside the earth, are regarded as being related to the earth’s early history. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon-14 in these diamonds was consistent with a young age for the earth itself.

Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years.

These results, from a different radiocarbon laboratory to that used by the RATE group, confirm that there is intrinsic carbon-14 in natural diamonds. Therefore, they cannot be hundreds of millions or billions of years old, as there is no other current credible explanation for the presence of this carbon-14. Less carbon-14 was found in the diamonds in this study reported in the conventional literature. That was because the diamonds were mounted directly in the beam within the analytical instrument, whereas in the RATE study the diamonds were combusted to convert the carbon to carbon dioxide, which was then converted to graphite that was analyzed in the instrument. That process may have introduced some more carbon-14 to the analyses.

The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument. Yet this begs the question as to why then did the Precambrian graphite contain on average more carbon-14 to yield younger ages than the diamonds? And why did the diamonds have such different carbon-14 contents to yield different apparent radiocarbon “ages”? Because the same instrument was used to analyze all the diamonds and the graphite, the results should surely have all been affected by the same “machine background.” Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions of the RATE radiocarbon project that natural diamonds, which are related to the earth’s early history, show evidence of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young."

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

I'll respond to your other comments in a separate thread.

 

[james bond]

Which is your cowardly and fraudulent way of changing the subject. All of your cheap tricks are older than dirt. Again, they may work when you are brainwashing children, but adults are laughing at you.

This is not within your science, so you use your cowardly and fraudulent ad hominem attacks. Those who have debated with you when you actually knew something realize this. Most of the time you do not know. One of the ways to check for fraud is to ask a question you know the answer to. You do not know.

Generally, you avoid answering questions because you do not want to take the time to learn. It's one of the best ways of learning and that is answering questions. So people here laugh at you , not me .

 

[james bond]

I simply don't have the time to look at all the creationist arguments concerning

• Supercontinent breakup
• Plate techtonics
• Global flood
• Fossils on mountains
• Trees in layers
• Bent rocks

We haven't covered all the facets in the science of radiometric dating which involves fundamental nuclear physics and makes any other less developed creationist topics moot.

You miss my point. My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements? Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old? Such as tree rings? Geological explanations? Other scientific thesis supporting it? I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time. Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?

We had luchitociencia post in #77 some evidence.

I've run out of time so will continue when I can.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Stop spamming the science section with religious horseshit!

 

[Wuwei]

The AMS used is that from tne of the better radiocarbon labs in the US.

How does the cosmic rays and electronic noise occur in the AMS labs?

There was a critic named Bertsche and he referenced a Taylor and Southon (2007) paper who claimed the C14 was not intrinsic to the diamonds themselves. I suppose that would include you cosmic rays and electronic noise. I copied and paste the following for diamonds from Dr. John Baumgardner as rebuttal:

This is beyond frustrating. You ask questions and I give you the answer as best as I can. Then you ask the same question again. Cosmic rays do not affect an AMS. Electronic noise is less important. There is a different set of inaccuracies that affect the limit of the AMS instrument. It's totally different than C14 decay detection.
Read the second paragraph again here
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

You don't seem to know how an AMS works. The "MS" stands for mass spectrometer. It measures the mass of the atoms. I already told you the masses of C14 and N14 are the same to about one part per million. Here they are again.

Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870​

For all practical purposes they both have the same mass. So any nitrogen will be counted as Carbon 14. That is a contamination that will occur even with the best handling. Here is a site that explains it more. Most diamonds are contaminated.

Diamonds Containing Nitrogen

"Diamonds without nitrogen, Type II, are extremely rare and only account for 1% of all diamonds found."​

What will happen is that a small amount of nitrogen will go through the AMS and be read out as Carbon 14 since it has the same mass.

I read the disagreement between Dr. Baumgardner and Dr. Kirk Bertsche here:
Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
The history and details of the actual experiments are way beyond my discretionary time allowance for further investigation such as the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS. My conclusion is that C14 is not appropriate for RATE. There are other ways of setting a lower limit on the age of the earth which you haven't answered yet, such as diamonds with Rhenium inclusions.



.

 

[Wuwei]

You miss my point. My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements? Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old? Such as tree rings? Geological explanations? Other scientific thesis supporting it? I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time. Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?

Yes there is further radiometric dating of areas older than the 65 million years example I gave. That example sets a lower limit. Analysis of diamonds with Rhenium inclusions gives dates of several billions years. There are other studies that I read about that give even older dates. Perhaps there is uncontaminated meteor data that would give a date of the chaotic epoch during planet formation. To me an exact date of the earth is not important in showing that the earth age is several billions of years which is much much older than 6,000 years.
.

 

[james bond]

Stop spamming the science section with religious horseshit!

None of it was religious nor horse doo. There is also have atheist science where they make up stuff you can't see because of no creation rule.

Truth can always be validated, so one side is right and the other wrong..

 

[luchitociencia]

Why do you want to ignore the three different methods of dating the area surrounding the fossils which all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? You will have to find a reason why all three are simultaneously invalid.

.

You know no science, at least empirical science.

You can use a hundred of different radiometric methods of measure and still all of them are INVALID.

The only way to validate the results from radiometric measure is confronting a different method of measurement against all the radiometric methods.

This is the ONLY and SOLELY way to verify if the radiometric measure is accurate AND VALID.

You have mentioned Carbon 14. Well, this radiometric method used for organic matter has been verified with a different method of measure. It was with an old tree. The counting of the internal rings, which are known are added one per year in the trunk of the tree, was confronted to the measure obtained by Carbon 14 method. The results were very close and doing so this radiometric method was verified.

All your results with millions of years are nothing but mere conjectures which can't be trusted at all. You just can't verify a radiometric method using another radiometric method, because such is the same monkey but with different banana.

Before you continue with your infantile 65 millions of years of age for dinosaurs, you better go and find how to verify your radiometric method using a complete different method of measure.

And if you can't find any,,, well, there you go, it was your turn to be the loser of the story.

No need from you to argue with me, because no verification of the radiometric method means you are lost in your fantasy, and this forum is about science.

 

[james bond]

This is beyond frustrating. You ask questions and I give you the answer as best as I can. Then you ask the same question again. Cosmic rays do not affect an AMS. Electronic noise is less important. There is a different set of inaccuracies that affect the limit of the AMS instrument. It's totally different than C14 decay detection.
Read the second paragraph again here
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

I should be the one frustrated. First, you bring up contamination as your argument. We discuss that, but only for the carbon and diamonds. Nothing about what, if any, contamination was in the meteorite. In fact, I tried to get you to explain that after I pointed out that Clair Patterson (not Peterson) hypothesized it in 1956. You seem to agree that a meteorite readily explains a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.

So, I went along and a couple posts ago bring up cosmic rays and electronic noise. Did I bring that up? I don't think I did. Now, you're bringing in Archbishop Ussher. I never used him as reference nor any part of my argument. I used C14 remaining in coal and diamonds dated to be long time and that it was able to be carbon dated. That was what we are discussing and I compared it to what Patterson used to show it boils down to a young Earth vs old Earth theories. Now, I'm confused why you are talking about AMS being different from C14 decay detection. Did you read what RATE and Baumgardner did?

You don't seem to know how an AMS works. The "MS" stands for mass spectrometer. It measures the mass of the atoms. I already told you the masses of C14 and N14 are the same to about one part per million. Here they are again.
Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870For all practical purposes they both have the same mass. So any nitrogen will be counted as Carbon 14. That is a contamination that will occur even with the best handling. Here is a site that explains it more. Most diamonds are contaminated.

I knew that from reading the links I posted. I answered that with what Dr. Baumgardner used as rebuttal to a critic named Bertsche. I'm not going to be able it explain like Baumgardner, so I c&p his response.

The nitrogen complaint was addressed already in post #71, "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."

>>Most diamonds are contaminated.<<

The purpose of the diamonds was to address the contamination of the coal. I'm positive this was addressed in the links I gave, but here's another c&p since our opinions are opposite.

"However, as you have pointed out, the same RATE project also found radiocarbon measurements in not just coal, but also diamonds. Diamonds, being primarily carbon and with atoms in a tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination. Yet when these diamonds were tested, we once again find 14C—highly problematic for the evolutionist—since uniformitarian geology places the age of diamonds at 1 to 3 billion years. Some evolutionists, realizing that they cannot appeal to contamination in situ with diamonds, attempt to dismiss this problem by simply appealing to the possibility of contamination by modern carbon during the testing process. But once again, where is the evidence of such contamination? It again appears to be nothing more than a convenient attempt at ignoring the evidence because the data does not fit their uniformitarian worldview. The charge of “contamination by modern carbon” is even more unlikely given that modern laboratories are equipped with sophisticated procedures to ensure that results are not contaminated by modern carbon. Dr Baumgardner performed this experiment with six alluvial diamonds from Namibia, one from South Africa, one from Guinea, West Africa, and four diamonds from two different mines in Botswana, South-central Africa. Therefore it is not possible to attribute 14C in diamonds as a one-time experimental error or sample chemistry. Neither can the findings be attributed to contamination by modern carbon since Dr Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in testing all 12 diamonds."

Carbon-14 diamonds TalkOrigins - creation.com

>>Diamonds Containing Nitrogen
"Diamonds without nitrogen, Type II, are extremely rare and only account for 1% of all diamonds found."
What will happen is that a small amount of nitrogen will go through the AMS and be read out as Carbon 14 since it has the same mass.

I read the disagreement between Dr. Baumgardner and Dr. Kirk Bertsche here:
Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
The history and details of the actual experiments are way beyond my discretionary time allowance for further investigation such as the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS. My conclusion is that C14 is not appropriate for RATE. There are other ways of setting a lower limit on the age of the earth which you haven't answered yet, such as diamonds with Rhenium inclusions.<<

The nitrogen is addressed above.

I figured you weren't going to be convinced by RATE, but they were also backed up by the AMS lab which you do not address.

As for the diamonds with Rhenium inclusions, the scientist comes afterward the RATE measurements and he isn't referring to what RATE did. You admitted it as much. Normally, you do not want inclusions in diamonds, but it appears these end up protecting the diamonds. There has been not tests on diamonds with inclusions, so it's irrelevant to our discussion.

You do not trust creation scientists, but your scientist appears to be an atheist one calling 4.5 B year old Earth as young. What a nutgoober! When one cannot see beyond a lifetime or an experiment done beyond a lifetime, then it's all hypothesis. He's basing things on the meteorite we discussed and you agreed there wasn't adequate correlation to the Earth.

 

[james bond]

This is beyond frustrating. You ask questions and I give you the answer as best as I can. Then you ask the same question again. Cosmic rays do not affect an AMS. Electronic noise is less important. There is a different set of inaccuracies that affect the limit of the AMS instrument. It's totally different than C14 decay detection.
Read the second paragraph again here
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

I should be the one frustrated. First, you bring up contamination as your argument. We discuss that, but only for the carbon and diamonds. Nothing about what, if any, contamination was in the meteorite. In fact, I tried to get you to explain that after I pointed out that Clair Patterson (not Peterson) hypothesized it in 1956. You seem to agree that a meteorite readily explains a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.

So, I went along and a couple posts ago bring up cosmic rays and electronic noise. Did I bring that up? I don't think I did. Now, you're bringing in Archbishop Ussher. I never used him as reference nor any part of my argument. I used C14 remaining in coal and diamonds dated to be long time and that it was able to be carbon dated. That was what we are discussing and I compared it to what Patterson used to show it boils down to a young Earth vs old Earth theories. Now, I'm confused why you are talking about AMS being different from C14 decay detection. Did you read what RATE and Baumgardner did?

You don't seem to know how an AMS works. The "MS" stands for mass spectrometer. It measures the mass of the atoms. I already told you the masses of C14 and N14 are the same to about one part per million. Here they are again.
Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870For all practical purposes they both have the same mass. So any nitrogen will be counted as Carbon 14. That is a contamination that will occur even with the best handling. Here is a site that explains it more. Most diamonds are contaminated.

I knew that from reading the links I posted. I answered that with what Dr. Baumgardner used as rebuttal to a critic named Bertsche. I'm not going to be able it explain like Baumgardner, so I c&p his response.

The nitrogen complaint was addressed already in post #71, "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."

>>Most diamonds are contaminated.<<

The purpose of the diamonds was to address the contamination of the coal. I'm positive this was addressed in the links I gave, but here's another c&p since our opinions are opposite.

"However, as you have pointed out, the same RATE project also found radiocarbon measurements in not just coal, but also diamonds. Diamonds, being primarily carbon and with atoms in a tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination. Yet when these diamonds were tested, we once again find 14C—highly problematic for the evolutionist—since uniformitarian geology places the age of diamonds at 1 to 3 billion years. Some evolutionists, realizing that they cannot appeal to contamination in situ with diamonds, attempt to dismiss this problem by simply appealing to the possibility of contamination by modern carbon during the testing process. But once again, where is the evidence of such contamination? It again appears to be nothing more than a convenient attempt at ignoring the evidence because the data does not fit their uniformitarian worldview. The charge of “contamination by modern carbon” is even more unlikely given that modern laboratories are equipped with sophisticated procedures to ensure that results are not contaminated by modern carbon. Dr Baumgardner performed this experiment with six alluvial diamonds from Namibia, one from South Africa, one from Guinea, West Africa, and four diamonds from two different mines in Botswana, South-central Africa. Therefore it is not possible to attribute 14C in diamonds as a one-time experimental error or sample chemistry. Neither can the findings be attributed to contamination by modern carbon since Dr Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in testing all 12 diamonds."

Carbon-14 diamonds TalkOrigins - creation.com

 

[james bond]

Yes there is further radiometric dating of areas older than the 65 million years example I gave. That example sets a lower limit. Analysis of diamonds with Rhenium inclusions gives dates of several billions years. There are other studies that I read about that give even older dates. Perhaps there is uncontaminated meteor data that would give a date of the chaotic epoch during planet formation. To me an exact date of the earth is not important in showing that the earth age is several billions of years which is much much older than 6,000 years.

These radiometric dating is still based on assumptions made of what parent-daughter elements existed when the Rhenium inclusion diamonds were formed. You do not know this and thus just validating what was discovered by Patterson in 1956. Before that, we had the Earth around 3 B years old. What I'm saying is this guy Shirey would've said 3 B years was young if not for Patterson. He's an atheist scientist just backing up what was told to him. I don't think it was his point to show the age of the Earth so why you bring him into the discussion is troubling. Can't you see that this evolutionary thinking is just built upon false assumptions?

That's why I asked for other evidence that you have and Rhenium inclusion diamonds have nothing to do with age of the Earth. You are talking apples and oranges.

 

[luchitociencia]

You miss my point. My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements? Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old? Such as tree rings? Geological explanations? Other scientific thesis supporting it? I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time. Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?

We had luchitociencia post in #77 some evidence.

I've run out of time so will continue when I can.

I am giving you another link. Science magazine, I think is October 1952, but surely is between years 1952 and 1953.

The petroleum companies wanted to know the age of the hydrocarbons from the Gulf of Mexico.

The assumed age of the hydrocarbons by part of the theory in that time was of millions of years, which they assumed will take for organic matter to be converted into hydrocarbon. As it was found liquid hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of New Mexico, the decision was to check its age.

The results were 11,800 -14,600 years of age (+- 1400 years), with samples extracted from different sites of the Grande Isle core. A composite carbonate sample from the core as well gave 12,300 years of age (+-1200 years), and the nonextractable organic matter , which comprises a major portion of the original organic content, had an average age of 9,200 years (+-100 years).

All the age determination was made by J. Laurence Kulp, from Lamont Geological Observatory of Columbia University.

There is plenty evidence that the story of dinosaurs living millions of years ago is just pure fairy tales. Just "a hypothesis", because evolution can't reach the title of being called "a theory".

 

[james bond]

Wuwei, let's look at how atheist scientists or evolutionists use radiomentric dating. For one, the evos assume that we observe different geological layers and that the older ones are lower while the newer layers are on top. How do they explain earthquakes, floods, and other catastrophes that have happened over millions and billions of years? Thus, how can you assume these layers formed without anything outside of it to disturb it? It seems the evos assume the present is the key to the past. I pointed out the names of these layers are not based on time chronology, but location. Furthermore, one has to know what the parent-daughter isotope ratios were when these layers formed. I just go through explaining your complaints about contamination, but what about contamination for these layers?

"The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance of these 800 dates is.

The great majority of the dates on which the geological time scale is based, are measured using one method, the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. In order to explain the fact that older dates tend to be found deeper down (if this is true), we really only need to explain why this shouuld be true for K-Ar dating, and then we have explained much of the geological time scale.

K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.

However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact, geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages. Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon 36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.

So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.

Now let's consider another method that some textbooks say is reliable. This is the dating of zircons by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating and some other related methods. Zircon is a gemstone, a mineral that can have a considerable amount of uranium in it. However, when zircons form, they exclude lead. Over time, uranium decays to lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a zircon and knowing the rate of decay, we can measure the age of the zircon. Lead is somewhat mobile, however, as is uranium, and so other methods have been devised that can date zircons even if some lead leaves the rock.

The problem with this method is that zircons can include lead when they form, throwing off the date. They can also lose uranium. In addition, they can travel through lava without melting, so the date computed for a zircon may be measuring a much older event than the lava flow itself. Even geologists recognize that ages given by zircons are often much too old, even for them. Furthermore, a batch of zircons from the same place will often yield widely different ages.

So I guess we'll have to discard zircons as a reliable dating method."

The Radiometric Dating Deception