That is absolutely not true about Dr Baumgardner. I covered it in a more complete post of the history of the dialog between Baumgardner and Bertsche. I cited that more complete dialog here:
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...
Are you quoting
Angelo or the sci-fi writer in Quora
?
It is a long read, but I understood that dialog. In my post I said that there is nitrogen in diamonds and the atomic masses of C14 and N14 are the same. What you didn't understand is that AMS is a mass spectrometer and counts the number of atoms that have a particular mass. Since C14 and N have the same mass there would be a miss-count of the C14. The contamination was not outside the diamond. It was inside.
I further said that there was not enough information in the dialog of those two to really understand just what the accuracy of the AMS was. That is, there was no information on the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS that would influence the error.
I already replied to this objection at least twice using creation.com. Do you read my links?:
"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."
Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com
Where does Baumgardner or creation.com mention a phoswich detector? Please explain what you are talking about ?
Then I asked for you to describe those two different technologies and you were confused and said,
I asked you questions about the phoswich detector and how was it relevant, but did not answer.
Don't you read my posts? I said that the Shirey put a minimum age of the universe at 65 M years. I told you that already. I told you that what I was doing is showing that an age of the earth and universe is way beyond 6000 years. I was not attempting to show what the age of the earth is.
Yes, I did read it. Again, why are you arguing apples and oranges? If Shirey put a minimum age, then it doesn't mean that he was right. He started off stating the Earth was 4.5 B yrs old and that was young. Shirey did not mention anything about RATE. If one wants to compare how his included diamonds to the results Dr. Baumgardner got, then Shirey or you should have RATE look into it. This is why you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase for you claims.
I said let's just agree to disagree. Instead, I suggested measuring the dates of things we already know its age using radiocarbon vs radiometric dating.
No I won't ignore it. I will simply dismiss it as a digression that does not cover anything about proving the earth is 6000 years old. Dating with isotope decay is what is relevant. You can disbelieve whatever you want, but you are way too distracted to keep your mind focused on the nature of the fact that isotopic dating is hard science and is the major way of discussing age of billions of years.
I've already stated radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions. GIGO. I've read articles where they measured seals and got hundreds of thousands of years old. They were only a few years old.
"Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate.
Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate
Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate.
What do I mean? How can something be accurate and yet wrong? To understand this point, we need to understand what exactly is being measured during a radiometric dating test. One thing that is not being directly measured is the actual age of the sample."
...
"
Based Upon Assumptions
The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each α-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong
1. Remember that we have already said that these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.
Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results.
- For more on this important work, please see Humphreys, R., Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay, in Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A., and Chaffin, E.F. (2005), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume 2, (California: Institute for Creation Research), pages 25-100."
Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate?
