Amusing radiocarbon dating diamonds know, you
Posted in Dating
Machine background would have the same statistical pattern on both the individual cuts and between diamonds. The background does not know that the different cuts came from the same diamond. The only reason that they would be equivalent only on faces from the same diamond is if they are really measuring C Is there a particular section of their article to which you are referring? Having worked with mass spectrometers, I can say this statement is simply not true: "Machine background would have the same statistical pattern on both the individual cuts and between diamonds. But these factors are bound to vary slightly between samples, and AMS radiocarbon equipment is already amplified to the point that significant errors are to be expected when model ages approach and exceed 50 kyrs.
What about your views on Genesis and Science? Thank you! You can search more easily through my articles at the new site.
With RentalCars you can discover the cheapest car rental from over 49, locations worldwide.
Carbon-14 In Diamonds - Why You Should Believe In Creation marionfoaleyarn.com Not Evolution - David Rives
Exploring the wonders of geology in response to young-Earth claims Never been here? Please read my guidelines and background posts before proceeding! Saturday, November 13, Radiocarbon evidence for the antiquity of the Earth.
The reason is that AiG authors do not simply try and persuade their readers to discount this method as wholly unreliable even when the ages obtained exceed 10, years but actually present the results as positive evidence for a young Earth. In doing so, I will consider their use of sources from scientific literaturetheir understanding of the method itself, and the assumptions that go into their reasoning for why these ages commonly more than 10, years B.
Why the focus on C? However, this is not out of ignorance on anyone's part. The radiocarbon method is often used as a starting point for understanding radiometric dating techniques, especially in classes unrelated to geology, because: 1 most are familiar with Carbon, as opposed to elements like Osmium, Neodymium, Rubidium, Thorium, etc.
The third point is most relevant to our discussion, since it results in 'both sides' affirming the accuracy of radiocarbon dating for any 'recent' samples as opposed to nearly any other method, which must be discounted in all cases by anyone that believes in a young Earth. Thus even from a 'young-Earth' standpoint, all radiocarbon dates assuming that care is taken to eliminate contamination are taken to be meaningful indicators of a given sample's age. Hasn't the issue already been settled?
Anyone familiar with typical studies employing the radiocarbon method knows that model ages obtained often exceed 10, years e. Hogg et al. So doesn't the method already affirm that the Earth or at least it's now deceased inhabitants must be at least this old? The article begins with a simplified explanation of the radiocarbon method.
While his synopsis includes a number of minor factual errors see belowI would recommend it to anyone not entirely familiar with the method at this point. At the end of his explanation, he states: "Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. Thus a large portion of research in radiocarbon dating has dealt with that very issue.
Riddle then notes: "To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon 12C. Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies.
All living things take in carbon 14C and 12C from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms.
Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C. First, carbon is taken in from the atmosphere primarily through photosynthesis not breathingwhich is passed down through the food chain eating.
Secondly, although photosynthetic organisms trees, grass, algae, etc. There is a simple kinetic discrimination, due to the minor difference in mass between each isotope, that causes C to be taken in 'preferentially' i. Thus the ratio of Carbon to Carbon in any given plant material and, consequently, anything that has eaten that plant material will always be less than that of the atmosphere.
Getting lost in the technical jargon - a minor detour I would like to make it clear that my purpose here is not to cloud the issue by introducing meaningless complexities to the discussion. I fully understand that the author is writing to a general audience, and bound to make simplifications. I have no problem with this and I believe he does a great job illustrating the basics of the radiocarbon method. It is quite another thing to make an argument against that simplified explanation without fully understanding or appreciating the true complexity of the issue.
This attack is called a strawman argument, and abounds anytime a complex issue is debated by those only vaguely familiar one need only watch 5 minutes of any politically driven show - liberal or conservative - to see my point.
Personally, I think the best example can be seen on The Colbert Report, where strawman accusations are regularly used, although in this case it is intentional and to his own humorous advantage! Riddle gives his own version here of how that is calculated: "Dr.
His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old In [his] original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. What does this mean? If it takes about 30, years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
Libby's book Libby, is available in any university library and can be read by any of you interested I only read it because it was referenced in Riddle's article, but now will say the work is nothing short of genius. One thing is very clear: nowhere did Dr.
On the contrary, he devoted ample discussion to why that ratio would always be in flux e. He did make the point that one might expect this ratio to be constant when averaged over the lastyears, but it is a far stretch to accuse him of making a blind assumption based on a "belief in evolution", which actually has nothing to do with his work such a reference is an ad hominem argument buried within a Red Herring, as it calls on the audience to reject Dr.
Libby's conclusions based on unrelated beliefs.
Since the strength of the geomagnetic field, atmospheric composition, etc. Libby was able to test his predictions rigorously against samples of known age like tree rings, or a 2nd century copy of a Biblical text. As pointed out, it would never be expected to reach true equilibrium. In fact, part of the reason this was true in Dr. Libby's time is that atomic-bomb testing introduced massive quantities of C into the atmosphere, throwing off any equilibrium that would have been reached.
Nonetheless, I am not sure that Riddle realizes the full implications of his argument. According to the young Earth model, how much C was in the original, pre-Flood atmosphere? How much at the time of Creation, and how much needed to accumulate up to and after the Flood?
If the accumulation rate were not substantially higher in the past I would contend that the young Earth model predicts it to be lowerhas enough time passed to produce the amount of C in the modern atmosphere?
In order to address these questions, we need to know something about the young Earth position. How does Answers in Genesis interpret radiocarbon dates? Riddle devotes the rest of the article to a discussion on the young Earth interpretation of the carbon cycle, accumulation of C in the atmosphere, and how these issues effect calculated radiocarbon ages. He first notes that a much stronger magnetic field in the past would have resulted in a much lower production rate of C in the atmosphere, which is true.
This is also true. Thus he concludes: "When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption. Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age.
Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age. This effect can also be seen, for example, in the radiocarbon dating of artifacts made from shell material e. The age can be inflated for two reasons: 1 the shell may have already been old when utilized by the person; 2 shells are produced from the dissolved inorganic carbon DIC in the ocean, lake, or river in which the organism lived, which is a mixture of atmospheric CO 2 and dissolved carbonate from ancient rocks that contain no 14C.
Modern radiocarbon dating by AMS is a complex process with numerous potential sources of contamination requiring characterization. "The oldest 14 C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields" . radiocarbon, diamonds, RATE, dating methods, carbon, in situ, Genesis Flood 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) dating. This is one of. Nov 13, In an article entitled Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed, Dr. Snelling reviews a study by Taylor and Southon that reports radiocarbon ages of Paleozoic diamonds around 70, years B.P. Referencing the study, he states: "Confirmation that there is in situ carbon in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.".
I would summarize the young Earth model like this: 1 The original atmosphere would have contained little to no 14C; furthermore, the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere would have been significantly lower than today, due to a much higher strength geomagnetic field.
Therefore, 14C has been accumulating to this day, and the production rate is increasing. The degree of depletion would decrease over time as the system equilibrated toward modern values. Stressing the Carbon Cycle While nobody can accuse Answers in Genesis of ignoring the issue of radiocarbon dating, this is hardly a case of "you have your model, we have ours; since we start with different assumptions, however, we will have differing but equally valid interpretations of the same data" as is often purported by AiG.
At first, the AiG model appears to offer a consistent explanation that would obviously be ignored or discredited by secular science.
RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?
However, there are critical assumptions made with regard to the carbon cycle that are completely out of touch with reality. Since the carbon cycle is by itself a complex issue, I will only comment briefly here before discussing the positive evidence for a young Earth from radiocarbon dating. The idea that the pre-Flood biosphere could have been times larger than today dose not come without consequence.
Currently, the amount of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere is roughly balanced by a number of fluxes. For example, dissolved CO 2 in the surface water of the ocean represents a mixture of CO 2 from the atmosphere, and the oxidation of organic matter i. This is balanced by the escape of gaseous CO 2 to the atmosphere, and photosynthetic production.
The AiG article says they dated diamonds to around 55, years, which just happens to be about years short of the oldest date for which C14 dating can be used for living things. This is because after that many generations of decay, there's so little left it's indistinguishable from background C14 or contamination. Nov 07, Keywords: radiocarbon, diamonds, RATE, dating methods, carbon, in situ, Genesis Flood, radioisotopes, age of the earth, University of California D uring the RATE (R adioisotopes and the A ge of T he E arth) research project at the Institute for Creation Research, co-sponsored by the Creation Research Society, some of the research effort Author: Dr. Andrew A. Snelling. Sep 22, Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55, years-a far cry from the evolutionary billions!".
In other words, the model is testable by methods other than radiocarbon, but can not hold up to consistent scrutiny between fields. Furthermore, calcite precipitated as cement in sediments should retain 14C in equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Radiocarbon dating diamonds
However, no studies have shown this to be the case nor could they. Before anyone accepts AiG's reasoning behind their interpretation of radiocarbon ages, they should consider whether AiG could offer an internally consistent model of the carbon cycle before, during, and after the Flood, which can explain a wide range of phenomena and not simply levels of 14C in the atmosphere. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C dating.
Nov 19, They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Jan 01, Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an "age" of 55, years 15 These results have been confirmed by other investigators So even though these diamonds are conventionally regarded by evolutionary geologists as up to billions of years old, this radiocarbon has to be intrinsic to marionfoaleyarn.com: Dr. Andrew A. Snelling.
How do you reply? Answer: It does discredit the C dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.
Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.
When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.
Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C, enough to give them C ages in the tens of thousands of years.
How do you explain this? Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium K decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation.
However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:. Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.
Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N to C in the first place. K decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin.
However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
Question: Creationists such as Cook claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying.
If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate. If they are right, this means all C ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years.
How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to BC, one can check out the C dates against the tree-ring-count dates.
Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date. It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree.
The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations.
When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before BC are really too young-not too old as Cook maintains. For example, pieces of wood that date at about BC by tree-ring counts date at only BC by regular C dating and BC by Cook's creationist revision of C dating as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
So, despite creationist claims, C before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C dating errs on the side of making objects from before BC look too youngnot too old. Question: But don't trees sometimes produce more than one growth ring per year?
Wouldn't that spoil the tree-ring count? Answer: If anything, the tree-ring sequence suffers far more from missing rings than from double rings. This means that the tree-ring dates would be slightly too young, not too old. Of course, some species of tree tend to produce two or more growth rings per year. But other species produce scarcely any extra rings.
Most of the tree-ring sequence is based on the bristlecone pine. This tree rarely produces even a trace of an extra ring; on the contrary, a typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing.
Concerning the sequence of rings derived from the bristlecone pine, Ferguson says:.
In certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season's growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring. In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers.
In years of severe drought, a bristlecone pine may fail to grow a complete ring all the way around its perimeter; we may find the ring if we bore into the tree from one angle, but not from another. Hence at least some of the missing rings can be found. Even so, the missing rings are a far more serious problem than any double rings. Other species of trees corroborate the work that Ferguson did with bristlecone pines.
Before his work, the tree-ring sequence of the sequoias had been worked out back to BC. The archaeological ring sequence had been worked out back to 59 BC.
The limber pine sequence had been worked out back to 25 BC. The radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates of these other trees agree with those Ferguson got from the bristlecone pine. But even if he had had no other trees with which to work except the bristlecone pines, that evidence alone would have allowed him to determine the tree-ring chronology back to BC. See Renfrew for more details.
So, creationists who complain about double rings in their attempts to disprove C dating are actually grasping at straws. If the Flood of Noah occurred around BC, as some creationists claim, then all the bristlecone pines would have to be less than five thousand years old. This would mean that eighty-two hundred years worth of tree rings had to form in five thousand years, which would mean that one-third of all the bristlecone pine rings would have to be extra rings.
Creationists are forced into accepting such outlandish conclusions as these in order to jam the facts of nature into the time frame upon which their "scientific" creation model is based. Question: Creationist Thomas G. Barnes has claimed that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially with a half-life of fourteen hundred years. Not only does he consider this proof that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years but he also points out that a greater magnetic strength in the past would reduce C dates.
Now if the magnetic field several thousand years ago was indeed many times stronger than it is today, there would have been less cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere back then and less C would have been produced.
Therefore, any C dates taken from objects of that time period would be too high. How do you answer him? Answer: Like Cook, Barnes looks at only part of the evidence. What he ignores is the great body of archaeological and geological data showing that the strength of the magnetic field has been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years and that it has reversed polarity many times in the geological past. So, when Barnes extrapolates ten thousand years into the past, he concludes that the magnetic field was nineteen times stronger in BC than it is today, when, actually, it was only half as intense then as now.
This means that radiocarbon ages of objects from that time period will be too young, just as we saw from the bristlecone pine evidence. Question: But how does one know that the magnetic field has fluctuated and reversed polarity?
Aren't these just excuses scientists give in order to neutralize Barnes's claims? Answer: The evidence for fluctuations and reversals of the magnetic field is quite solid.
Exploring the wonders of geology in response to young-Earth claims..
Bucha, a Czech geophysicist, has used archaeological artifacts made of baked clay to determine the strength of the earth's magnetic field when they were manufactured.
He found that the earth's magnetic field was 1. See Bailey, Renfrew, and Encyclopedia Britannica for details.
In other words, it rose in intensity from 0. Even before the bristlecone pine calibration of C dating was worked out by Ferguson, Bucha predicted that this change in the magnetic field would make radiocarbon dates too young.
This idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V.
Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates.
Prompt, where I can read about it?15.01.2020|Reply