Author
|
Topic: Carbon 14 in fossils?
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 31 of 40 (455326)
02-11-2008 9:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Jason777 02-11-2008 9:28 PM
|
|
That diamond dated 58,000 years old.If something dates 5,800 years old is that 1/10 background level? No.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
This message is a reply to: | | Message 30 by Jason777, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 PM | | Jason777 has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
Message 32 of 40 (455331)
02-11-2008 9:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Jason777 02-11-2008 9:28 PM
|
|
quote: That diamond dated 58,000 years old.If something dates 5,800 years old is that 1/10 background level?I think we have a problem here.
Check your math.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 30 by Jason777, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 PM | | Jason777 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 35 by Jason777, posted 02-12-2008 11:32 AM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 33 of 40 (455336)
02-11-2008 10:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Jason777 02-11-2008 9:28 PM
|
|
No one has responded to this thread in a while but i couldnt help but notice some people saying c14 in the diamond was only background level.That diamond dated 58,000 years old.If something dates 5,800 years old is that 1/10 background level?I think we have a problem here. Read the posts again until you understand what is actually being said. If you have any substantative disagreements with anything that evolutionists actually claim ... then you'll be the first guy to come up with anything like that in a hundred years. Good luck. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 30 by Jason777, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 PM | | Jason777 has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 34 of 40 (455337)
02-11-2008 10:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Jason777 02-11-2008 9:28 PM
|
|
Hey Jason777.
That diamond dated 58,000 years old. Actually should have been reported as {limit} -- as this is the practical limit of C-14 dating due to interference from several factors. Many much older things will date at this limit, or rocks that don't have carbon (so no C-14).
If something dates 5,800 years old is that 1/10 background level?I think we have a problem here. (1) it goes the other way - an inverse relationship (2) carbon-14 dating is based on the radioactive decay of C-14 in an exponential curve: Every 5,730 years that passes there is half as much as there was before. See How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : an not and we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
This message is a reply to: | | Message 30 by Jason777, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 PM | | Jason777 has not replied |
|
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: 11-08-2007
|
|
Message 35 of 40 (455412)
02-12-2008 11:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote 02-11-2008 9:59 PM
|
|
I wasnt there so the math error would have to be the lab that dated it.Since you werent there either how do you know something they dont?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 32 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2008 9:59 PM | | Coyote has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 36 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2008 11:39 AM | | Jason777 has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
Message 36 of 40 (455417)
02-12-2008 11:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Jason777 02-12-2008 11:32 AM
|
|
Your original statement:
quote: That diamond dated 58,000 years old.If something dates 5,800 years old is that 1/10 background level?I think we have a problem here.
To this I replied: Check your math. Your current statement:
quote: I wasnt there so the math error would have to be the lab that dated it.Since you werent there either how do you know something they dont?
The error was not in the original laboratory dating. The error was in your assumption that 5,800 represents 1/10 of the background level of 58,000. This was explained in a subsequent post.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 35 by Jason777, posted 02-12-2008 11:32 AM | | Jason777 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 37 by Jason777, posted 02-12-2008 11:44 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: 11-08-2007
|
|
Message 37 of 40 (455419)
02-12-2008 11:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote 02-12-2008 11:39 AM
|
|
sorry about that.I thought you were saying i made up the date of the diamond.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 36 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2008 11:39 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 38 of 40 (455897)
02-14-2008 1:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Jason777 02-11-2008 9:28 PM
|
|
In fact, here's the math.
In a radioactive sample, the signal (the amount of radioactivity) that is measured is going to be given by A = A0e-kt/5730, where A0 is a constant related to the amount of C14 that was initially present, and k is the natural log of 2. If we assume that the same amount of C14 is always initially present in every sample (in real life this isn't true, but shouldn't affect the results here by more than an order of magnitude or so), then we have diamond: Ad = A0e-k58000/5730 something else: Ase = A0e-k5800/5730 Thus, dividing: Ase/ Ad = ek(58000-5800)/5730= ek52200/5730= e9k=512 Thus, the something else in your example has 512 times the signal of the diamond. Hope this helps. Edited by Chiroptera, : Forgot the correct factor in the exponent.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
This message is a reply to: | | Message 30 by Jason777, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 PM | | Jason777 has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 39 by Coragyps, posted 02-14-2008 8:28 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: In fact, here's the math.
Hope this helps. Something makes me doubt that it will.
"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to: | | Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2008 1:13 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
Message 40 of 40 (458034)
02-26-2008 9:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by BeagleBob 11-21-2007 1:46 AM
|
|
Re: part of article
Recently a Creationist acquaintance of mine sent me this link from AiG regarding the amount of C14 in diamonds. The central claim that AiG makes is that a peer-reviewed, non-Creationism-affiliated pair of researchers performed a carbon dating experiment on diamonds from the paleozoic era, and these things should be so old that there shouldn't be ANY detectable amount of C14 remaining. When the results came in... voila! The amount of C14 within the diamond registers a date of about 49,000 years! These aren't old diamonds at all, and is merely more evidence for a Young Earth! So I dug a little deeper, first by downloading and reading the actual paper and emailing the researchers. The thing is, even just reading the title gives you a hint that this paper wasn't anything along the lines of what AiG claims. In an AMS experiment an ion beam converts the carbon-containing sample into a charged particle beam, which is then used to measure the amount of C12 versus C14. The problem is that it's only 5-20% efficient at conversion, and the remaining 80-95% is vaporized and a small bit of this clings to the inside of the machine as a layer of "black crud." Over time this builds up and contaminates future samples. The original researchers, Southon and Taylor, used paleozoic diamonds as "blanks" to measure the amount of contamination within the machine. Since the samples were millions of years old, they shouldn't contain any detectable C14 and what should register should be only the gunk within. This was a method Southon and Taylor used to calibrate AMS machines... it wasn't intended to actually date diamonds. If AiG actually read this article they should've known clearly that the experiment didn't demonstrate any levels of C14 in diamonds. The amount of intellectual dishonesty in this degree of distortion and misquoting is absolutely grotesque. FYI, I've analyzed the ICR/AIG/RATE radiocarbon claims including the diamond data here: RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?and there is a broader coverage of RATE claims here: RATE and Age of the Earth - Radiometric Dating Kirk
This message is a reply to: | | Message 24 by BeagleBob, posted 11-21-2007 1:46 AM | | BeagleBob has not replied |
|