Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

Think Dr. Adequate link is the right study but not the actual link to all the data?

Okay, in that case there's a couple of things you should know.First, the Siberian larch, as its name suggests, is not a tropical tree.Second, there is no reason to suppose that the Earth is no older than the oldest subfossil wood on the Yamal Peninsula. On the contrary, the Earth can't be younger than that; but there's no reason at all why it shouldn't be older, is there?Oh, and here's a table of their data.

What has dating chronology got to do with this?
The kind of transmuting I am talking about is not going to effect any kind of dating measurement.Beryllium contains 4 protons and 5 neutrons (electrons are irrelevent)
An alpha particle contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons.When their nuclei collide with enough energy to overcome the coulomb barrier, they fuse together to make a highly unstable blob containing 6 protons and 7 neutrons.This blob very rapidly disintegrates to form 2 or more stable or unstable nuclei. Any combination is possible and the probability of all the various pathways have been extensively studied.
30 ppm of these pathways result in the release of a fast neutron. the others don't. it's as simple as that.What could you make with 6 protons and 7 neutrons?here are some that release neutrons
10 Boron (5 protons and 5 neutrons) + 1 proton + 2 Neutrons
11 Boron (5 Protons and 6 neutrons) + 1 proton + 1 neutron
12 Carbon (6 Protons and 6 neutrons) + 1 neutronhow about
7 Lithium (3 protons and 4 neutrons) + 6 Lithium (3 protons and 3 neutrons)
13 Carbon (6 protons and 7 neutrons)or 3 X 4 Helium (2 protons and 2 neutrons) + 1 low energy neutronSome of the isotopes produced are extremely unstable with half lives of considerably less than 1 second. These will decay naturally via beta and/or gamma pathways till they reach a stable level.I don't see any way that this kind of thing can possibly have any impact on radiometric dating. It doesn't affect anything above about mass 12 at all other than by the potential capture of the neutron that is emitted 30ppm of the time.

It appears not the same study that included other vegetation if you find the study you will find nothing dated older than 9,600 years interesting that the siberian larch not older than 9,400 years. You have no idea when the earth itself was created given the elements that make up the earth that are dated were created before the earth itself was created.

This is nonsense. Radiocarbon dating (the theme of this thread) does not rely on "elements" that are 4.5 billion years old.C14, an isotope of the element carbon, is continually created in the atmosphere.(Perhaps you should study up on these things before you lecture us on them?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When you find evidence that any of it was tropical, let me know.This is highly unlikely given that we have a 9,400 year record of Siberian larches growing there; and tropical vegetation and Siberian larches are suited to different climates. According to Wikipedia (I can't find a better reference, sorry) geologists say the Yamal peninsula itself is only about 10,000 years old, so the wood on it is hardly going to be older. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Also, you should find out how radiometric dating works. Of course they are not finding the age of the atoms, that would be pointless, not to mention impossible.

Purple Youko,I don't doubt using a nucleur reactor your able to release fast neutrons using berylium (other molecules in alpha particles way) why in the earth rutherford scattering is caused by the sediment particle donating electrons. The coloumb scattering is the electron shield why the more direct collision the more the deflection (scattering?) What this means elements deflect but suppose in a beryllium crystal (dense forest) nothing in the alpha particles way allows you to beable to generate a fast moving neutron but are you using the same elements in the earth in your fuel rods bombarding beryllium surround said rods? I heard you could tap tritium with a hammer and it would release neutrons because its unstable but tritium in the earth is due to man not the uranium within the earth. In the earth the uranium, thorium etc.. that is decaying alpha particles that are turning into helium due to deflections of a very short distance aquiring an electron to become helium.Suspect your fuel rods have been manufactured to be a bit more unstable in respect to releasing an neutron not the stuff you find within the earth to be a bit like tritium to releasing neutrons when hit because if you used the stuff in the earth (if a gram of soil is so radioactive then why are you not using soil as a fuel rod) your numbers would not come up to 30 ppm due to coloumb scattering and are not applicable to whats happening in the earth. I doubt radon gas donates enough neutrons to be a factor though would not breathe it in ones lungs, etc... _____________________________________________________________________In physics, Rutherford scattering is a phenomenon that was explained by Ernest Rutherford in 1909[1], and led to the development of the orbital theory of the atom. It is now exploited by the materials analytical technique Rutherford backscattering. Rutherford scattering is also sometimes referred to as Coulomb scattering because it relies on static electric (Coulomb) forces. A similar process probed the insides of nuclei in the 1960s, called deep inelastic scattering.Rutherford scattering - Wikipedia

You heard wrong. Very, very wrong.

---

"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

I heard you could tap tritium with a hammer and it would release neutrons because its unstableYou heard wrong. Very, very wrong._________________________________________________________________THERMOFUSIONAttempts at "clean" fusion have been tried by scientists using particles at the same temperature so that clean fusion can not occur regardless of how high the temperature gets to be. Attempts to fuse hydrogen atoms to create inert helium have failed and not one single helium atom has ever been produced. This has been proven by the so called "clean" fusion device known as the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), when, in fact, military scientists detected little or no helium after detonation.Let me tell you something that not too many scientists know, and if they do they are not saying anything. Tritium will fragment mechanically. If you put a small amount of tritium salt on a hard surface and hit it with a hammer, it will fragment and will expel neutrons. Fortunately only a very few molecules will do this, because if a larger number of them did there would be a terrible explosion.The H-Bomb did not work on a "clean" thermofusion principle. It released its energy primarily to fragmentation, resulting in a "dirty," toxic, thermonuclear reaction, this observation is clear. The scientists involved with the testing detected enormous amounts of neutrons. It is a fact that when neutrons are absorbed they create radioactive elements. These results were never publicly published, along with the fact that there was extreme levels of neutrons generated.The Latest in Green Living and Sustainable Energy | NuEnergy

I agree its nonsense to date fossils by the sediment layer they are found instead of dating them by Radiocarbon dating. If the half life is @ 5,000 years and the labs buffer 50,000 years before testing the fossil no wonder when you send a sample it comes back older than 50,000 years. Thats where its created but Katheleen Hunt and her minions would have you believe C14 is being generated within the earth. If this were true then all your other dating methodologies would they too not be compromised?

I agree its nonsense to date fossils by the sediment layer they are found instead of dating them by Radiocarbon dating. If the half life is @ 5,000 years and the labs buffer 50,000 years before testing the fossil no wonder when you send a sample it comes back older than 50,000 years. Thats where its created but Katheleen Hunt and her minions would have you believe C14 is being generated within the earth. If this were true then all your other dating methodologies would they too not be compromised?Several issues here. I will take them one at a time:Fossils can't be dated by radiocarbon dating. The upper limit of that method is about 50,000 years. And it can be used only on materials that were once part of living organisms (charcoal, bone, shell, etc.). Rock is not datable by that method.Sediment layers are dated by index fossils, that is, specific fossils that occur only for short spans of time. Generally sedimentary layers can't be dated by other radiometric methods, but volcanic layers can be. So, you find sedimentary layers sandwiched between volcanic layers and you date those volcanic layers and you have a pretty good idea of the age of those particular index fossils. They can then be used to identify the age of that layer wherever it occurs. This is the equivalent of finding a layer with a bunch of the aluminum pop tabs that originally were on soda and beer cans. Those were widely distributed, but used only for a short time. They are an "index fossil" or a "time stratigraphic marker."I can't imagine what you mean by "the labs buffer 50,000 years before testing the fossil." That has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating. You have at least two, perhaps three, mistakes here.Small amounts of C14 are created in the earth. That is why you can date a lump of coal or a diamond, or perhaps a fossil, and get a date of 30, 40, or 50,000+ years. What you are reading is a background which has nothing to do with the age of the material. But, abusing science as they are forced to do, creationists make a big deal of these tiny residual background readings in an effort to promote a young earth. Its dishonest.Whatever happens to C14 is independent from other radiometric dating methods. Believe me, there is just nothing being done with fossils in the various radiocarbon laboratories unless folks are experimenting.You really should read up on this subject before you opine again. I have a lot of good links on another site, so please check them out: Radiocarbon links

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hmmm. Nuenergy must be where you heard it wrong, huh?That's bullshit of the first water. "This has been proven by the so called "clean" fusion device known as the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), when, in fact, military scientists detected little or no helium after detonation." is about as ludicrous as anything I've read all month - do you think "military scientists" at Eniwetok in the early 50's even had the means to detect a few grams of helium in a million-ton plume of evaporated atoll?

From a young earth perspective that makes the earth at least 13,000 years old. Trees created on day 3 meaning 10,000 years is spot on for those creationists not ignorant of akjv Peter 3:8. If the oldest tree would of dated 12000 years that would of not been spot on evidence supporting a young earth.

The tree ring calibration curve for radiocarbon dating goes back some 12,600 years. It is based on lining up the rings from standing dead Bristlecone Pines from the White Mountains of Southern California.Other methods take the calibration curve back some 25,000 years.Counting the annual rings in glaciers and lake or pond sediments takes you back a lot farther.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No actually they can not but they do and too me its quackery to ascribe an age to a fossil that has not actually been dated. Kent Hovind one of the greatest scientific minds of our time said this is circular dating meaning they actually did not date the fossil.Was not that the problem the Rate team boys had that Baumgardener brought to light how contamination is being buffered out for 50,000 years because in a mineralized fossil some C-14 is present that simply should not be present in a sediment layer thats supposed to be millions of years old.Andrew Snelling found a mineralized wood sample that had C-14 present found in a mine in Australia that should not of been present because the sediment layer it was sandwiched between was millions of years of age. If the mineralized fossil, coal, oil, etc... has C-14 present then its not millions of years old which is why Katheleen Hunt can only allude to but not offer proof likely because if C-14 could be created within the earth then all the other dating methods too are suspect meaning your indicator fossils sediment dates bogus too, etc...P.S. Trees can produce more than one annual ring per year so its never spot on, but interesting its thousands of years not millions of years. Creationists talk about leaching affecting not only C-14 but all the dating methodologies. Seems its the evolutionists that are not dealing with backround noise being due to leaching because that would raise questions on all of the dating methodologies. It has to be steady state and if C-14 backround noise is due to leaching or insitu C-14 then all the dating methodologies ages generated are suspect. It just seems its the evolutionists that are abusing science but Big Time !!!!!!!P.S. What is interesting about the russians yamal is that these samples were frozen and you don't seem affected by insitu C-14 generation. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.