Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

I enjoyed that too, but thought the tritium pollution in the water system is in agreement with Hydrogen not helium?

Kent Hovind has no training in science. From Wiki: Hovind is currently in prison on tax fraud and a number of related charges. He is due to be released in August, 2015.I would not trust anything Hovind said pertaining to science, and if we ever shook hands I would count my fingers as soon as I could get them loose. The RATE Project set out, with over a million dollars in creationists' money, to disprove the radioactive decay constant. They failed; their evidence showed that scientists were right all along. Of course, they didn't accept even their own data. An analysis of their report concludes:

Source

Snelling's claim is incorrect. Here is an analysis of the claim and what actually occurred. Another creationist fabrication. The trees used in tree ring dating are not your quick growing plantation trees. Also, tree rings have been cross-calibrated against historical volcanic activities, and the rings show the effects of these worldwide volcanic eruptions. This goes back many hundreds of years. The multiple rings are not a problem during that time span. See Bristlecone pine tree rings and volcanic eruptions over the last 5000 yr.As usual, when it comes to radiocarbon dating creationists have reached their conclusions first, and are scrambling to twist and manipulate the data to fit their needs. Those who know anything about C14 dating can see these fraudulent attempts a mile off. They're not even well done!

---

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

He still is spot on that indicator fossils have not been dated to suggest otherwise is not being truthful. First of all evolution is not science its a religion they always attack the young earthers beliefs but interestingly the fossil record is supporting that the fossils are young beliefs, that the fossil record when dated dates young! What fraudulent is to say you dated a sample when in fact you never dated the sample. Right? Its almost like the real scientists are the creationists because they don't sweep the evidence under the rug, which is what the evolutionists are doing by fudging out C-14 from the fossil before its dated. No one expects C-14 to be spot on except where the sample was frozen like in the Yamal penisula. The geologists saying the yamal peninsula only 10,000 years old is in agreement with the young earth senerio, etc... etc... etc...P.S. Your only evidence the fossil is old is someone told you an indicator fossil is old. Creationists want evidence you tell them someone told you so, don't you see how its the evolutionist twisting the data to fit their needs. Kent Hovind correctly called it circular dating or as you would say your twisting the data to fit your needs, etc...Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but you don't know enough to discuss radiocarbon with.Your learning seems to have come from creationist websites, which are full of fabrications. You seem to have swallowed their nonsense hook, line, and sinker.Have a pleasant evening.

---

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

No, Actually the truth not the untruth your trying to pawn off as truth. Like trees go thru your sediment layers evolutionists still hold these layers represent millions of years. Its nonsense,its time evolution should simply be replaced with Intelligent Design.P.S. The truth is more interesting than all the evolutionistic misrepsentations. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This is truly pathetic. John tries to pass hismelf off as some science-savy creationist, and then pulls a line like this revealing nothing but ignorance. The sad truth is John is being fed all his lines by the worst creationist websites, and he has not a single original (or correct) thought in his head. What a complete waste of time. John makes Beretta seem like a bastion of rationality. Bring back Ray...

If your (or anyone else's) comments don't have something to do with C14 dating, they are off-topic.Let's try to keep the random thoughts out of messages.Adminnemooseus

If you want to educate yourself about C-14 instead of spouting out nonsense check out what Kent Hovinds site actually has to say about C-14.I'm actually winging it not sure what all those folk actually believe cause like evolutionists creationists come in all flavors. I don't suscribe to your political correctness to attack the messengers when you seem incapable of attacking the message. You should educate yourself in the sciences not just the quantum stuff.P.S. Suspect if you debated Kent on C-14 he'd have you for lunch not that your not capable of learning and in so doing having an original thought thats your own on the subject, so you are not just spouting off!If science is not your thing then stay with the quantum stuff, etc...Enjoy,JF_________________________________________________________________http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79
The Problem of CarbonAuthor: William TrippEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I have looked at what this notorious liar and fraud says about a subject of which he is completely ignorant.He claims, amongst other things, that sunspots affect the decay rate.This is almost as amusing as your gibberish about polystrate fossils, and equally "educational".Education, you see, isn't just about learning what creationists say, it's about learning why it's complete crap. When you have done so, you may consider yourself educated on the subjects of which you so blithely discourse.

Um, you do realise that this whole topic around C14 *IS* "quantum stuff" And you're probably right - Kent would have me for lunch, for the simple reason that I would be uncontrollably ROTFLMAO and quite unable to speak

What do you mean by "spot on"? The accuracy of carbon dating decreases as the age of the object increases due to the decay of C14. But this does not mean that the dating is false. C14 has a half life of 5715 years. After 10 half lives there is only 1/1024 of the amount left, but there will still be some left only not enough to give an accurate dating, which is why it is only used to date recent (less than 50000 years) objects. Still given the decay of C14 one mole (14 grams) would take ~5000000 years to totally decay ~96 half lives.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

All that is done to prepare fuel rods is to refine the uranium to remove impurities.
There is nothing that we can do to any atom that will increase or decrease the chances of any specific decay path. In a fuel rod we just bring the atoms closer together so that the spontaneous fissions, that already happen in all uranium, are able to cause a chain reaction which results in many more neutrons being produced.From the replies that you are making to me, it appears to me that you seem to be thinking in terms of large volumes of stuff rather than in terms of 1 atom. It really doesn't make any difference how much stuff you bring together, the actual reactions are always 1 particle reacting with 1 atomic nucleus. Bring 'stuff' into closer proximity only serves to increase the likelihood of any 1 particle impacting any 1 nucleus. There is no inherent change in any properties associated with either the particle or the nucleus. Just more collisions so a greater rate of neutrons released/alphas produced.It really does not matter one tiny bit where the collision takes place. All atoms of Beryllium are identical and alpha particles are identical also. The only difference will be in the kinetic energy that they carry and I readily admit that this will be dissipated very rapidly in soil. I already showed you the math that calculates very roughly the amount of fission events per year that we get (from Uranium only) in a Kg of soil.
Actual atomic disintegrations far outweigh this and almost always involve the release of Alpha particles with sufficient energy to overcome the coulomb barrier of a Beryllium nucleus if they should happen to collide with one in the first millisecond of so of their lives.
There are literally hundreds of billions of atomic disintegrations in any given Kg of soil in any given year.
That might seem a lot but really it isn't in terms of radioactive sources. Alpha radiation is pretty much useless as a nuclear fuel and is only harmful to life forms if they ingest a very concentrated source. the 30ppm number is the same no matter where it is measured. It is nothing more than the probability of a successful collision between an alpha particle and a Beryllium nucleus, producing a fast neutron.
I totally agree that in the earth, the number of successful collisions will be tiny. And then the neutron would have to impact a nitrogen atom which again is a very small chance. But then we only need a one or two per year to keep a continuum of C14 Quite possibly not. Radon doesn't produce significant numbers of neutron directly but it does indeed decay via alpha radiation so it does add to the total number of alpha particles that are released into our Kg of soil.Remember all we need is to be able to produce a couple of atoms per year of C14 in our Kg of soil. They have a half life of 5700 years or so which means that the tiny amounts will eventually reach an equilibrium minimum C14 concentration that is proportional to the amount of radioactive particles in the soil.
This has been proven experimentally. I posted the abstract for the research paper earlier in this thread.Also remember that i have never really advocated a large conversion factor of alpha particles to C14. I always considered it a very minor, if not almost negligible source of in situ C14.Here is a list of potential candidates for the in-situ production of C14 again.

• Alpha particle --> Be neucleus --> neutron --> Nitrogen. Many many many billions of alphas are produced each year in 1 Kg of soil
• Spontaneous fission of any element heavier than Iron. This almost always directly releases a Neutron and several know fission pathways actually directly produce C14.
• Some high energy Gammas (product of many radioactive disintegrations and/or fissions) can induce a quasi stable isotope (radioactive but with very long half life) to fission and emit a neutron.
• A neutron from 1 fission event often impacts another nucleus (not necessarily an unstable one) and causes it to fission also, resulting in multiple new fast or thermal neutrons.

I already showed that in 1 Kg of soil containing a very conservatively estimated amount of Uranium (10ppm) there are approximately 6 billion fissions per year.
That's just Uranium. Any isotope above the mass of iron is able to fission spontaneously.With that many neutrons flying around do you really think that not a single one is going to hit a Nitrogen atom and make C14?
Remember we only need a few (2 or 3) per year to get a continuum value on our C14 dating.
Then there are the direct fissions of Uranium to C14. (Neutron not required)
This may not be a particularly common pathway but it does happen. In fact C14 production as a direct result of Uranium fission is one of the main reasons why nuclear fuel rods need to be replaced after a while. The C14 screws them up. It should be noted though that in the link you provided, only 1 in 8000 alpha particles came close enough to one of the atoms of gold in the foil, to actually be deflected by it. the rest went straight through with no loss of kinetic energy.
Gold has a very large nucleus and is packed pretty closely in metal foil. Soils is made up largely of low mass organics with a few metals here and there. much more loosely packed so I would consider Rutherford scattering to be a very unlikely candidate for much of anything in this context. {Most if not all of this topic seems to be pretty remote to the topic theme. Then again, perhaps the topic theme is pretty fuzzy. Please proceed with caution. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by PurpleYouko, : Spelling mistake correctedEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and following note.

Oh, I have been there, and to most of the other creationist sites. I have seen what they say about radiocarbon dating. Its a mixture of lies, half truths, and obfuscation.Like these "questions" from Kent Hovind:

Wrong on both counts! The first is too silly to even bother with. The second--he's behind the times. De Vries way back in 1958 published a paper showing that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere varies! Scientists have worked out a calibration curve to account for that variation, which is not very large anyway.Another bit of absolute nonsense from Kent:

This might have been true in the early 1960s, as the atomic bomb tests increased the levels of C14 considerably. But Kent wrote this in the past few years and atmospheric levels of C14 have been dropping since the atmospheric bomb test were halted in 1963. So he's wrong yet again! And his "proof" of a young earth is similarly wrong! (Here's a good reference for atmospheric levels of C14.)Bring him on! I'll have to wait until he gets out of jail. But maybe he could use his jail time to actually study the field, as he has not done to date. Maybe he could get some actual degrees, not those diploma mill fakes.Some of us here have actually studied the field. I have submitted nearly 600 samples in my work, and have studied the subject pretty intensely for over 30 years.When it comes to radiocarbon dating you are at a severe disadvantage because you take the fraudulent statements from those creationist websites as true. You don't know the difference, so you have to rely on them. That's a big mistake.

---

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

In marine fossils the concentration of C14 makes seals old even while they are living. Carbon dated fossils that have been diluted always date older too, why coal dates around 30,000 years is C-14 has been leached out of the wood that became coal. In the Yamal peninsula the wood was frozen and by being spot on (tree ring correlation) shows that insitu C-14 from backround radiation is a non factor and backround noise radiation from C-14 in carbon fossils that date older appears is being caused from leaching of C-14 from the fossil. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This is known as the reservoir effect. It can be identified and controlled for by C13 and N15 stable isotope analyses and calibration. Often 30,000 years was the upper limit of the equipment that was being used. That is why natural gas and coal and other materials in the past were dated something like >33,000 BP. Creationists missed the ">" symbol, or didn't know what it meant, and naturally arrived at the wrong conclusion. This shows a total lack of understanding of the radiocarbon method. It is not even worth correcting you on it as I have work to do.

---

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