I want to know how we got onto the subject of legalized drugs. I think I missed something.
Real Science Friday with a University of Cal Prof. of Ophthalmology
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Frayed Knot
New member
After ten half-lives (57,000 years), there will only be about 1/1000 of the original C14 left. The best we can measure in the lab gives us an expected error of about 1/1000 of the C14 that's present in alive or recently dead organisms.
The error is about 0.1% of the "fresh" C14. For a samle that's 10,000 years old, there should be about 29.6% of the original C14.
Therefore if your measurement uncertainty is 0.1%, that would be a range of 29.5% to 29.7%, which translates to somewhere between 10,039 years to 9,983 years old.
It's only when you get into a few tens of thousands of years old does the contamination become significant to the dates.
And how do we rule out the possibility of contamination like the contamination you're proposing for diamonds?
Junius Gallio
New member
1. Knowledge of the medium it was found in.
2. Proper procedure.
3. Proper callibration.
A good lab with proper procedures will already be aware of what level of contamination their procedures add to the process. They recalibrate the machines regularly.
radd76
New member
1% N... I doubt it.
1% N... I doubt it.
Where did you get this 1% N statistic? Please don't tell me Wikipedia.
From the AWDC: (I would cite the exact page but I have to have 5 posts before I can... lol)
"Type Ia: This is the most common class of natural diamonds, including up to 98 percent of all stones. They contain up to 0.3 percent nitrogen, with the nitrogen atoms clustered in aggregates within the carbon lattice. Such diamonds absorb blue light, and, depending on the concentration of nitrogen containing defects, will display a pale or more intense yellow color."
"up to" would mean AT MOST. Using other sources (which I can't list just yet - 5 post minimum) I have found .2% to be an accurate mean.
Type Ib and IIb (only .1% of natural diamonds are this type respectively). extremely rare
Type IIa (remainder are this type). rare
The accuracy of your theory just decreased by 70-80%. I still think you are in much better standing than the theory of evolution so take pride in this.
1% N... I doubt it.
Where did you get this 1% N statistic? Please don't tell me Wikipedia.
From the AWDC: (I would cite the exact page but I have to have 5 posts before I can... lol)
"Type Ia: This is the most common class of natural diamonds, including up to 98 percent of all stones. They contain up to 0.3 percent nitrogen, with the nitrogen atoms clustered in aggregates within the carbon lattice. Such diamonds absorb blue light, and, depending on the concentration of nitrogen containing defects, will display a pale or more intense yellow color."
"up to" would mean AT MOST. Using other sources (which I can't list just yet - 5 post minimum) I have found .2% to be an accurate mean.
Type Ib and IIb (only .1% of natural diamonds are this type respectively). extremely rare
Type IIa (remainder are this type). rare
The accuracy of your theory just decreased by 70-80%. I still think you are in much better standing than the theory of evolution so take pride in this.
Junius Gallio
New member
Your information is for jewelry-class diamonds.
ETA: Excuse me, the above statement is incorrect.
ETA: Excuse me, the above statement is incorrect.
Last edited:
radd76
New member
A Horse is a horse... of course, of course:
A Horse is a horse... of course, of course:
Of course it does. Kinda hard to have an initial feature don't you think. I mean you just said "always modifies" lol. So what mechanism pre-dates evolution... hmmm.
A Horse is a horse... of course, of course:
Of course it does. Kinda hard to have an initial feature don't you think. I mean you just said "always modifies" lol. So what mechanism pre-dates evolution... hmmm.
We're not talking about procedural contamination.
Junius Gallio
New member
Steps 1 and 3 specifically address in situ contamination, as well as procedural contamination.
Barbarian observes:
Of course. Evolution always modifies something already in use.
Right. Every time we see some new feature evolve in an organism, it's modification of something else. Can you show us an exception?
Evolutionary theory isn't about how life started. It just assumes it did, and describes how it changes over time. Darwin just assumed God created the first organisms.
Darwin supposed it was God, without saying how. But now, scientists are beginning to see evidence for abiogenesis. God was right when He said the earth brought forth living things.
Of course. Evolution always modifies something already in use.
Right. Every time we see some new feature evolve in an organism, it's modification of something else. Can you show us an exception?
Evolutionary theory isn't about how life started. It just assumes it did, and describes how it changes over time. Darwin just assumed God created the first organisms.
Darwin supposed it was God, without saying how. But now, scientists are beginning to see evidence for abiogenesis. God was right when He said the earth brought forth living things.
Phys. Rev. 115, 857–863 (1959)
Nitrogen, A Major Impurity in Common Type I Diamond
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v115/i4/p857_1
Of course, much, much lower levels would still produce some C-14 from nitrogen. And it's an important clue that the amount found is always close to levels found in contamination.
What YE creationists don't get, is that such tiny amounts of C-14 if there from atmospheric sources, would then mean that their assumptions about a young Earth are invalidated. AIG admits:
All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. (basically as old as the machine could measure)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds
I suppose that the next excuse will be "Yes, but the production of C-14 was much greater in those days." That has its own problems for YE. Can anyone guess what that would be?
Frayed says that contamination is only significant for items that are in fact under 50,000 years old.
I'm wondering how he knows there was no in situ contamination of the type that he reckons affected the diamonds.
Junius Gallio
New member
That's easy--diamonds that have been affected by ionizing radiation past a certain limit turn green.
Junius Gallio
New member
Wood carvings and mummies affected by radioactivity will have far greater effects than conversion of nitrogen to C14.
Like what? :idunno:
Junius Gallio
New member
In the first place, they'll be detectably radioactive.
:AMR: Isn't that a prerequisite for radiocarbon dating?
Junius Gallio
New member
Different scenario entirely. In carbon dating, you're dealing with a very specific ratio between C12 and C14. With radioactive contamination. you're dealing with much higher levels of radioactivity.
Organic material with normal levels of C14 will not be detectable on even the most sensitive Geiger counter. Radioactive contamination will be quite detectable.