Real Science Radio's 2013 List of Not So Old Things Pt 3

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
This one depends on the argument that erosion could never exceed deposition in the area of the Grand Canyon. No one seems to have offered a reason for that assumption, however, and so we'll have to cross that one off as well.

No, it depends on the argument that 100 million years of erosion would have left some trace

If the net effect of erosion/deposition was to erosion during that time, you'd see exactly what you see in the rocks. C'mon.

instead of layers supposedly 100 million years apart being deposited with no evidence of erosion between them.

But there is. In many layers. Want to see some of it?

A nonconformity might mean a lot, or not much. For instance, the spectacular nonconformity at Red Rocks Park, in Colorado, represents a gap of 1400 million years. There a body of gneiss 1700 million years old is overlain by conglomerate, made of sediment eroded from that gneiss, that is 300 million years old. We have almost no idea of what happened in the eons between.
http://geology.about.com/od/geoprocesses/a/unconformities.htm

Surprise.

No evolutionist seems to have offered an acceptable explanation for the absence of erosion patterns between layers, so we will just have to keep that one.

Well, show me some of that uncomformity with no erosion effects. Checkable sources only.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If the net effect of erosion/deposition was to erosion during that time, you'd see exactly what you see in the rocks. C'mon.

But there is. In all layers. Want to see some of it?

Well, show me some of that strata with no erosion effects. Checkable sources only.

You act as if you didn't understand my statements.

Read them again.

Meanwhile, here are some pictures for the people that did understand.

 

[Lighthouse]

Why not? For example, naturally occurring diamonds are not usually pure carbon and are often contaminated with nitrogen. If radioactive material is within the same strata as the diamonds, this could trigger C14 generation from the nitrogen just like it occurs atmospherically.

So you're saying this will leave C14 inside the diamond?

 

[Lordkalvan]

So you're saying this will leave C14 inside the diamond?

I'm saying it's a possible explanation. We can't just measure C14 traces in diamonds and immediately conclude that either diamonds are younger than supposed (the C14 originated at the same time as the diamonds were formed) or that carbon-dating is unreliable (diamonds are either younger or older than the C14 data indicates). Interestingly, at least two of the three possibilities themselves invalidate YEC chronologies anyway.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Objections (technical) and answers
The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).

The Professor uses the well-established diversionary technique of refuting an argument that wasn't made: sample contamination =/= background radiation.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/4129/3554

 

[gcthomas]

No, it depends on the argument that 100 million years of erosion would have left some trace instead of layers supposedly 100 million years apart being deposited with no evidence of erosion between them.

No evolutionist seems to have offered an acceptable explanation for the absence of erosion patterns between layers, so we will just have to keep that one.

As Barbarian says, show us some of those images of the unconformities and disconformities with large 'missing years' that are absolutely smooth with no erosion.

You claim it, so show it.

 

[The Barbarian]

You act as if you didn't understand my statements.

I understand them. You just don't understand what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, here are some pictures for the people that did understand.

(GO presents cracks in dried mud and wind ripples in dunes as examples of erosion)

 

[Frayed Knot]

Objections (technical) and answers
The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).

Yes, I agree that is a stupid objection. That's why no one has actually used it. What I mentioned was contamination during sample preparation and measurement.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, I agree that is a stupid objection. That's why no one has actually used it. What I mentioned was contamination during sample preparation and measurement.

You mean in the detector?

 

[Stripe]

You claim it, so show it.

Feel free to listen to the show. :up:

 

[Lordkalvan]

You mean in the detector?

On what basis does the Professor imagine that 'during sample preparation and measurement' means 'in the detector'?

 

[Lordkalvan]

Feel free to listen to the show. :up:

Why does the Professor think we should? From what little we have seen here, it appears to be tosh.

 

[Frayed Knot]

You mean in the detector?

Well, possibly in the mass spectrometer, and possibly, as I mentioned, in the sample preparation. You know - they can't just take a diamond and stick it in the MS. Wikipedia describes it thus:

"Samples are prepared by completely burning the sample, collecting the resulting carbon dioxide, and reducing it to a solid carbon target for sputtering atomic carbon ions into the mass spectrometer."

There's opportunity there for tiny amounts of carbon atoms that didn't come from the diamond, to creep into the measurement, even with the most careful preparation.

The limit of how clean that process can be, determines the maximum age that you can use C14 to date. Currently the best labs can do it so well that the small error corresponds to a date of 65,000 to 80,000 years old. So if your unknown sample yields a date that's significantly younger, that should be pretty accurate. If C14 dating says your sample is 60,000 years old, there will be a fairly wide margin of uncertainty there.

 

[Lighthouse]

Interestingly, at least two of the three possibilities themselves invalidate YEC chronologies anyway.

How so?

Also, if the C14 got inside the diamond as it was forming, and is currently present, then the diamond is not as old as thought, since the half life of C14 is quite low.

Thank you for invalidating your own argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

Also, if the C14 got inside the diamond as it was forming, and is currently present, then the diamond is not as old as thought, since the half life of C14 is quite low.

Thank you for invalidating your own argument.

Read some of the posts. The evidence is that C-14 is produced in diamonds by ionizing radiation (found in diamond deposits) converting nitrogen to C-14 (nitrogen is a common inclusion in diamonds).

 

[Lordkalvan]

How so?

I offered three 'explanations' following on from the assumption that the detection of C14 in diamonds is valid data:

1. The C14 originated at the same time as the diamonds were
formed (c. 55 KYO).

2. The diamonds are younger than the C14 data indicates (<55 KYO).

3. The diamonds are older than the C14 date indicates (>55 KYO).

Only one of these 'explanations' looks as if it can support a YEC chronology based on a 6 KYO Earth.

Also, if the C14 got inside the diamond as it was forming, and is currently present, then the diamond is not as old as thought, since the half life of C14 is quite low.

There is no substantive evidence that this is so, however, and, as several posters have pointed out, substantive evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for invalidating your own argument.

Well, as my argument - and the evidence - is that C14 did not get inside the diamond as it was forming, I don't really get your point here.

 

[Paulos]

...if the C14 got inside the diamond as it was forming, and is currently present, then the diamond is not as old as thought, since the half life of C14 is quite low.

A favorite tactic of Young-Earthers is to cite studies which show trace amounts of ¹⁴C in coal or diamond samples, which - being millions of years old - should have no original atmospheric ¹⁴C left. Recent studies, however, show that ¹⁴C can be created underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create ¹⁴C from ¹²C. Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.) This fact is extremely inconvenient and is therefore usually omitted in creationist literature.​

Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

 

[Stripe]

Currently the best labs can do it so well that the small error corresponds to a date of 65,000 to 80,000 years old. So if your unknown sample yields a date that's significantly younger, that should be pretty accurate. If C14 dating says your sample is 60,000 years old, there will be a fairly wide margin of uncertainty there.

Oh, right. I remember this discussion now.

 

[Lighthouse]

I offered three 'explanations' following on from the assumption that the detection of C14 in diamonds is valid data:

1. The C14 originated at the same time as the diamonds were
formed (c. 55 KYO).

2. The diamonds are younger than the C14 data indicates (<55 KYO).

3. The diamonds are older than the C14 date indicates (>55 KYO).

Only one of these 'explanations' looks as if it can support a YEC chronology based on a 6 KYO Earth.

There is no substantive evidence that this is so, however, and, as several posters have pointed out, substantive evidence to the contrary.

Well, as my argument - and the evidence - is that C14 did not get inside the diamond as it was forming, I don't really get your point here.

If C14 were found inside a diamond what would that mean?

How long does C14 last? 55K years?

A favorite tactic of Young-Earthers is to cite studies which show trace amounts of ¹⁴C in coal or diamond samples, which - being millions of years old - should have no original atmospheric ¹⁴C left. Recent studies, however, show that ¹⁴C can be created underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create ¹⁴C from ¹²C. Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.) This fact is extremely inconvenient and is therefore usually omitted in creationist literature.​

Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Inside the diamond?

 

[Paulos]

C14 decays in only thousands of years and therefore cannot last for millions. Thus evolutionists did not expect to find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old. Carbon-14 is found in...coal...

¹⁴C found in coal deposits is produced anew by:

• the radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks. The uranium-thorium isotope series is found in different amounts in different rocks which accounts for the variation in the amounts of ¹⁴C in different coals.
• microorganisms and fungi (previously) and currently living and dying in coal beds.
• carbon-14 entering into coal deposits through contamination from the atmosphere, especially when the coal is being minded and exposed to the air.

Source: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Carbon-14_in_Coal_Deposits_indicates_a_young_earth