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

[Lordkalvan]

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

Well, the best hypotheses we have are that such C14 is the result of contamination, of background readings (depending on the dating methodology used), in situ production as nitrogen inclusions generate C14, or 'cluster decay; (see Paulos' post).

How long does C14 last? 55K years?

The half-life of C14 is something over 5000 years. Current measuring technology is limited to around five or six half-lives, I think. I don't know what the actual point is at which we could say it would be quite impossible to measure any C14 residue.

Inside the diamond?

Naturally occurring diamonds are a mixture of C12 and C13 isotopes.

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, the best hypotheses we have are that such C14 is the result of contamination, of background readings (depending on the dating methodology used), in situ production as nitrogen inclusions generate C14, or 'cluster decay; (see Paulos' post).

That's the best hypothesis? And it's only a hypothesis, so no one knows for certain?

The half-life of C14 is something over 5000 years. Current measuring technology is limited to around five or six half-lives, I think. I don't know what the actual point is at which we could say it would be quite impossible to measure any C14 residue.

How old are these diamonds?

Naturally occurring diamonds are a mixture of C12 and C13 isotopes.

And?

 

[Stripe]

Form what I can understand, Frayed's objection to the challenge is possibly a valid response and it definitely makes sense, but without more information on the numbers involved its impossible to tell whether it is valid in fact.

 

[Lordkalvan]

That's the best hypothesis? And it's only a hypothesis, so no one knows for certain?

It's four hypotheses and all have evidence to support them: the alleged presence of C14 in diamonds could have multiple causes. We know for certain that C14 in diamonds does not reflect the actual age of diamonds because we have dating metrics in which we have great confidence that tell us they are very much more older than we can date with C14.

How old are these diamonds?

Hundreds of millions of years.

And?

From Paulos' post above:

'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.'

 

[Lighthouse]

It's four hypotheses and all have evidence to support them: the alleged presence of C14 in diamonds could have multiple causes. We know for certain that C14 in diamonds does not reflect the actual age of diamonds because we have dating metrics in which we have great confidence that tell us they are very much more older than we can date with C14.

Paying attention in science class doesn't excuse you for not paying attention in English class.:nono:

Hundreds of millions of years.

How do you know this?

From Paulos' post above:

'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.'

So?

Why does that matter?

 

[gcthomas]

Why does that matter?

I would suggest that if you can't understand the significance of that statement, then you should refrain from holding a strong position on the subject until you know more of the basic principles.

 

[Lighthouse]

I would suggest that if you can't understand the significance of that statement, then you should refrain from holding a strong position on the subject until you know more of the basic principles.

I trust the Creator over the created. Get over it.

Also, are you trying to tell me radiation leaks into diamonds and turns the C¹² into C¹⁴?

 

[fool]

I trust the Creator over the created. Get over it.

But the "Creator" hasn't weighed in on the topic.
All you have is the "Creation", why wouldn't you take it at face value?

Also, are you trying to tell me radiation leaks into diamonds and turns the C¹² into C¹⁴?

I believe it turns the Nitrogen into C-14.
And "leaked" isn't really a good term for it, it kind of implies that the diamond is like a bottle or something. Radiation radiates. It goes thru stuff. Unless it hits something that stops it.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Paying attention in science class doesn't excuse you for not paying attention in English class.:nono:

Musta slept through that five minute session.

How do you know this?

RM dating.

So?

So C14 dates associated with diamonds, if valid, do not reflect the age of the diamonds themselves. Just like you don't date a lake by the age of the fish in it.

Why does that matter?

Diamonds are made, in part, from C12. Uranium/thorium decay can irradiate C12 to produce C14. Thus, C14 in diamonds, if actually present, does not reflect the actual age of the diamonds.

 

[Lordkalvan]

I trust the Creator over the created. Get over it.

I don't think the hypothesized creator says anything at all about the age of diamonds or the accuracy of RM dating.

Also, are you trying to tell me radiation leaks into diamonds and turns the C¹² into C¹⁴?

What, you've never had an X-ray? Did you think the radiation was leaking into you through your pores and bodily orifices?

 

[fool]

Musta slept through that five minute session.

RM dating.

So C14 dates associated with diamonds, if valid, do not reflect the age of the diamonds themselves. Just like you dam't date a lake by the age of the fish in it.

Diamonds are made, in part, from C12. Uranium/thorium decay can irradiate C12 to produce C14. Thus, C14 in diamonds, if actually present, does not reflect the actual age of the diamonds.

It's not the nitrogen?
I thought The Barbarian said it was the Nitrogen.

 

[Lordkalvan]

It's not the nitrogen?
I thought The Barbarian said it was the Nitrogen.

Yep, these phenomena are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Paulos]

Originally Posted by Jefferson
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

Here are a couple of other reasons why ¹⁴C is found in coal:

• Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
• Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.

Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20090131074436/http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

 

[Paulos]

How old are these diamonds?

Hundreds of millions of years.

How do you know this?

The way they date diamonds is typically looking at inclusions of other minerals in the diamond that can be radioactively dated. The diamonds themselves can't be dated. But if the mineral inclusions contain certain elements like potassium and things that can be used in a radioactive dating scheme, then by dating the inclusion in the diamond you get some sense of the age of the diamond itself. And those dates always suggest the diamonds are quite old. At least hundreds of millions of years old, but in most cases billions of years old, anywhere from one to three billion years old, a time when the earth was probably hotter than it is today and so conditions were perhaps more appropriate for diamond growth.​

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070912...g.com/issues/2006/december/diamond.php?page=2

 

[Frayed Knot]

It's not the nitrogen?
I thought The Barbarian said it was the Nitrogen.

We know that nitrogen can absorb cosmic rays and get converted from N14 to C14. That's the source of C14 in the atmosphere. We also know that diamonds have nitrogen in them, and that's been suggested as a possible source of C14 in diamonds. But would a cosmic ray be able to get to a diamond underground? I had the impression that cosmic rays couldn't penetrate underground, but I could be mistaken.

Paulos has mentioned another source, where a C12 atom could get converted to a C14. I couldn't find the original reference for this claim - we know that uranium can decay and produce a C12, but that would be starting with uranium. I didn't see it explained how radiation could change a C12 to a C14, maybe I overlooked it.

But either way, if a C14 is made inside a diamond, its life is pretty darn short compared to the age of the diamonds, so even if it had happened many times in a diamond's history, any C14 atoms that had been created more than a few thousand years ago would have decayed already.

What this all means is that we should expect a diamond to have extremely little C14 in it. It's so close to zero that we can use it as a calibration standard, being close enough to zero that any C14 that we measure can probably be safely assumed to be a product of contamination in the measurement.

My opinion is that we science types shouldn't even engage in a discussion about how C14 could occur in very old diamonds. It's not significant, end of story. The C14 that gets measured in a diamond is perfectly explained by contamination creeping into the measurement.

 

[The Barbarian]

One doesn't need cosmic rays to make C-14 from nitrogen. Any source releasing neutrons at that energy will do.

 

[Stripe]

My opinion is that we science types shouldn't even engage in a discussion about how C14 could occur in very old diamonds. It's not significant, end of story. The C14 that gets measured in a diamond is perfectly explained by contamination creeping into the measurement.

Well, no. That's not very scientific. If your analysis is correct then the measurements we find should be well below the threshold you speak of. We've not seen any numbers to back up your assertion that the findings are irrelevant.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Well, no. That's not very scientific. If your analysis is correct then the measurements we find should be well below the threshold you speak of. We've not seen any numbers to back up your assertion that the findings are irrelevant.

Wait, you're losing sight of the real issue here. Let's recap:

• Bob Enyart's claim was that C14 was found in diamonds which are supposed to be millions of years old, therefore the diamonds can't be that old, and this supports a young Earth model.
• We sciencey-types pointed out that the C14 measured was at such a low level that it could be due to either measurement contamination, or possibly even some C14 inside the diamond that results from radioactivity in the Earth. This whole thing about measuring a diamond was to demonstrate the sensitivity that we can attain in measuring C14, because that will tell us the oldest dates that we can reliably use it for.
• Some discussions ensued about processes that could produce C14 inside a diamond.
• I pointed out that, while these side discussions could be interesting to a curious person, they're not relevant to the carbon dating question.

The fact is that whether the C14 was actually inside the diamond, or a result of the measurement process, we can test a sample of material and have its contamination (which is measurement error) be below some extremely small amount, and this small amount corresponds to a date of 65,000 years old or thereabouts. What that tells us is that we can have good confidence in carbon dating out to about 50,000 years, somewhat less confidence from there to about 60,000 years, and anything that has such a small amount of C14 that its date comes out to be older than that, the technique is not really valid for.

What you're asking for now is an accounting for this very small amount of residual C14, telling you whether it came from within the diamond or was measurement contamination, or you won't accept C14 dating. It doesn't matter!

And there is no way to find out! With our current abilities, all we can say is that we can measure 'X' amount of C14, and X is extremely small. How can we detect the C14 that would be inside a diamond if it's less than X (which I suspect it is)? We can't - our measurement techniques aren't there yet. But that doesn't matter, because X is plenty low enough that C14 dating is accurate as long as the answer it gives is less than 50,000 years. That's what the whole exercise of dating the diamonds was for!

Can you see the point here? You're saying that you don't trust the technique because we can't measure something that is beyond our limits of measurement accuracy. But there will always be some value that's below the threshold of measurement. Are you saying that you will never trust a measurement that has any uncertainty at all? There are no other kind.

 

[Stripe]

Wait, you're losing sight of the real issue here.

Nope. I think I've summarised your objection pretty well. All I asked for was a couple of numbers.

Bob Enyart's claim was that C14 was found in diamonds which are supposed to be millions of years old, therefore the diamonds can't be that old, and this supports a young Earth model.

Mmm-hmm.

We sciencey-types pointed out that the C14 measured was at such a low level

What level?

This whole thing about measuring a diamond was to demonstrate the sensitivity that we can attain in measuring C14, because that will tell us the oldest dates that we can reliably use it for.

And you could only do that by assuming any 14C was non-original.

The fact is that whether the C14 was actually inside the diamond, or a result of the measurement process, we can test a sample of material and have its contamination (which is measurement error) be below some extremely small amount, and this small amount corresponds to a date of 65,000 years old or thereabouts. What that tells us is that we can have good confidence in carbon dating out to about 50,000 years, somewhat less confidence from there to about 60,000 years, and anything that has such a small amount of C14 that its date comes out to be older than that, the technique is not really valid for.

The study involved suggests otherwise:

A recent paper by Taylor and Southon, Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds, confirms the results that the RATE group discovered in testing diamonds for C14. According to the paper, AMS systems should in theory be capable of detecting apparent ages of up to 100,000 years.​

-source.​

What you're asking for now is an accounting for this very small amount of residual C14, telling you whether it came from within the diamond or was measurement contamination, or you won't accept C14 dating. It doesn't matter!

Nope. I'm asking for the numbers surrounding the accuracy of the measurement device and the 14C actually detected. That will tell us if your objection applies.

And there is no way to find out!

Sure, there is. Have you $US36?

With our current abilities, all we can say is that we can measure 'X' amount of C14, and X is extremely small.

Yup. What number is that?

How can we detect the C14 that would be inside a diamond if it's less than X (which I suspect it is)?

Measure what? :AMR:

But that doesn't matter, because X is plenty low enough that C14 dating is accurate as long as the answer it gives is less than 50,000 years. That's what the whole exercise of dating the diamonds was for!

Only if you've assumed the absence of original 14C.

Can you see the point here?

I summed up your objection a few posts above. Was I representative of it?

You're saying that you don't trust the technique because we can't measure something that is beyond our limits of measurement accuracy.But there will always be some value that's below the threshold of measurement. Are you saying that you will never trust a measurement that has any uncertainty at all? There are no other kind.

The study says it wasn't beyond the limits. That's why I asked for the numbers. If it were beyond the limits, your objection would stand. But it looks like it isn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

The bottom line for Stipe is that even if there was more C-14 than might be reasonably expected from contamination (and there apparently isn't), there's still a natural source of recent C-14 within the diamonds (and the surrounding rock).

Rock and a hard place, so to speak.