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

[Lighthouse]

RM dating.

How accurate is that?

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

Age of the Earth.:dunce::duh:

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

Lay it out for me... if you're so smart you know how it works...

 

[Lordkalvan]

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.

The Professor needs to hold onto his previous little doubt at all costs.

 

[Lordkalvan]

How accurate is that?

Depends on which of the 40-some different metrics you are asking about. RM dates are typically published with standard deviation error bars, which give you some indication of their precision.

Age of the Earth.:dunce::duh:

Really? Where? And what age do you allege he says?

Lay it out for me... if you're so smart you know how it works...

X-rays are electromagnetic radiation, like light, but they have a much higher energy than light and a shorter wavelength. X-ray machines produce X-ray photons which, because of their high energy and short wavelengths can penetrate matter. The denser the matter, the less effective the x-rays are at penetrating that matter. So x-rays pass through the soft tissue which cannot absorb the high energy relatively easily, but are absorbed by the denser material of bone.

This is a very simple explanation, but you can find more detailed introductory material here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray

I hope this helps and isn't too smartified for you.

 

[Frayed Knot]

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.

OK, those are good questions. The paper itself is not available without shelling out $40, but the conclusions that are described in the abstract are not the same conclusions that the baraminology site reaches. They take the published information and then infer their own conclusions from it. I think I'll email the author and get his take on their conclusions.

 

[Lordkalvan]

OK, those are good questions. The paper itself is not available without shelling out $40, but the conclusions that are described in the abstract are not the same conclusions that the baraminology site reaches. They take the published information and then infer their own conclusions from it. I think I'll email the author and get his take on their conclusions.

Kirk Bertsche references the Taylor and Southon paper here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

He also quotes their conclusion that the observed results IRO of diamond C14 was instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory.

 

[Stripe]

OK, those are good questions. The paper itself is not available without shelling out $40, but the conclusions that are described in the abstract are not the same conclusions that the baraminology site reaches. They take the published information and then infer their own conclusions from it. I think I'll email the author and get his take on their conclusions.

Well, t'be fair, the RATE group did the work themselves first. The difference in conclusion doesn't make an argument one way or the other.

 

[The Barbarian]

A good debunking of the RATE story can be read here:

Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 20

American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)--an umbrella organization of Christians in many different areas of the sciences. Most of the members hold an old-Earth view, though membership is open to anyone supporting their positional statement. This website has numerous resources on theology and Bible-science issues.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Well, t'be fair, the RATE group did the work themselves first. The difference in conclusion doesn't make an argument one way or the other.

So what argument one way or the other does the Professor prefer to support which (or some other) conclusion and why?

 

[Lighthouse]

Depends on which of the 40-some different metrics you are asking about. RM dates are typically published with standard deviation error bars, which give you some indication of their precision.

And the average?

Really? Where? And what age do you allege he says?

Throughout His word, from the account of creation to the birth of Christ; the ages are given, in genealogies, to show how old each person was when certain children were born. Do the math.

X-rays are electromagnetic radiation, like light, but they have a much higher energy than light and a shorter wavelength. X-ray machines produce X-ray photons which, because of their high energy and short wavelengths can penetrate matter. The denser the matter, the less effective the x-rays are at penetrating that matter. So x-rays pass through the soft tissue which cannot absorb the high energy relatively easily, but are absorbed by the denser material of bone.

So diamonds absorb the radiation, but it cannot pass through them?

However, at a higher wavelength, it can, like light [which obviously can pass through diamonds]?

This is a very simple explanation, but you can find more detailed introductory material here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray

I hope this helps and isn't too smartified for you.

I didn't ask for Wikipedia.

 

[gcthomas]

And the average?


Throughout His word, from the account of creation to the birth of Christ; the ages are given, in genealogies, to show how old each person was when certain children were born. Do the math.


So diamonds absorb the radiation, but it cannot pass through them?

However, at a higher wavelength, it can, like light [which obviously can pass through diamonds]?


I didn't ask for Wikipedia.

Diamonds have been tested because the researchers know there will be no C-14 of atmospheric origin in them. The non-zero measurements of C-14 are used to provide the lower limit on reliable detection, and hence the upper limit of carbon dating. That there is C-14 in diamonds is no shock to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

Where does the C-14 come from? It can't be the atmosphere (as is the case for wood and cotton, for example) for obvious reasons. Rocks have elements such as uranium and thorium, which can spontaneously fission into lighter elements. These lighter elements don't need all the neutrons from the heavy atom's nucleus, so some are ejected at high speed.

Neutrons can easily penetrate into diamonds at 5 - 20% the speed of light. They have no electrical charge so they will not interact with the orbiting electrons, instead occasionally being absorbed by the atomic nuclei of C-13 (making C-14) or N-14 (making C-14 plus a proton).

In both of these cases, the C-14 is not present when the diamond formed and it will be measured by a mass spectrometer. Carbon dating can only be used when you have a known C-14 uptake ratio from the atmosphere, which stops at a specific date (say, when a tree is felled and stops taking in atmospheric CO2), and comparing it to the carbon ratios in recently felled examples from the same region.

There is no measurement of C-14 in recently formed diamonds to compare the levels with, they only absorb atmospheric C-14 by sample contamination, and the low rates measured may be due to measurement uncertainties.

So you CANNOT CARBON DATE DIAMONDS!

To give a carbon date for diamonds is to say you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Lordkalvan]

And the average?

And this would be a significant figure in what sense, given that RM dating metrics run the gamut from hundreds to billions of years, depending on the particular methodology used?

Throughout His word, from the account of creation to the birth of Christ; the ages are given, in genealogies, to show how old each person was when certain children were born. Do the math.

Do the math on the Sumerian King Lists, tell me what figure you get and then explain what relevance either has for the age of Earth.

So diamonds absorb the radiation, but it cannot pass through them?

I have no idea what point you are struggling towards. Whether it passes through or not isn't important, what is important is what impact it has on nitrogen or carbon 12 within the diamond.

However, at a higher wavelength, it can, like light [which obviously can pass through diamonds?

I don't understand your point. Can you explain it?

I didn't ask for Wikipedia.

So what did you ask for and why do you find the Wiki article an unsatisfactory introduction to the subject?

 

[Stripe]

Diamonds have been tested because the researchers assumed there will be no C-14 of atmospheric origin in them

Fixed that for you. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

Fixed that for you. :up:

So no comments on all the science then? Too hard?

 

[Lordkalvan]

So no comments on all the science then? Too hard?

The Professor seems to be unable to assimilate the idea that C14 in diamonds is of more recent origin than the diamonds themselves.

 

[Stripe]

So no comments on all the science then? Too hard?

You could read the thread. Find out where the conversation is at. Contribute something that hasn't already been covered. Join in without the attitude that what you say should be the end of the story. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

Unless you can show that C-14 doesn't form from nitrogen and ionizing radiation, you're done.

 

[Lordkalvan]

You could read the thread. Find out where the conversation is at. Contribute something that hasn't already been covered. Join in without the attitude that what you say should be the end of the story. :up:

Well, until the Professor or someone else offers some reasoned argument IRO the points made, it rather looks as if it is 'the end of the story', doesn't it?

 

[Lordkalvan]

Unless you can show that C-14 doesn't form from nitrogen and ionizing radiation, you're done.

Buttered both sides as well.

 

[gcthomas]

You could read the thread. Find out where the conversation is at. Contribute something that hasn't already been covered. Join in without the attitude that what you say should be the end of the story. :up:

Are you claiming to have managed to ignore ALL the possible arguments, or do you want us to suggest some MORE incontrovertible ideas that you can ignore for the first time?

 

[Jukia]

Why do we do this? Stripe want us to read the story in the thread? These stories were all finished when Copernicus looked at the evidence and then Galileo put the nail in, only to be followed by Darwin with a hammer.