C14 Dates of Coal, Oil, and Diamonds

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Dec 18, 2006.

  1. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    C14 dates by the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method show the ages of coal, oil, and diamonds to usually be in the 40k year range, and they can't get any results in the 40k to 90k range, which is what the method was designed to achieve, so what's up with that?

    If those deposits are actually millions of years old, there should be only C14 from contamination, but the researchers have ruled that out, "intrinsic C14" are what they are dealing with, after many procedures performed on the sample to make sure it's intrinsic C14 which they are measuring.

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B have published many articles about this "problem," see also: Giem, P., Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon, Origins, 51, 6-30, 2001.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    The title of this thread should read ..... coal, oil, and diamonds. Could the mod please correct this?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    what the @#$% are you talking about for starters
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    C14 dates for coal, oil, and diamonds in the thousands, not millions, of years.
     
  8. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    There are many methods scientists use to date things, sometimes they use a collaboration of these methods as a fail safe

    http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...ons/Radiometricdating/RadiometricDating .html
     
  9. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Uh, Chatha, the AMS method was thought to be able to measure C14 in the 40 to 90k range, but there are no samples in that range, they are all younger than that, ta da!!!
     
  10. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
    And there you have it. Rock solid evidence for Creation.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    No, but rock solid evidence that the sedimentary strata are in the thousands, not millions, of years of age.
     
  12. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,543
    Coal is notorious for having Uranium and Thorium (both of which are naturally occuring alpha emitters, with some 30 radiodaughters, most of which are also alpha emitters) present in the coal matrix, allowing nuclear power plants to correctly assert that they release fewer radioactive emissions than coal-fired power plants.

    Alpha particles striking Berrylium nuclei (Be-9 is naturally present in minute amounts in coal) produce neutrons, and has long been a neutron source as an initiator of nuclear reactions in nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, etc.

    Neutrons thus created and striking C-13, naturally present in coal at 1.1% relative abundance (the other 98.9% is C-12), would produce C-14 at a very low production rate. Such presence of a few atoms of C-14 would give an erroneously very young age to coal if one attempted to use C-14 as the radioisotope for dating, and thus other techniques need to be utilized.
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    How 'bout diamonds and oil?

    And why is there so much C14 in coal?
     
  14. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,543
    The older the age from C-14 dating, the less the C-14 present. Eventually, once the age approaches 50,000 years, there is so little C-14 present that the 'age' becomes very uncertain. If the C-14 dating gave ages of 6,000 years (a little less than half the amount in living materials), I would say that is a lot of C-14, and it would support a young deposition for the material, absent evidence of other contaminations. The amount of C-14 present that gives an age of 50,000 years is very very little, roughly 1/1000th the amount of recent living material. To obtain an age of 100,000 years would be roughly 1/1,000,000th the amount of C-14 as compared to recent living material, which is almost impossible to measure. That is why C-14 is not very accurate for age dating beyond more than a few half-lives of C-14 (T-1/2 = 5730 years), because there is not enough C-14 present to measure, and the age range becomes anyones guess beyond roughly 70,000 years.

    I have no references for C-14 being present in diamonds and oil. Please cite sources.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2006
  15. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Walter, go back and understand what was written.
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,543
    Reading through the "creationist" web page references, there is one cite for Baumgardner, and his paper "Measureable C-14 in Fossilized Organic Materials".

    In the paper, he references that in samples using the U/Th radiometric dating technique, they obtained ages in the 125,000 year range, but they then found some very small amounts of C-14 using the AMS technique (given as percentages of modern C-14; typically at ranges of about 0.1%), giving ages in the 40,000 year range. Now, since they can use the U/Th technique, obviously U and Th are present in those samples.

    What is especially interesting is that they obtained relatively the same small amount of C-14, no matter the age of the various samples by other dating techniques. That indicates that the C-14 is being produced at a steady rate, and decays at a steady rate, and has reached equilibrium with a parent production technique, in this case likely the steady neutron production from naturally present Beryllium (due to the well-known alpha on Beryllium neutron production) at a very low rate due to the naturally present U and Th that tends to collect in fossils.

    Indeed, this tendency for U/Th to collect in fossils has been used to locate fossils in the southwest by using a sensitive gamma detector to find pockets of U/Th concentrations, which is a good indicator that a fossil is underground near to the surface.
     
  17. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    C14 is not "being produced at a steady rate."
     
  18. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Reminds me of the ol' "Oort Cloud" routine.
     
  19. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,543
    It only takes one (or a few if it is less-sensitive) C-14 atom to give a reading using the AMS technique. U/Th is present at about .0001% in some fossils (Uranium and Thorium have a high natural abundance of about 1 ppm of the atoms on the surface of the Earth). Avogadro's number is approximately 6.025 X 10^23 atoms of H per gram of H. You do the math.

    And Ice Age, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that the small amount of C-14 present in fossils means they are 40,000 years old, while at the same time claiming the Earth was "created" only 6,000 years ago. Since your ideas are repeatedly falsified, why not look for explanations that work - yours don't.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Carbon dating is practically useless for fossil fuels, since the half life of carbon is so short and the ages of these fuels is so great.

    Carbon dating becomes unreliable after about 4-5 half-lives, or 50000 years or so. But fossil fuels are millions of years old.
     
  21. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    James R, the presence of intrinsic C14 makes it clear that those deposits are in the thousands of years of age, they cannot be millions of years old because of the presence of levels of C14 up to 40k years old, pursuant to uniformitarian assumptions.
     
  22. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Walter, "under uniformitarian assumptions."
     
  23. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717

Share This Page