C14 Dates of Coal, Oil, and Diamonds

IceAgeCivilizations said:
Already have.
Click to expand...
Hey. I just reviewed the thread and guess what I found?

A bunch of people posting links and using rational explanations to help you understand the situation. You not included. And you didn't analyze or refute the proposed mechanisms for C14 content anywhere.
 
Hmm.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Supe.
His whole thing here is just to get internet presence. So as to stir up interest for his book.
So, maybe he should be banned and have his profile and every post deleted.
The only thing is that there is some decent content in people refuting his posts, plus I hate the idea of setting a precedent.
But this guy's a real shit. Probably one of the worst I've come across. Even worse than Valich.
 
As you can tell by my posts, the last thing I have been trying to do is sell my book, but thanks, nexus, for the mention of it. Several people here have been hinting around for free copies, so would you like one?
 
Skinwalker and Invert Nexus:

I've read through the posted web-sites, and though they hint at the creation of the non-intrinsic C-14, surprisingly (to me, anyway), they do not discuss the actual method, other than to allude to alpha activity from the U/Th that is well-recognized to be present either in the carbon-bearing material, or the surrounding rock matrix.

As I noted on the first page of this thread, I believe it takes more than just the alpha particle striking, for example, a C-12 nucleus, to create the C-14 (And yes, the alpha daughters of the U/Th series are of sufficiently high energy, up to 6 MeV and higher, to penetrate the repulsive coulomb barrier of low-Z materials such as Be, B and C).

As I noted earlier in this thread, long before nuclear reactors were invented/created, nuclear scientists created neutrons in the form of a "neutron howitzer" which was a mixture of Radium-226 powder (4.78 MeV alpha) mixed with Beryllium-9 (100% of natural Be) powder, inside a 'shielding' that had one end open to emit the neutrons. The alpha-on-beryllium nuclear reaction is well-known, and currently used inside of nuclear reactors to insure the presence of some neutrons to initiate the chain reaction (following shut-down, or on start-up of new fuel), as well as inside of nuclear bombs, again to insure the presence of some neutrons to initiate an uncontrolled chain reaction. CRC Handbook reports 30 neutrons produced per 1,000,000 alphas striking the metal (most simply stop in the matrix of electrons, a few actually will hit the nucleus).

While it is well known that U/TH are present in copious abundance in fossil carbon, and fossil carbonates, from which some samples produce a small amount of C-14 that cannot be accounted for by un-decayed organic C-14, what has NOT been reported in any of those articles is the abundance of Beryllium. It would appear that the low neutron flux that would be present in any sample of material containing U/Th and its 30 radioadaughters (all of which are in radioactive equilibrium with the parent U/Th atoms) would be controlled by the relative amount of Be present. It would be interesting to see if the amount of C-14 directly correlates with the amount of Be present in the surrounding rock, coupled with the amount of U/TH present in the surrounding rock.

Beryllium is found in abundance in some 30 minerals, and of course in lesser abundance elsewhere on the Earth's surface. It's current price is about $5/gram (CRC Handbook), and it has found wide-spread usage in many industries (CRC Handbook)

Of course, once there is a low-neutron-flux presence (from the alpha-on-beryllium reaction), it becomes a simple matter for the neutrons to be moderated by the carbon matrix, and absorbed by the naturally present C-13 nucleus (1.1% natural abundance), forming small amounts of C-14, which would remain for long periods of time due to the relatively long half-life.

Of course, Ice Age doesn't want to look for explanations - he just likes the attention he draws to himself; good, bad, or indifferent.

In any event, what I find interesting about this particular thread is that it points up another source of potential error for C-14 dating; namely the relative amounts of U/TH present and the relative amounts of Be present, that can skew results somewhat. I do believe that that partiuclar potential source for error has not been well-detailed in the literature, and deserves further investigation as to how pervasive it might be. It appears, however, that it would only become a factor in very aged materials on the order of 20,000 years old and older.

The fact that there exists a very plausible expanation for the presence of small amounts of C-14 in well-aged carbon-bearing materials likely does not sit well with those who are looking for something, anything, that would support their "young earth" views. The fact that they ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary shows they are not interested in science, logic or reasoning.
 
The AMS method does not identify the origin of the atoms it detects, nor does it serve as a machine to make semantic distinctions. It simply presents evidence as to the existence of atoms, in this case C-14 atoms, without determining where they came from. That determination is a conclusion reached by the investigators.

So, how do you reconcile Baumgardner's conclusion that the coal samples he measured were 40,000 years of age, with your assertions that they cannot be older than 6,000 years. Scientists say you're both wrong, as above. Do you say that Baumgardner is wrong?

In your case, you've concluded that they are the remains (after several half-lives of decay have transpired) of the original C-14 that was present from when the plants/animals were alive, which you claim in some threads was 6,000 years ago, and which you appear to claim in this thread was 40,000 years ago, the same as the creationist-authors of those articles.

I, and every other scientist I've read, have concluded that the remains of once-living organisms, as represented by coal, etc., have long-since lost their C-14 due to radioactive decay involving thousands of half-lives (millions of years), and the small amount of C-14 atoms that are being detected by the AMS method in some (but not all) samples was created de-novo in the material itself due to the presence of relatively large amounts of U/Th producing minute numbers of C-14 atoms.
 
So are you concluding that Baumgardner has over-estimated the amount of C-14 that was present in the samples when they were alive, and that's why he's getting ages he's concluding dated to 40,000 years ago? What about the other samples in which no C-14 has been found?
 
Why does he write articles that say that the C-14 dates give dates of 40,000years if he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old?
 
So why does he conclude that they are 40,000 years, not 6,000 years (like you); both are in the thousands. Is he trying to say that maybe there is an anomaly that needs to be looked at, and that his conclusion of 40,000 years is also wrong?
 
So you're saying he's wrong, and he's wrong because he failed to address the issue of the amount of C-14 that was present when the organisms were alive?

So is it possible he's failed to take into consideration other aspects of analysis, such as the potential generation of C-14 by the naturally present U/TH?
 
I believe he does ('cause he's a 6,000-year-old Earth creationist like you, as opposed to the islamic creationists and other types of creationists that use different Earth ages as their starting point) but his writings do not reflect his beliefs, as he tries to make them look 'scientific'.

So, is it possible he's failed to address other issues that affect the C-14 content, other than the amount that was present initially?
 
I don't have the time for it. Already read what he wrote.

Gotta go now, takin' the kids to the Y for a swim; neighbor kids too. Later, dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top