Montana is Ground Zero for Dating Dinos

[The Barbarian]

A second suggestion is that nuclear decay in surrounding rock affects the Carbon-13 or Nitrogen-14 in the diamond to create recent Carbon-14. This could happen, but calculated rates of formation of Carbon-14 would be thousands of times less than the measured amounts.

They would, if one assumed the world was only a few thousand years old. You can't find rates, for formation of such things, unless you have some idea of how old it is. Here, he's just assuming what he intended to prove. If the deposits were very ancient, it would show just what it shows.

The third suggestion is that radioactive atoms present in the diamonds' decay could occasionally emit a Carbon-14 nucleus rather than an alpha particle (which is a Helium nucleus). The rate of decay of carbon nuclei. however, would be hundreds of thousands of times less than what is needed to explain the presence of Carbon-14.

Maybe. But simple conversion of nitrogen to carbon-14 over hundreds of millions of years is, by itself, able to explain what we see.

Thus, DeYoung notes that the presence of Carbon-14 is good evidence for a young earth.

Only if you assume a young Earth in the first place. He's just chasing his tail. Bottom line, we know C-14 is being produced from nitrogen in buried diamonds, because nitrogen exposed to radiation, produces C-14. (and as you see, the matrix in which diamonds form has radioactive elements)

The argument you've presented is:
"It couldn't have been very long, since we know they've only been there a few thousand years, and there wouldn't be much forming in so short a time."

Why not just accept what the evidence indicates?

 

[Servo]

Only if you assume a young Earth in the first place. He's just chasing his tail. Bottom line, we know C-14 is being produced from nitrogen in buried diamonds, because nitrogen exposed to radiation, produces C-14. (and as you see, the matrix in which diamonds form has radioactive elements)

Would one of you evolutionists be willing to call into the show today to state this case?

 

[Servo]

Uh, because that is what a diamond is, a hunk of carbon. :duh:

I am talking about C-14 :duh:

I listened to part of the first clip of Enyart's ignorance on a coworkers computer. Pretty dumb.

Ok.
lain:

 

[Servo]

Well, it's more that you don't know the whole story...

Carbon-14 is formed when nitrogen is struck by a massive subatomic particle. Nitrogen is a common impurity in diamonds.

In 1959 it was established that the majority (over 99%) of natural diamonds contain sub-microscopic nitrogen as an impurity within the carbon pattern.
http://www.pricescope.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000296.html

Consequently, all that's necessary for diamonds to have substantial amounts of C-14 is to be buried deep underground for a long time, near traces of radioactive elements. It turns out that kimberlite (the "blue earth" in which diamonds are found, has significant amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium.
http://emg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/1-2/137

Mystery solved.

How do biological contaminations get in to the interior of a diamond?

 

[Johnny]

How do biological contaminations get in to the interior of a diamond?

Do you have a citation?

 

[The Barbarian]

Biological contamination in a diamond? It would seem rather unlikely. They undergo sufficient heat and pressure to degrade any organic compounds. I, too would like to see some evidence for that one.

 

[Ash1]

How do you know that Barbarian?

How do you know that Barbarian?

Barbarian,

How do you know they're talking in terms of a young earth for the contamination rates? They're trying to collect data contrary to an old earth model, so most likely DeYoung is referring to the theoretical amount in diamond if it were millions of years old.

Besides, even if you're right and the amount of carbon-14 found in diamonds is plausible when given millions of years, does the same theory work for carbon-14 in rocks, coal, oil, gas, and amber?

 

[SUTG]

How do you know they're talking in terms of a young earth for the contamination rates? They're trying to collect data contrary to an old earth model, so most likely DeYoung is referring to the theoretical amount in diamond if it were millions of years old.

The phrase in bold indicates what I was talking about earlier. Why not collect the data and accept the conclusions supported by that data whether you like them or not? Collecting data with a goal of supporting a particular conclusion is not a good methodology.

 

[The Barbarian]

How do you know they're talking in terms of a young earth for the contamination rates?

Because we know the rate at which nitrogen is converted to C-14. I'd be willing to look at his calculations, of course.

They're trying to collect data contrary to an old earth model, so most likely DeYoung is referring to the theoretical amount in diamond if it were millions of years old.

It wouldn't work then. Keep in mind, in the atmosphere, the conversion rate is sufficient to account for gazillions of tons (have to look up exactly how much) of C-14 being removed from the air by photosynthesis.

Besides, even if you're right and the amount of carbon-14 found in diamonds is plausible when given millions of years, does the same theory work for carbon-14 in rocks, coal, oil, gas, and amber?

Yep. For the same reason. Bottom line? This effect is explainable by natural processes, and is consistent with a huge body of other evidence for the great age of the Earth.

These guys are preaching to the choir; scientists aren't going to be persuaded on faith alone.

 

[Ash1]

The phrase in bold indicates what I was talking about earlier. Why not collect the data and accept the conclusions supported by that data whether you like them or not? Collecting data with a goal of supporting a particular conclusion is not a good methodology.

Do you honestly think people don't look for evidence to support their hypothesis/theory? The whole idea is to form a hypothesis, then look for data that supports or refutes your idea.

 

[Ash1]

Barbarian,

Honestly, I don't have a background in this sort of thing, and I'm assuming you do, so I won't try to argue the details with you. But the way that DeYoung passage is written makes me think they're talking about an old-earth scenario, as shown in bold below:

DeYoung notes that there are three possible explanations for this presence of Carbon 14 that would preserve the diamonds' old age. First is contamination by Carbon-14 in groundwater supplying new atoms. This is very unlikely because different depths and densities of rock should show different levels of contamination, but the measured traces of Carbon-14 are fairly uniform.

 

[Paul Stan]

Barbarian,

Honestly, I don't have a background in this sort of thing, and I'm assuming you do, so I won't try to argue the details with you. But the way that DeYoung passage is written makes me think they're talking about an old-earth scenario, as shown in bold below:

DeYoung notes that there are three possible explanations for this presence of Carbon 14 that would preserve the diamonds' old age. First is contamination by Carbon-14 in groundwater supplying new atoms. This is very unlikely because different depths and densities of rock should show different levels of contamination, but the measured traces of Carbon-14 are fairly uniform.

I don't have a background in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that millions of years is irrelevent because C14 decays rapidly, so that after 100,000 years none should be left. So wouldn't the last 100,000 years of C14 production from close by radioactivity be all that would matter?

 

[Jukia]

Perhaps if those of you who are Young Earthers took the time to do some research and even speak with the people who do the science you might learn something instead to trying to shoe horn Genesis into the real world evidence.

Scary thought though, huh? Evidence, science.

 

[Flipper]

I notice from the show that the intent of this carbon dating of dino fossils does not appear to be to produce anything to engage the scientific community, but is rather to produce yet another video for the layperson.

You'd think that if the evidence was so good, these creationists would be able to make it stand in scientific terms but no, all we get is more propaganda.

And I'm having some problems considering Bob Enyart as a reliable source of information on this topic, after I heard him delightedly describing the Schweitzer samples of T-Rex soft materials on his show as looking like fresh meat on a butcher's slab. The reality, of course, was far from Bob's version, as the fragmentary proteins that were actually retrieved clearly demonstrated.

So color me extremely skeptical of scientific claims made by Bob Enyart. Particularly his "oh no, get your own dirt" comments regarding the use of existing fatty acids to make a primitive membrane for lab-created wet life.

Apparently, Bob may not know that a lot of fatty acids aren't hugely complex. They're not a major challenge to synthesize, and they do occur in nature in organic chemistry that doesn't require a lifeform. Heck, that was one of the first wins in organic chemistry, back in the 19th Century.

"Simple amphiphilic molecules have been found in meteorites and have been generated under a wide variety of conditions in the laboratory, ranging from simulated ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice particles to hydrothermal processing under simulated early Earth conditions."

Quote from Science Week.

Worse still for Bob's argument, if this artificial life is actually synthesized, the expectation is to use evolutionary processes to start selecting for more viable structures. Once it's been done once, different labs will begin testing different pathways until one or more viable routes using naturally occurring processes will be sketched out. And then, there's a pathway for non-divine life on earth.

Which then pushes the seriously contested ground for theism all the way back to the start of the universe, where it will stay uncontested for the foreseeable future. So don't worry, theists, there's still room for you in this big old universe.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't have a background in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that millions of years is irrelevent because C14 decays rapidly, so that after 100,000 years none should be left. So wouldn't the last 100,000 years of C14 production from close by radioactivity be all that would matter?

The problem is that new C-14 can be produced by radiation of nitrogen. And it also turns out that there is nitrogen in diamonds. All that is necessary is that there be some radioactive elements nearby.

But in the blue earth were diamonds are found, we find radioactive uranium and thorium.

So we have a known source for carbon-14, that explains why it exists in very ancient material.

 

[BillyBob]

I love to date dinosaurs! What's your grandmother doing Friday night?

:darwinsm:

 

[Grayven]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n1_v21/ai_19226317

 

[Grayven]

OK ... The pope is pro evolution.

Does this mean I just have to argue with protestants about it now?

 

[BillyBob]

Yes.

 

[Paul Stan]

The problem is that new C-14 can be produced by radiation of nitrogen. And it also turns out that there is nitrogen in diamonds. All that is necessary is that there be some radioactive elements nearby.

But in the blue earth were diamonds are found, we find radioactive uranium and thorium.

So we have a known source for carbon-14, that explains why it exists in very ancient material.

I assume from your reply that you agree that any C14 present in the diamond prior to 100,000 years does not enter into the analysis.

This means that if uranium and thorium were converting N14 into C14 for millions of years that prior to 100,000 years ago all the N14 would have already been converted to C14, which is not found to be the case.