Assumptions of Radioactive Dating • Smilodon's Retreat
Evolutionists have long used the carbon, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a But the calculated dates will only be accurate if the assumptions behind the. Calculating a date based on the concentration of radiocarbon in a sample is based on several assumptions. The first assumption is that the decay rate of 14C . Because the radiocarbon method can reliably date carbon containing what he claims to be the assumption that the rates of C production and decay are in a .
Is the prevalent view held by the majority of scientists the only plausible way of approaching the problems of time? Yet Carbon dates, for example, can theoretically go back to possibly 50, - 70, years or more using the development of accelerator mass spectrometry. That is an order of magnitude of difference! How can these dates be made to agree with each other? This page is dedicated to looking at the assumptions that are made in radiocarbon age determinations.
But first, I will discuss the basics of Carbon 14 dating. What is Carbon 14? Carbon 14 is an isotope of Carbon.
Bomb Carbon Effect, Radiocarbon Testing - Beta Analytic
Simply put, we could substitute the word isotope with variety. It would mean the same thing; Carbon 14 is a variety of Carbon. So, Carbon 14 must be a specific variety of Carbon that has specific characteristics.
Carbon is an atom having 6 protons and 6 electrons, however different isotopes of carbon have different numbers of neutrons. Notice in the first diagram below that eight different isotopes of Carbon is illustrated. Three of the Carbon isotopes C12, C13, and C14 are found in nature. To the left side of each C C is the symbol for Carbon are two numbers, the bottom number indicates the Atomic Number or the number of protons in the nucleus.
Since all the atoms are Carbon, they should all have an Atomic Number of 6. The top number is the Mass Number for each Isotope. The Mass Number for any Isotope is the addition of all the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Remember that the Atomic Number the bottom number indicates the number of protons. So simple arithmetic should tell us the number of neutrons.
Carbon 9 has 3 neutrons. Carbon 10 would have 4 neutrons and Carbon 11 would have 5 neutrons, and so on. What should catch your attention is the nature of the various Carbon Isotopes. Only two of the Carbon Isotopes are stable C12 and C All the other Carbon Isotopes are unstable and they degrade into something else.
Notice that the farther away the Mass Number gets fromthe faster they break down The blue numbers indicate half-lives, the time it takes for one half of the atoms in a sample to break down. So the farther the Carbon is from the norm, the more unstable it is. C9, C10, and C11 have too few neutrons so when they breakdown, they release a positron which effectively turns a proton into a neutron.
The opposite occurs with C14, C15, and C They have too many neutrons so they breakdown, releasing a beta particle which effectively converts a neutron into a proton. What abour Prayer of Manasseh? The Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas?
Enoch, Jubilees, 1, 2, 3 Meqabyan? Will nothing shake your faith? The Fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils! Bill Huningahke Therein lies the problem … there should be no C14 but there is … SmilodonsRetreat Except that there are known explanations for this: The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error. Thus things like cosmic rays and imperfect vacuums can contribute to the C content even with modern techniques.
While that same level of contamination will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small, so long as the sample is not too old.
Alternate source of C14 production. Natural diamonds are not pure carbon. The most common contaminant is nitrogen, 0. Cosmic rays and other sources of radiation can form C14 from N Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section. By either mechanism, this is essentially internal contamination.
Other methods of dating are more appropriate.
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Bill Huningahke explained in detail on creation. You believe what you like. You are meaningless to the scientific community and if you try to promote teaching of your religion in schools, then I will be involved with the groups who stop you. The evidence for evolution and physics working is unbelievably massive and the evidence that creationists lie and misrepresent real science is also massive.
Many of the same principles that are important to things like computers, clocks, and GPS systems are also the same principles that define why radiometric dating works. You accept some, but not all, not because of evidence, but because your beliefs refuse to allow you accept it.
You really need to think about a belief system that prevents you from seeing reality for what it is.
Doc Bill Geeze, Creepto-guru, what a load of malarky you can generate. Did you write a word salad program? Well, you did a great job. The paper you referenced is totally useless, as are you, to your argument. The variation was on the order of 1. From your little avatar you look like a happy sort of hobbit. The paper I referenced was useful, as you mentioned, in showing testable and measurable variation in a decay-rate.
That was the point. Do you have scientific experiments that show that all those assumptions hold up for the methods over the period of time that are of interest to you? Or do you pretend that never happens. I suppose ignorance IS bliss … is it? SmilodonsRetreat Fujii, Yasunori et al. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago.
Radiocarbon Dating and Bomb Carbon
Nuclear Physics B Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Oklo interactions have also been used to validate a young earth view after analysis of the restraints imposed on the alpha-decay half-lives.
The researchers chose a fluence monitor that is only 1. What is your field of study? What do you do Kevin?? Are you a disgruntled Science Teacher at a secondary school in Texas raised amidst bible-thumping nitwits who hate gay people and struggle to formulate sentences??
Explain in English how it works in the face of contamination and untrustworthy decay-rates. Let me go through it real slow and maybe the penny will drop. Let me demonstrate your faulty logic with an anology: We use a stopwatch to calculate the laptime of runners around a race track. The stopwatch can only count long enough to accurately measure runners that run the track faster than 12mph.
I tell you that my 92 year old Grandma would like to have her lap timed, she used to be a great runner when she was young, and would love to see how fast she it now. I ask you to do it anyway just to humour her. You cannot now claim that the stopwatch was the wrong way to measure her. The radioactive isotopes created in supernova explosions produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates.
Therefore, there is has been no measurable change in decay rates overyears and no factors that could affect decay rates have changed in over 1. Your paper by Overman is pretty funny. Nine references, one of which is a business statistics book and two of which are creationists. But I enjoy watching your confirmation bias.
And there is no way to measure the one way speed of light. Try again, loser, with another creationist. How about Kurt Wise? Or maybe Hugh Ross? Come on, Creepto, get cracking! See how I did that? I suppose the problem comes down to the origin of the granite samples and whether or not they are primordial granite or not.
Tell you what though … the diamond Po halos stuff by Snelling is more compelling, as the location of the diamond is not important. I gave the AiG link to Kevin too … I know you love those guys https: Do you only like to argue when your mates are with you?