C14 Dates of Coal, Oil, and Diamonds

Sorry, it is intrinsic C14.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And how would anyone know how a particular atom of C14 came to be in a given sample?

Here's a site for you. Please read it. It's by xians, for xians.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So it's good for dating some organic material, and not others, how conveeeeeenient.

 

C14 in coal, oil, and diamonds, reflecting their depositions only thousands of years ago, how embarrassing for the uniformitarian dogmatists!

 

James R,

Would it be inappropriate for me to explain to IAC that he is truly a fucking moron? Really, your honest opinion. I think it's an objectively verifiable description.

EDIT: Obviously I don't expect a response.

 

Goofy knuckle head.

 

The AMS method is good to 90k years, but there aren't any samples that old, that's the point, which you missed, or are feigning to not have seen.

 

What about all of the other non-c14 methods in use as described in the article I posted?

 

The C14 is a real pain for you guys.

 

You don't have a clue, the point is that the C14 dates show in the 20 to 40k range, and that old, not about 4,500 years old, only because of uniformitarian assumptions, now, are you gonna close this thread too?

And how can you be a creditable "moderator" when you input your b.s. into the threads?

 

What our under-educated friend seems to be implying here is that because C-14 is present in some deposits like oil, this must present a problem for the age of the Earth, since the half-life of C-14 is such that it wouldn't be present if originally deposited millions of years ago. In this sense, IAC is correct.

It's also a typical bullshit problem that YEC nutters try to present in their arguments that science has got it wrong about the age of the earth, how stratigraphic deposition works, etc.

The answer is short and sweet: C-14 present in deposits of carbon like oil that are on the order of millions of years old is there most likely because of de novo deposition. In other words, it was created after the original mineral was deposited millions of years ago.

In oil deposits, C-14 is completely absent in some, present in trace amounts in others, and in larger amounts in still others. The correlation is unmistakably to neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Radioactive isotopes are emitting particles that create the trace amounts of C-14 in coal and oil.

There are also bacteria that oxidize pyrites in coal and otherwise exist deep below ground, leaving behind C-14 once exposed to air (i.e. mines). A very, very tiny amount of bacteria can skew a coal specimen's age to read 45,000 years.

References:

Lowe, D.C. (1989). Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C-free background material. Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120

Sastry, I.V.; Deshpande, M.S.; and Dwivedy, K.K. (1996). Anomalous trace element abundances in Tertiary coal ash from East Garo Hills, Meghalaya, India. Journal of Atomic Mineral Science 4:75-79

 

Hey skin nutter, looks like you're scrambling now.

 

"Most likely because of de novo deposition," most likely, that's the best you can do? Well "most likely" you're wrong, as the AMS scientists bent over backwards to eliminate "de novo" depositions, and after that, they measured the intrinsic C14, which shows that the coal was deposited only thousands of years ago, how embarrassing for nutters such as the skin nutter.

 

I'll start from the OP.

"Usually" isn't the operative word. Occasionally, such results are found. In some samples, there are no 14C present at all. In other samples, there are trace 14C and in still others, there are relatively high amounts of 14C. 14C is generally only present in samples that are obtained from strata containing or bounded by minerals in the uranium-thorium series. See my post above.

No serious researchers have concluded that this 14C is "intrinsic," if by "intrinsic" you mean present from the depositional period. The 14C is de novo from, most likely, radioactive isotopes emitting neutron and alpha particles. I could also be from bacterial contamination.

Which articles, specifically, are about this "problem." Please leave us some citations.

Sorry, but Origins isn't a valid, peer-reviewed citation. This is a creationist-nutter website that engages in verified pseudoscience. They have no credibility in discussions of intellectual matters.

Perhaps you can provide us with the valid citation to an article in peer-reviewed literature that discusses how "AMS scientists" have eliminated de novo deposition as the source of 14C in old carbon. I say "most likely" because particle capture is the most likely cause of 14C in old carbon. Other causes could be bacterial deposition or even contamination of the samples.

Face it, Ice. You're flat out wrong. You came to us with a bunch of creationist bullshit and it didn't fly.

 

Uniformitarians' dirty little secret, like the fleshy T-rex remains which have been discovered in Montana, but have disappeared after a brief mention in the news.

Regarding intrinsic C14 which shows "millions of years old" deposits to be only in thousands of years of age, experts in Germany say:

"The apparent ages of biogenic samples seem species related and can be reproduced measuring different individuals for larger shells or evern different sediment cores for foraminifera. Although tests showed some surface contamination, it was not possible to reach lower C14 levels through cleaning, indicating the contamination to be intrinsic to the sample."

Nadeau, M.J., P.M. Grootes, A. Voelker, F. Gruhn, A. Duhr, and A. Oriwall, "Carbonate C14 background : does it have multiple personalities?, Radiocarbon, 43(2A), 169-176, 2001.

That cat is out of the bag, and students, ask your professors about this.

 

The Radiocarbon article you cited discusses how to avoid using contaminated background samples used in dating primary samples. In no way does it suggest that there is actually "intrinsic" 14C present that cannot be explained. You're either completely full of shit, ignorant, or simply unwilling to admit when you're wrong. I'm betting it's the latter.

As to "fleshy T-rex remains"... do you have a citation to this bit of pseudoscientific bullshit? Right. Thought so. More poppycock.

 

Intrinsic means not subsequently added after formation, look it up.

And the T-rex remains were all over the news about a year ago, you must have been on a remote desert island without a clue, or something.