No I didn’t leave ID and Sewell didn’t prevail in his exchange in the view of many ID proponents. Sewell couldn’t even calculate the delta-S of live warm rat to a frozen dead one. He admitted as much. That just won’t cut it.
What your saying is off topic, and your tone is pretty hostile. I putting you on my ignore list. Feel free to direct comments at me that I won’t waste time reading. Goodbye.
I am disappointed that you have not engaged at all with the radiometric dating examples I have presented.
It would be helpful if you would at some point consider the likelihood of statistically valid isochrone alignment, as observed in many thousands of analyses of numerous different rock types and minerals, done in dozens of labs worldwide over many decades, by any other process than radioactive decay over time spans of (hundreds of) millions of years.
I have no answer at this time, that is why. I can’t in good conscience say your criticisms are unequivocally wrong. Hence I will pass them on as important criticisms to the YEC/YFR (young fossil record) to my study group.
On the otherhand, I don’t think you’ve overturned my concerns either, and I think you’re dismissal of them is ill advised. So, conversely I can’t say in good conscience to my study group that you’ve proven the fossil record is unequivocally old either!
Thank you very much nonetheless.
TRANSLATION: “Your evidence unequivocally nailed my YEC claims to the wall. I’ll therefore ignore it like I do all scientific evidence which refutes my YEC claims and keep preaching as if I never saw it.”
Who here expected anything different?
Sal, there is a significant difference between your claimed problems and my claimed solutions.
Several possible solutions have been offered to your issues, plus a couple of important consequences if you are correct that you ignore (e.g. why does the YEC community not routinely radiocarbon date all the coal in the world to show that it is 6000 years old?).
On the other hand, you have offered nothing but silence on the observations of the radiometric dating. Keep in mind that those are just a couple of examples of one particular technique. There are many more independent methods in use, all with their own specific and independent pathways. I could literally post one here every day and never run out. Moreover, the consilience between them is extraordinary. To dismiss all that you will need a plausible hypothesis that explains all those measurements just as well as radioactive decay over millions of years does. Your choice, I think, will be between the mother of all conspiracy theories (scientific fraud at a cosmic scale), or the conclusion that God created the world with all the isotope ratios just so to (falsely) indicate old rocks and an old earth.
Your idea of Old Earth-Young Fossils is a total pipe dream. Please learn some basic geology and go on a couple of field trips before you embarras yourself further. Most fossil bearing sedimentary rocks, especially the marine ones, which are the vast majority, have the fossils hard-baked into them - the fossils have become part of the rocks themselves. Indeed some rocks consist of little else but fossils. Yet, many of them can be dated by association with dateable crystalline rocks, and most others can be dated biostratigraphically.
Look at this beautiful limestome thin section:
This website shows many more. Rocks full of microfossils like these are very common throughout the Phanerozoic. The Phanerozoic time scale is very well established now, and such rocks form an integral part of it. The idea that somehow these are young fossils in old rocks is for the birds. The fossils are the rocks!
The fallacy of false equivalence.
I don’t know the name for that one, but it’s commonly characterized as “we don’t know everything, therefore we know nothing”. The incomplete knowledge is sufficient for the purpose at hand. Your ideas are just wrong, and all the data say so.
False equivalence again. And misuse of the word “faith”.
That’s Pascal’s Wager, another fallacious notion.
Did you mean to say that?
I plan to specifically show your last comment to my group tonight.
Thanks again for the carefully written and informative criticisms.
I can’t say the same for most of what Dr. Harshman nor Dr. Hunt have said recently on other topics outside of geology…
So my praise for your comments is not empty.
Even if right, that explanation doesn’t work for C14 in diamonds.
That is another false claim. First of all, C14 dating concerns tissue from once-living organisms. Diamond originates deep inside the Earth at very high pressures and temperatures. Nothing to do with a biological origin. This alone rules out the idea that there could be authigenic C14 in diamond!
Secondly, the reported ages I have seen are >60,000 years. At that age the amounts of C14 are extremely small and the method breaks down. What you are seeing is simply signs of ever-present background radiation.
Anyway, again, even if these dates were real (which they are not), this is an order of magnitude higher than the claimed YEC age of the world. Are you sure you are happy with that?
There are some implicit assumptions there that could be false. The fact C14 might be found in diamonds is again supportive of some of the scenarios I mentioned.
What you are seeing is simply signs of ever-present background radiation.
No because these are Accelerator Mass Spectrometry measurments not the old style gieger counter measurements of the 1980’s era when background radiation was important.
"From a contemporary sample, about 250 14C counts per second are collected. It is expected then, for a 5,570 year (1 half-life) or 11,140 year old (2 half-lives) sample that 125 or 63 counts per second would be obtained. Although one can simply measure older samples for longer times, there are practical limits to the minimum sample activity that can be measured. At the present time, for a 1 milligram sample of graphite, this limiting age is about ten half-lives, or 60,000 years, if set only by the sample size. However, limiting ages or “backgrounds” are also determined by process blanks which correspond to the method used to extract the carbon from the sample.
Process blanks are radiocarbon-free material that is prepared using the same methods as samples and standards. These blanks contain small but measurable amounts of 14C from contamination introduced during chemical preparation, collection or handling. Organic materials, which require the most processing, are limited to younger ages by their corresponding process blank. Due to counting and measurement errors for the blanks and samples, statistical errors are higher for very old samples. Thus, ages are limited by the age of the process blanks (more on that below) and by the statistical uncertainty of the 14C measurement […]
[…] Limiting Ages
There are two situations that limit an age; the first is that the measured Fm is smaller than that of the corresponding process blank measured in the same suite of samples on the AMS. If this is the case, then the reported age will be quoted as an age greater than the age of the process blank. No age is reported greater than 60,000 years. The typical background age for organic combustions is 48,000 years and for inorganic carbon samples, 52,000 years."
So, we can conclude that in these diamond analyses the measured fractions were smaller than the process blank, and therefore the reported ‘ages’ are not ages at all, but system noise. It means nothing.
Diamonds have nitrogen inclusions, so it is entirely possible. As mentioned by others, the 14C detected in diamonds is so low that it can easily be explained by noise and contamination from previous runs.
The one important distinction you are missing is the difference between 14C in diamonds and 14C detected by the equipment. Any scientist working in the lab is always mindful of noise, contamination inherent in the protocol, and analytical error. 99.999% of scientific protocols suffer from one of these problems, and usually all three. If you turn up the sensitivity on nearly any piece of equipment you will get false positives. If I turn up the PMT’s on a confocal microscope I can make fluorescence appear in the sample, even if there isn’t any. Due to your lack of lab experience, you may not have an appreciation for the very sketchy claims you are making.
Mass spectrometers have noise, just like nearly all other scientific equipment. Also, 14C from previous samples can hang out in the sample chamber and contaminate subsequent samples. Any measurements that are close the detection limit of a methodology should come with a massive grain of salt.
The measured amounts of C14 are less than in the laboratory blank. Therefore the calculated ‘dates’ are invalid - end of story.
Process blanks are radiocarbon-free material
I’ve looked at how they try to determine something is radio-carbon free material, and that’s why they (non-creationists) used diamonds as a supposed blank and then Ceylon carbon. They just make an assumption it’s blank. Where are they going to get a blank Carbon source unless they actually use something like a Accelerator to actually filter out C14 and make a blank?
I saw those papers that proposed diamonds as a starting blank, then Ceylon graphite. I’ve yet to see one where they synthesize a blank by accelator type filtering. Those would be REALLY blank.
Adding to the list of consilient evidence . . .
One of the more impressive correlations is between radiometric dating and the movement of tectonic plates. One such case is the correlation between the radiometric dates for the Hawaiian islands/Emperor seamounts and the movement of the Pacific plate. These islands were created as the Pacific plate moved over the relatively motionless mantle plume that is currently the source of volcanic activity on the big island of Hawaii (i.e. Kilauea). You can see the chain quite clearly on a map:
The K/Ar age of various seamounts and islands has been determined, and we can graph them in relation to their distance Kilauea. As we would expect, we get a nearly straight line:
Even better, the line of best fit gives us the predicted speed of plate movement at 8.6 +/- 0.2 cm/yr. The actual speed measured by GPS is around 8.4 cm/yr which was done well after the radiometric dates were published.
If radiometric dating doesn’t work, then how in the world was K/Ar dating able to accurately predict what GPS data would show many decades later? How can YEC’s explain this data?
You mean you won’t say the same.
You are going down a rabbit hole here. What matters is that in that particular diamond analysis the measured amounts were less than the blank used by that lab. This means that the dates are invalid by definition, whether you like it or not.
Sure, go and make a better blank, and perhaps you will get higher valid dates. I’m not sure why a YEC would want to do that, though
The blank only needs to be below the noise floor of the equipment. You don’t try to weigh a feather on a scale meant for semi-trucks, do you?
As I said, it is not a wise suggestion for a YEC to make. If there was a blank that was really blank and if the apparatus was perfect, you wouldn’t get any results for C14 dating of diamond or (most) coals at all, and the claim that radiocarbon dating contradicts an old Earth would shown to be wrong.
As it stands, the whole story hinges on confusing the blank results with real dates. I don’t believe for a moment that the lab didn’t flag the spurious measurements to the client. Why the client then didn’t mention any of this on their website - well…