He also ignores in situ 14N, 17O, and 11B, all of which can capture either neutrons or alpha particles(in the case of 11B) and produce 14C.
As well as radioactive elements other than uranium.
Indeed. Iâve read some of Wileâs materials. Sobering.
Yes. What has amazed me about the Wile homeschooling materials Iâve read is that you only need a little high school physics background to notice the many problems.
I feel the criticisms of my position are pretty good here in this discussion. I will present this thread to my YEC/YLC creation study group.
Thanks to all who participated so far.
But will you think about it and abandon and stop teaching all your claims that have been shown to be wrong? That would be the truly proper course of action.
1 Like
Got my threads confused. Ignore this post. Will delete later.
You have not shown my claims to be unequivocally wrong any more than Iâve shown your claims to be unequivocally wrong. Weâre making evaluations based on incomplete knowledge. You have your faith in whatâs the right answer is, and I have my faith in what the right answer is. We could be totally agnostic in the face of incomplete knowledge, but thatâs rare.
I wouldnât bet my soul on you being right, John. Whatâs there for Christians in my study to lose if Iâm wrong. Iâll at least have leveled with them and exposed them to the other side of the argument, some of which I think are pretty good criticism.
I canât say the same, however for abiogenesis theory or many facets of evolutionary theory nor the Big Bang or evolution of the solar system. For me to represent those as good theories would bother my conscience, especially abiogenesis theory.
Thanks.
And good luck to you too since itâs nice to see another YEC/ID guy here for a change. Shalome.
No I didnât leave ID and Sewell didnât prevail in his exchange in the view of many ID proponents. Sewell couldnât even calculate the delta-S of live warm rat to a frozen dead one. He admitted as much. That just wonât 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 wonât 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 canât 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 donât think youâve overturned my concerns either, and I think youâre dismissal of them is ill advised. So, conversely I canât say in good conscience to my study group that youâve proven the fossil record is unequivocally old either!
Thank you very much nonetheless.
TRANSLATION: âYour evidence unequivocally nailed my YEC claims to the wall. Iâll therefore ignore it like I do all scientific evidence which refutes my YEC claims and keep preaching as if I never saw it.â
Who here expected anything different? 
2 Likes
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!
5 Likes
The fallacy of false equivalence.
I donât know the name for that one, but itâs commonly characterized as âwe donât know everything, therefore we know nothingâ. 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 âfaithâ.
Thatâs Pascalâs Wager, another fallacious notion.
Did you mean to say that?
2 Likes
I plan to specifically show your last comment to my group tonight.
Chemically and Electrically Assisted Nuclear Reactions and YEC - #98 by faded_Glory
Thanks again for the carefully written and informative criticisms.
I canât say the same for most of what Dr. Harshman nor Dr. Hunt have said recently on other topics outside of geologyâŚ
So my praise for your comments is not empty.
Even if right, that explanation doesnât 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?
3 Likes
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 1980âs era when background radiation was important.
From this site using AMS for radiocarbon dating:
"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 âbackgroundsâ are also determined by process blanks which correspond to the method used to extract the carbon from the sample.
Process Blanks
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 [âŚ]
[âŚ] 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 âagesâ are not ages at all, but system noise. It means nothing.
3 Likes