Well baumgardner's background is not in dating methods and experimental labwork - he is mostly a geophysicist. I know his ideas aren't mainstream, but you're right iirc that he is still fairly well respected as he has produced some nice models of geological processes.
Yes, I know the RATE team has to send the material they prep to labs. I don't know if anyone on the team has experience on the spectrometer or not, but I know some of them are quite experienced geologists like Austin. I realize they are creationists, and would be suspect of corresponding motivations, but they still know how to extract and prep the material being sent.
That's probably another reason they send their material to a respected lab, rather than let a known creationist do it.
All measurements are blurry to some degree, particularly this sort of thing. The issue at hand is determining how blurry, in order to decide whether you can actually see something or not. A simple example is something like measuring how high an object was when dropped, by measuring the time to hit the floor with a stopwatch. You see when it is dropped and start the watch, you see when it hits the floor and stop the watch. there will be a certain accuracy, let's say 0.1s in your start and stop times - start time will always be after, stop time might be before or after. So say you do the experiment ten times, you'll get a spread of values. Based on the accuracy you might be able to calculate the initial height to an accuracy of 10 cm, or maybe within 1cm, but it is unlikely that you would be able to calculate the initial height to within 1mm.Ã‚Â Also if you start with a height around a meter, then you will be more accurate than if you start with a height of around 10cm, and more accurate than a height of around 1cm. Eventually there will be a lower limit so you can't really say how high it is, because your measurement is too inaccurate. All you can say, is that it is "less than x cm"
I understand what you're saying, and I do appreciate your patient civility also. My motivation is not to win a debate, but to find truth. If there is intrinsic 14C in the diamonds, or coal, or fossils, I would like to know for sure. I believe that there is--but obviously it is a controversial subject.
My only pondering today was the statements you made about the atom velocities, and the 14N, 12C and other isotopes on the targeting area. Obviously the spectrometer relies on physics in order to make the impacts, and this is based on the atomic mass and velocities of the particles.
So it makes sense that if the velocities vary, or the masses are close to 14 C you would have impacts of different elements/ isotopes/compounds on the targeting area. My only response to this is that there is no way to know (sense you said you can not distiguish the impacts) if all the impacts were, say14N or everything but 14C. This is not likely, but I say this to make the point--it seems to me that allowance for contamination has to rely on assumption rather than a hard percentage. If they had a reliable method to find this, obviously they would not still be experimenting to find the background level.
the 6 samples have values between 69.3 and 70.6 ka - so there is some variability there.
Yeah, that's 1300 years with six individual measurements--not much. And it was consistent with the other diamonds.
So a more likely explanation is either going to be intrinsic 14C as you suggest, or soemthing to do with the limits of the machine. I don't know which of these it could be without looking at the paper itself. Still not got it yet, but I've asked some people for it so I should have it soon.
So then the next question would be, if it is intrinsic, how did the 14C get there. Yes, it could have come from bacteria, or U radiation. So the diamonds would be inconclusive and coal also--that is there is room for debate.
That leaves the lower strata fossils Baumgarder talks about. And I have heard unverified (by me
) claims of some having significant 14C levels.
Fossils are mostly minerals, and if they are well cleaned, should be free of live bacteria. If they are as old as is postulated, there should have been no organic material in them for quite some time, allowing for undetectable 14 C readings. As for radiation, I know it can affect coal, but I haven't studied this extensively enough to know about the fossils. Perhaps you have some comments on that.
The only other thing I'll say is that Baumgarder did say the assumed "contamination" in some of these fossils was "100 times the sensitivity" of the AMS.