Jump to content


Photo

Dino Proteins Proved To Be Original Material!


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 12 May 2011 - 04:02 PM

So much for the evo excuse that dino soft tissue is due to contamination:

(link)

Note this hilarious quote:

"Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected...)"

So, thier own study shows no contamination of the collagen, which is solid evidence to support their conclusion (and what creationists have said all along) that the collagen is from the original dino! However, here is the funny part. Since there was detectable C-14 (a LOT of C14!) they blamed this on contamination because 24K years ago just doesn't fit their dino timeline!! :P :blink:

Check out this Science Magazine article - look at the graph that shows collagen not being able to survive more than 10K years in the conditions where the bones were found (Hell Creek Montana). Oops. Sorry evo-faithful...

Prediction: The malleable hypothesis of evolution will soon cause evos to change their story and claim some dinos survived in isolated niches in a more recent epoch... How else do they get out of this dilemma?

Fred

#2 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 May 2011 - 05:17 PM

So much for the evo excuse that dino soft tissue is due to contamination:

(link)

Note this hilarious quote:

"Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected...)"

So, thier own study shows no contamination of the collagen, which is solid evidence to support their conclusion (and what creationists have said all along) that the collagen is from the original dino! However, here is the funny part. Since there was detectable C-14 (a LOT of C14!) they blamed this on contamination because 24K years ago just doesn't fit their dino timeline!!  :o  :blink:

Check out this Science Magazine article - look at the graph that shows collagen not being able to survive more than 10K years in the conditions where the bones were found (Hell Creek Montana). Oops. Sorry evo-faithful...

Prediction: The malleable hypothesis of evolution will soon cause evos to change their story and claim some dinos survived in isolated niches in a more recent epoch... How else do they get out of this dilemma?

Fred

View Post

I like the bacteria thing--they must have gotten full and left before they got to the collagen. :P

The prediction is probable. Someone influential will give a presentation at a convention. Hey, you think it might go like "the ones that didn't turn into birds, stayed dinosaurs, and finally died within the last 30,000 years." :D

Just shows people believe what they want to believe. They'll still get on here and ask us how we could be creationist, in light of the "overwhelming evidence" for evolution. They can only say this because they willfully ignore each contrary piece (like this) of evidence--one at a time.

It's like in my business, I can record my sales, but ignore my expenses. If I don't record my expenses, then I will begin to wonder why my "overwhelming sales" aren't producing the expected profits. The expenses are there whether I put them down on paper or not. It's the same when you don't weigh contrary evidence--it's still there whether you acknowledge it or not.

#3 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:28 AM

So much for the evo excuse that dino soft tissue is due to contamination:

(link)

Note this hilarious quote:

"Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected...)"

So, thier own study shows no contamination of the collagen, which is solid evidence to support their conclusion (and what creationists have said all along) that the collagen is from the original dino!

View Post


Hi Fred Williams

Didn't they say they did find evidence of bacteria to explain the C14?

Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex).


Not sure how this affects the result (?)

Cheers - S.

#4 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 May 2011 - 04:35 PM

Hi Fred Williams

Didn't they say they did find evidence of bacteria to explain the C14?
Not sure how this affects the result (?)

Cheers - S.

View Post


The C14 found is relatively speaking a lot of C14, obviously they know this or they would have touted their evidence for "contamination". I just love the irony though. They went through a painstaking, well-designed experiment to prove the collagen was original (no contamination), yet speculate the observed C14, which puts a max age of 24K on the dino, was the result of contamination! Speculation without sufficient evidence was the same thing all those scientists were doing by claiming (hoping) the T-Rex blood vessels were the result of contamination. LOL. At least they proved the creationists correct that the collagen was original, confirming yet again the Biblical account. If they can just admit that the C14 we find buried all over the world refutes their old earth view. We should not find C14 in things that are supposed to be millions of years old like oil, natural gas, diamonds, yet we virtually always do find it. Waz up with that? The Bible is right yet again.

Fred

#5 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 13 May 2011 - 07:36 PM

The thing I don't get is how can they explain the blood vessels alone? Forget about the C14, wouldn't blood vessels deteriorate quite rapidly, faster than the C14? Are they trying to say that contamination caused the blood vessels?

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 May 2011 - 11:10 AM

The thing I don't get is how can they explain the blood vessels alone? Forget about the C14, wouldn't blood vessels deteriorate quite rapidly, faster than the C14? Are they trying to say that contamination caused the blood vessels?

View Post


Sadly, yes. Not only do bacterial biofilms produce structures identical to red blood cells, but the blood vessels, too. :blink:

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 May 2011 - 06:25 PM

Sadly, yes. Not only do bacterial biofilms produce structures identical to red blood cells, but the blood vessels, too. :)

View Post


Perhaps they will start saying that biofilms can fossilise to produce a bone-like structure... and then use that claim to say that the entire fossil is false :blink: :) :P

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 16 May 2011 - 12:05 AM

....claiming (hoping) the T-Rex blood vessels were the result of contamination. LOL. At least they proved the creationists correct that the collagen was original, confirming yet again the Biblical account. If they can just admit that the C14 we find buried all over the world refutes their old earth view. We should not find C14 in things that are supposed to be millions of years old like oil, natural gas, diamonds, yet we virtually always do find it. Waz up with that? The Bible is right yet again.

View Post

Could you post more information on this: fossils disproving old ages?!
I would like to do a line up here.

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 May 2011 - 05:55 PM

Could you post more information on this: fossils disproving old ages?!
I would like to do a line up here.

View Post


Fossils are argued to acquire contamination from water absorption into the rocks, but there is no way to get contamination into a diamond and they are believed to be billions of years old.



Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed:

http://www.google.co...WvKvwJA&cad=rja

#10 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:54 AM

Fossils are argued to acquire contamination from water absorption into the rocks, but there is no way to get contamination into a diamond and they are believed to be billions of years old.
Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed:

http://www.google.co...WvKvwJA&cad=rja

View Post


Hi

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

Regards - S.

#11 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:57 AM

Hi

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

Regards - S.

View Post


That is hardly an explanation, several problems with this:

1) Often there is TOO MUCH C14 to attribute to contamination (as is the case in the study above).
2) No matter how careful the tester is, C14 invariably shows up in things like oil, natural gas, coal, etc that is supposed to be millions of years old.
3) Diamonds have very strong lattice bonds, so it is highly unlikely C14 can get inside a diamond via biological contamination.

Fred

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 May 2011 - 03:33 PM

Hi

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

Regards - S.

View Post



Are we to believe that scientists have been dumbfounded for years now and all they had to do was figure out outside sources? :) The truth is that the blank is run and then the measurable background is then subtracted from the sample, which still yields measurable C-14.


Example:

Blank - 0.02%

Sample - 1.73%


1.73% - .02% = 1.71%


The 1.71 figure comes after the blank and background measurements. Scientists have been subtracting background from sample readings since carbon dating began and they still find measurable levels in everything they have ever tested. So, they have to explain source contamination and with diamonds they can not.


Enjoy.

#13 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:34 PM

The evolutionist explanation is that trace amounts of C14 get added to the sample during handling, preparation, etc, for example during the combustion process, as well as there being tiny amounts in the AMS machine itself.

That's why they process a "blank" sample (no C14) along with the actual samples. The C14 reading from the "blank" is regarded as a background reading, and can be deducted from the sample readings to correct for the background. See e.g. here at the end of the first paragraph.

That is hardly an explanation, several problems with this:

1) Often there is TOO MUCH C14 to attribute to contamination (as is the case in the study above).
2) No matter how careful the tester is, C14 invariably shows up in things like oil, natural gas, coal, etc that is supposed to be millions of years old.
3) Diamonds have very strong lattice bonds, so it is highly unlikely C14 can get inside a diamond via biological contamination.

Fred

View Post


Hi Fred

Nevertheless, this appears to be the standard explanation that has been in the AMS-related literature for decades, and that's why its standard procedure to process blanks to control for the background, as noted here.

Regarding your points:

1. If you are referring to the paper by Taylor and Southon (2007), they specifically disagreed that the C14 is too much to be contamination. Instead, they carefully noted that the distribution of isotopes in diamonds was uneven (reported as delta C13, which varied from -23 to +4 between different diamond samples). If the AMS was measuring C14 from the diamond, rather than from the background, then we would expect C14 to vary proportionately to delta C13. But C14 did not vary proportionately to delta C13. The only conclusion supported by this evidence is that the C14 readings are from background sources, not from within the diamonds.

2. Yes, you are correct. C14 even shows up when they run the AMS with a completely empty sample holder. That's because of the well-known issue of background C14.

3. I don't think anyone suggests that modern C14 gets inside diamonds as a source of contamination. The possible sources of background C14 are listed by Taylor and Southon in their paper:
(1) Pseudo 14C-free sample
(2) Combustion/acidification background
(3) Graphitization background
(4) Transfer (to the sample holder) background
(5) Storage background
(6) Instrument background

Regards - S.

#14 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:37 PM

Are we to believe that scientists have been dumbfounded for years now and all they had to do was figure out outside sources? :)  The truth is that the blank is run and then the measurable background is then subtracted from the sample, which still yields measurable C-14.
Example:

Blank - 0.02%

Sample - 1.73%
1.73% - .02% = 1.71%
The 1.71 figure comes after the blank and background measurements. Scientists have been subtracting background from sample readings since carbon dating began and they still find measurable levels in everything they have ever tested. So, they have to explain source contamination and with diamonds they can not.
Enjoy.

View Post


Hi jason777

Good question. I don't expect you to believe scientists have been dumbfounded for years.

Processing the blank attempts to control for some but not all possible sources of false readings of C14. For example, if the sample was exposed to C14 during storage and handling outside the AMS lab, this would show up as a reading above background. They do try to expose the blank to the same processes as the real sample (e.g. combustion, graphitisation etc), but some statistical variation is also to be expected.

Also, please see my previous post where Taylor and Southon measured delta C13 versus C14, leading to the conclusion that the C14 was not actually inside the diamond sample itself.

Bear in mind that the radiocarbon "ages" determined from the diamonds were around 65000 to 80000 years, beyond the limit of reliability of the method, and representing about one C14 atom per 10^15 regular carbon atoms. These are very tiny trace amounts, much smaller than would be expected if the sample came from something alive less than 20000 years ago.

Regards - S.

#15 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 18 May 2011 - 05:17 AM

3. I don't think anyone suggests that modern C14 gets inside diamonds as a source of contamination. The possible sources of background C14 are listed by Taylor and Southon in their paper:
(1) Pseudo 14C-free sample
(2) Combustion/acidification background
(3) Graphitization background
(4) Transfer (to the sample holder) background
(5) Storage background
(6) Instrument background

Regards - S.

View Post


Or?

(7) in situ C14

Can you not see the scientific bias? (7) is not listed by the scientist but it is a real possibility that needs to be addressed. But it's not. So if the truth is (7) then it will never be discovered.

#16 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 18 May 2011 - 05:42 AM

Or?

(7) in situ C14

Can you not see the scientific bias?  (7) is not listed by the scientist but it is a real possibility that needs to be addressed.  But it's not.  So if the truth is (7) then it will never be discovered.

View Post


Hi performedge

I don't believe the scientists are biased. The possibility of genuine C14 within the sample itself was given serious consideration, and in fact it is the first item on the list: "(1) pseudo C14-free sample" - meaning a sample which was thought to be free of C14, but its actually not.

Cheers - S.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 May 2011 - 06:30 AM

Seejay this is a general question about radioisotope dating...

How does knowing the rate of decay and the current amount of isotope result in getting an age, without first having an initial concentration to compare the current concentration and calculating the time via the rate of decay...

If an initial concentration is required, then how has scientists been able to work out this concentration without making assumptions, (since basing the entire process on assumptions would destroy its validity)

EDIT: Actually assumptions are used sometimes, (like in statistics the fundamental sampling assumption)... However generally these assumptions are realistic, as in the case of the example I gave, this assumption just assumes that the samples used in an experiment are randomly picked.

Hence if assumptions are used, how do scientists justify them, and are they major assumptions or just a minor one like the example I gave.

#18 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 18 May 2011 - 07:32 AM

Seejay this is a general question about radioisotope dating...

How does knowing the rate of decay and the current amount of isotope result in getting an age, without first having an initial concentration to compare the current concentration and calculating the time via the rate of decay...

If an initial concentration is required, then how has scientists been able to work out this concentration without making assumptions, (since basing the entire process on assumptions would destroy its validity)

View Post


Hi gilbo12345

I'm not an expert, just an interested layman. My understanding is that the initial concentrations of isotopes used for dating are not assumed, but are based on measurements.

C14 dating is only done on samples that were once living things. C14 is produced in the atmosphere and remains at a roughly constant concentration (one C14 atom per trillion normal C atoms). Living things constantly exchange carbon with the atmosphere, so the concentration of C14 in their tissues stays the same as the atmosphere while they are alive. But when they die, they stop exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, and since C14 is radioactive it starts to decay with a half-life of 5730 years.

Thus, the initial concentration of C14 in the organism at the time of death is the same as that of the atmosphere. So if you measure a sample of organic material that has one C14 atom per two trillion normal C atoms, this means the organism died 5730 years ago.

There are also other methods like isochrons which are more complicated, which you can read about here.

But just to focus on C14 dating, dates derived from the method have been carefully cross-checked against a very large number of independent age measurements, like tree rings, layers in ice cores, seasonal layered sediments in the bottom of lakes, the growth of limestone cave formations, coral growth rings, and the like. See e.g. here. So any initial assumptions of the C14 method when it was proposed in 1949 (e.g. concentration of atmospheric C14 in the past) have since been confirmed from observational evidence as valid and correct within the limits of the scientific method.

Cheers - S.

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 May 2011 - 03:43 PM

Hi gilbo12345

I'm not an expert, just an interested layman. My understanding is that the initial concentrations of isotopes used for dating are not assumed, but are based on measurements.

C14 dating is only done on samples that were once living things. C14 is produced in the atmosphere and remains at a roughly constant concentration (one C14 atom per trillion normal C atoms). Living things constantly exchange carbon with the atmosphere, so the concentration of C14 in their tissues stays the same as the atmosphere while they are alive. But when they die, they stop exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, and since C14 is radioactive it starts to decay with a half-life of 5730 years.

Thus, the initial concentration of C14 in the organism at the time of death is the same as that of the atmosphere. So if you measure a sample of organic material that has one C14 atom per two trillion normal C atoms, this means the organism died 5730 years ago.

There are also other methods like isochrons which are more complicated, which you can read about here.

But just to focus on C14 dating, dates derived from the method have been carefully cross-checked against a very large number of independent age measurements, like tree rings, layers in ice cores, seasonal layered sediments in the bottom of lakes, the growth of limestone cave formations, coral growth rings, and the like. See e.g. here. So any initial assumptions of the C14 method when it was proposed in 1949 (e.g. concentration of atmospheric C14 in the past) have since been confirmed from observational evidence as valid and correct within the limits of the scientific method.

Cheers - S.

View Post


Can you please state what measurements are taken to confirm the initial concentration... In my mind there are none, since no scientist lived at that time to take samples and test them, and record the iniital concentration... This can be said for any other radioactive isotope for all other radioactive dating... IF you cannot define what measurements are taken then we must conclude that it is an assumption.

Yes living things exchange carbon with the atmosphere, (which we get in turn from plants and animals), you suggesting are that the concentration levels are relatively the same throughout the biosphere? Just to let you know, this is an assumption and a very large one at that. How is this assumption justified?

All these other methods of dating are assuming that there is a constant rate... Yet this assumption is not logical...

Trees can form more than one ring in a year
Coral growth is dependant on the creature inside, which is dependant on its environment. Considering the state of the oceans today, I'd assume they are working slower than is normal.
Limestone caves are formed from water yes? So the rate of rainfall would determine the speed, how is this constant?

So again, scientists let assumption-based science take to the fore with nothing to substantiate their assumptions.... Except that when all these assumptions are group together they give you relatively the same time line... (of course they will since the are assumed to what the experimenter believes)

Here is another thought. If life is a continuation of atoms being used for different processes, which is linked to the claim that we are "space dust"... then in reality we should see no C14 at all since it is believed that all atoms were created via big bang and the age should start from there.... If these carbon atoms have existed for billions of years, (despite what form) then there should be no C14 left in the entire galaxy. Or do we assume that when a person eats food some of the carbon somehow turns into C14?

#20 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 18 May 2011 - 04:01 PM

Hi Fred

Nevertheless, this appears to be the standard explanation that has been in the AMS-related literature for decades, and that's why its standard procedure to process blanks to control for the background, as noted here.

Regarding your points:

1. If you are referring to the paper by Taylor and Southon (2007), they specifically disagreed that the C14 is too much to be contamination. Instead, they carefully noted that the distribution of isotopes in diamonds was uneven (reported as delta C13, which varied from -23 to +4 between different diamond samples). If the AMS was measuring C14 from the diamond, rather than from the background, then we would expect C14 to vary proportionately to delta C13. But C14 did not vary proportionately to delta C13. The only conclusion supported by this evidence is that the C14 readings are from background sources, not from within the diamonds.

2. Yes, you are correct. C14 even shows up when they run the AMS with a completely empty sample holder. That's because of the well-known issue of background C14.

3. I don't think anyone suggests that modern C14 gets inside diamonds as a source of contamination. The possible sources of background C14 are listed by Taylor and Southon in their paper:
(1) Pseudo 14C-free sample
(2) Combustion/acidification background
(3) Graphitization background
(4) Transfer (to the sample holder) background
(5) Storage background
(6) Instrument background

Regards - S.

View Post


Do you have any web evidence of what this paper says?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users