Creation evidence

[rocketman]

There are still alternate dating methods for diamonds (dating inclusions inside them) that place them at the extreme ages (1-3 billion years) they're generally associated with. Hell, the rocks in which they are contained are usually 50 to 1500 million years old as it is.

I know that, but the YECers are not actually trying to date the diamonds, rather they are complaining that there is C14 present when it should not be. The dates are secondary.

 

[Sunstone]

I suppose for meteorite formed nanodiamonds and so on, sure, but I think it would for the larger volume of natural diamonds which are thought to have formed under roughly similar circumstances. If some still have C14 then they must be younger than those that don't, but how much younger and why? That's the question. If the C14 claims turn out to be true, we would have to at least consider the possibility that they may all be younger than first thought.

Irrelevant.

 

[rocketman]

We can make diamonds in the lab... Where did the diamonds for the experiment come from?

According to Autos rebuttal article "deep-mine diamond samples". But like I say, these things need to be witnessed so everyone is reading from the same page.

C-14 is an atmospheric product...

According to some of those opposed to the YEC claims, radioactive decay may be producing the C14 isotopes within the diamonds, but as I say there is limited work published in the literature.

if the diamonds are formed from inorganic carbon then there wouldn't be any C-14 to begin with.

What they began with does not matter, for on claimed age alone there shouldn't be any.

If the diamonds are really really old then carbon dating is useless anyway. Carbon dating can not be done on anything older than the 60,000 year range. Carbon dating anything millions of years old is stupid to the point of purposefully lying.

I wasn't aware that anybody is claiming the apparant ages are correct. As I said to Meogi, what is at issue is why there is C14 present at all, and if that is really the case, then by extension what else have we got wrong.

 

[rocketman]

Irrelevant.

I'm listening.....

 

[Sunstone]

You said:

...if it can be shown that diamonds can be young, even if it were just some of them, that would call into question the formation of all of them.

It seems to me it would do no more than add to our current understanding of one path by which diamonds can be formed, a second path by which diamonds can be formed. In the end, we would merely be saying, "A diamond can be made by process X or by process Y". But such an outcome does not properly (i.e. logically) call into question process X.

By analogy, we know that some species of bacteria can reproduce both sexually and asexually. The one path of reproduction does not call into question the second path of reproduction.

 

[rocketman]

Ok, now I see what you mean Sunstone. Good point. The trouble I see though is that we already assume that the path for both C14 and non-C14 samples was largely the same. If the so-called 'younger' samples have largely the same characteristics as the 'older' samples (they do, bar a scant amount of C14 isotopes) then it is going to be hard to determine what the differences in the 'paths' are. It's like finding two identical mint '57 Chevys in a sealed barn, the barn is known (or believed) to have been sealed since 1957, both cars date correctly to the last detail, except one which has an MP3 player in it's dashboard. The presence of C14 in diamonds is so far out of whack it is very hard to believe. As Meogi points out, other dating methods peg them all closer together. This means either the C14 claims are rubbish, or there is natural contamination, or they could all be a lot younger than we think and the other dating methods are flawed (unlikely). So I agree with what you said, but in a roundabout kind of way.

 

[painted wolf]

According to some of those opposed to the YEC claims, radioactive decay may be producing the C14 isotopes within the diamonds, but as I say there is limited work published in the literature.

Decay doesn't form C-14. Unless there is an unknown mythical Carbon 15 out there?
Carbon 14 forms as a product of cosmic ray bombardment of the upper atmosphere or recently, by the detonation of nuclear devices.
I'm unsure if diamonds can pick up C-14 from underground nuclear tests.
There was however a natural nuclear reactor in Gabon Africa about 1.5 billion years ago.

Where were the diamonds obtained?

Additionally, carbon testing of objects that are either too young or too old give all kinds of wacky data. This is why Carbon dating is never used as a solo test. It is always backed up by more precise methods such as Argon/Argon or Uranium/Argon or another of the plethora of radiometric dating results.
Carbon dating is wonderful for dating things of a known range of dates, outside that range and its useless to point of comedy.

It would be handy if I could actually look at the RATE publication. How many labs did they use?
How did they compensate for the background readings that C-14 machines give off?
and so on.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

It occurs to me that if anything whatsoever is older than 10,000 years, then the YECs are wrong. It doesn't matter how young some individual diamonds or whatever is, if there is a single rock on earth older than 10,000 years, they'r wrong. YECs usually deal with this by rejecting all radiometric dating. (They have to, since radiometric dating is the primary way that we know that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old.) So now all of a sudden they're accepting a form of radiometric dating for these diamonds. If so, then they have to accept literally millions of examples of dating of rocks going back over 3 billion years, which makes their whole hypothesis false.

 

[painted wolf]

The list of science disciplines that YEC's have to reject is amazing in its comprehensive coverage of Science.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Yes Jonsul, did you know that YEC rejects not just virtually all of modern Biology, but also Geology, Cosmology, Astronomy, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, and a big chunk of physics?

 

[challupa]

Yes Jonsul, did you know that YEC rejects not just virtually all of modern Biology, but also Geology, Cosmology, Astronomy, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, and a big chunk of physics?

This something I cannot understand. How does science take away from the mystery. Creationists seem to feel that if the earth is old then God is not. Science is just a tool for exploring the mystery imo. We were obviously given brains to explore with so isn't that what we should be doing? Also, how do they know that the bible isn't just a grade one reader and we are now entering into grade eight and have new information and need new text books? Maybe God gives us updates from time to time as we grow, evolve and mature? Just questions....

 

[rocketman]

Decay doesn't form C-14. Unless there is an unknown mythical Carbon 15 out there?
Carbon 14 forms as a product of cosmic ray bombardment of the upper atmosphere or recently, by the detonation of nuclear devices.

It is theorised that local radiation sources such as neutron and alpha particle emitting isotopes of the uranium/thorium series may account for the results. Neutron capture by C13 is the actual mechanism. This has been observed in coal deposits near uranium deposits, and the same thing may be at work with the diamonds.

Where were the diamonds obtained?

I'll see if I can find out.

Carbon dating is wonderful for dating things of a known range of dates, outside that range and its useless to point of comedy.

Can you please read my posts. As I've told you once already PW, they are not interested in the dates per se, but rather the very existence of C14 where it shouldn't be. From the link I put up:

"...This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, creationist or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless..."

We can all prattle on until next christmas about how they reject science, but lines like this show that sometimes there can be more to it than that, and that we should be slow to haste.

It would be handy if I could actually look at the RATE publication. How many labs did they use? How did they compensate for the background readings that C-14 machines give off?
and so on.

I agree more info would be helpful, that's one thing I've been complaining about, but as far as I know none of the professional critics are doubting that the tests were real. Some may find this interesting:

Creationism and Baraminology Research News: RATE Diamond Results Duplicated and Reported

 

[rocketman]

So now all of a sudden they're accepting a form of radiometric dating for these diamonds.

No, they are not accepting the dates, that is secondary to the fact that there is C14 present, which should not be there. See my response to Wolfy.

 

[painted wolf]

And I'm saying that the test itself includes false positives for the presence of C-14.

The machine itself stores some C-14 in the combustion chamber as a background reading that has to be taken into account.

You can't have a zero reading.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

And I'm saying that the test itself includes false positives for the presence of C-14.

The machine itself stores some C-14 in the combustion chamber as a background reading that has to be taken into account.

You can't have a zero reading.

wa:do

I know. But there does seem to be some unnacounted for C14. As I say, more research is needed.

 

[painted wolf]

Again, I'd have to actually see what they did with the testing to determine if there is any genuine 'unaccounted' for C-14 or if its just user error.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

Again, I'd have to actually see what they did with the testing to determine if there is any genuine 'unaccounted' for C-14 or if its just user error.

wa:do

I agree.

 

[Autodidact]

jonsul: I think you're assuming that ToE is not consistent with God having created the earth. But it is. And if you really have faith that God created the earth, then you should have no fear of doing real science, without any preconceived outcomes, because you know that however it got here, God is responsible for the big picture that made it all possible.