It is a little known fact that scientists who argue that the paleontological record of life is hundreds of millions of years old, when confronted with astrophysical facts, must eventually rely heavily on the hypothesis of finely tuned, large scale global warming. The problem is known as the Faith Young Sun Paradox. A few claim they have solved the paradox, but many remain skeptical of the solutions. But one fact remains, it is an acknowledged scientific paradox. And beyond this paradox, the question of Solar System evolution on the whole has some theological implications.
Astrophysicists concluded that when the sun was young, it was not as bright as it is now. As the sun ages it creates more and more heat, eventually incinerating the Earth before the sun eventually burns out. This is due to the change in products and reactants in the nuclear fusion process that powers the sun. This nuclear evolution of the sun will drive the evolution of the solar system, unless Jesus returns…
As a brief aside, my favorite agnostic/atheist philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, made this observation that mentioned the evolution of the solar system:
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief…all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
Ironically Russell’s words inspired my re-acceptance of Christianity after I nearly left the faith in 2001-2003. There seemed little ultimate personal benefit over infinite timescales if there were no God. If I were to find personal benefit on infinite timescales, it would have to be something God himself provided, and thus from that time forward I sought to find evidence to support creation, Noah’s flood, and the historicity of the gospels.
To that end, any anomaly that challenges evolutionary theory caught my attention. One of them was the Faith Young Sun Paradox.
The faint young Sun paradox describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth’s history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch. The issue was raised by astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972. Explanations of this paradox have taken into account greenhouse effects, astrophysical influences, or a combination of the two.
The unresolved question is how a climate suitable for life was maintained on Earth over the long timescale despite the variable solar output and wide range of terrestrial conditions.[2]
If the Earth were an ice ball, there would be no Cambrian explosion. If the Earth were an ice ball, the shiny white ice ball Earth would likely reflect sunlight back into space and keep it an ice ball to this day. To solve the problem of how the Earth did not remain frozen during the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian, advocates of the billion-year-old fossil record invoke global warming!
Not only are there serious empirical and theoretical problems to solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox, but even assuming there is a solution to the paradox through global warming, it would be nothing short of miraculous.
The sun’s heat output is constantly increasing over time, and the necessary greenhouse effect would have to be finely tuned to spontaneously diminish itself to keep the Earth from incinerating as the sun got hotter. So this glorious global warming must walk a tight rope of fine tuning with no intelligent direction to prevent the Earth from either turning into an ice ball or becoming an incinerator.
Emeritus professor of Astronomy, University North Carolina, Danny Faulkner:
For instance, the current makeup of Earth’s atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth’s atmosphere in concert with the Sun. One could call this the Goldilocks syndrome, an obvious comparison to the children’s tale of the three bears.
….
The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere’s evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.Of course, there is a third possibility. Perhaps the Earth/Sun system is not billions of years old…
So even assuming the glories of global warming solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it would do so in a way that is indistinguishable from a miracle. Like so many things, the Faint Young Sun Paradox adds to the view that we live on a privileged planet in a privileged universe. At some point privileged observations are statistically indistinguishable from miracles.
yippee!!!
It the nature of nothing
All praise Mung’s God, the ludicrous maker
Have you tasted it? It’s the best!
Mung,
Why is anything appearing from nothing ludicrous?
No, it isn’t. If it has the nature to make shit appear from it, it isn’t nothing. By definition.
Really, this redefining nothing business really has to stop.
Rather than try to argue nothing has a creative nature (thus violating the definition, hence, not nothing), you can simply argue there never was such a thing as nothing in the first place (which, incidentally, is a philosphically and scientifically defensible position, unlike the ridiculous idea that nothing can have properties).
Every time you argue nothing can create something, rather than succeed in showing nothing can create something, you succeed in talking about something other than nothing.
It would require time. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a transition from nothing to something. If there’s time, there wasn’t nothing in the first place.
Every time you think you’ve come up with some clever way out of this, you haven’t. You’ve simply failed to use the correct definition of nothing.
Why theists like asking the question (why is there something rather than nothing?) is of course just a symptom of their hypocricy, since postulating God doesn’t solve the problem either. They can give no other answer than “god exists necessarily”. If they can say that of God, you can say that of the universe. Whatever argument they can bring up against that, you can bring up against God.
The correct way to argue with theists about nothing, is to use their own rules. They will either realize their hypocricy or not, but it doesn’t matter. Any rational person who reads the exchange will see they are not in a better position to solve the problem of somethings existence, whatever that something is.
I wonder how Mung is defining ‘nothing’. Mung? Does ‘nothing’ include your deity?
There’s always something.
Moved a post to guano.
Quantum Mechanics really screwed up the idea of nothing. ΔE Δt = h/4π means nothingness actually boils with stuff.
I don’t see it. Must have been a post by someone on my Ignore list, lol.
I don’t know. I’m comfortable with that.
You don’t know either. You choose to invent gods, with no rational basis.
Yeah, seriously. He’s been called on it before. His defense is . . . uncompelling.
It’s a Necessary Nothing. Not the same as your common-or-garden Nothing.
Frankie,
And therefore ID relies on that. Otherwise why even have it in the supposed ‘method’?
Step 1 – did Puff the Magic Dragon do it? How can we even check? OK then, let’s eliminate it, on to Step 2 … ah, it appears all we are left with is ID. How can we check? Don’t need to. It was a process of elimination.
We got rid of all the things we can’t test, and this is what we’re left with!
Maybe some choose to invent them, but other think the equations of physics necessitate a Great Omnipresent Spirit (GOS) or God.
Richard Conn Henry, the Henry Rowland Professor of the Henry Rowland school of Astronomy and Physics speaks of the great MIND of GOS (or shall we say God).
and
If there is a GOS, then it’s not too much of a stretch to think “GOS did it.”
My statistical mechanics book by Pathria and Beale mentioned the pioneering work of FJ Belinfante. Belinfante said:
Of course other physicists have different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, but the point is, one can’t argue in this day and age the possibility of God is purely a psychological crutch. “God did it”, is a legitimate possible answer, because God’s existence is legitimate possible solution to enigmas in Quantum Mechanics.
You’re not in a position to declare for everyone what is or is not a rational basis, you really can only declare what you feel is rational for yourself, not for others.
I think you’re irrational for believing the insinuation of OOL and evolutionary theory that the complexities found in life are the due to the ordinary course of many ordinary chemical reactions.
Not really, I want to find out how close to the truth I am on various topics. The process of interacting with find minds like yours has revised my understanding of things and caught several errors or weaknesses in the way I understand things. I’ve also learned a lot, and you’ve also motivated me to study chemistry. Although, I’ve not had organic chemistry, I will shortly be taking now my 3rd biochemistry class (I have already 1 undergrad, and 1 grad biochemistry class) at the National Institutes of Health as a part-time evening student. I owe much of my present interest in the topic from interactions with people like you. Maybe someday I will take organic chemistry. Physical Chemistry might be a better fit for someone like myself since physics is more of what I’m acquainted with than chemistry.
Please accept my regrets that we’re on opposing sides of the origins issues. You’ve enriched my understanding of things better perhaps than I’ve enriched yours, and thank you always for taking the time to read and respond to what I say.
That will be something I will address as this thread progresses, but I already alluded to it. I don’t think heavy radio isotopes came from stellar nucleosynthesis. All the synthesis pathways and how those elements got to Earth seem almost breathtakingly absurd as one reads the papers regarding Solar System and planetary evolution. When I was an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), after reading these scientific papers, I started to entertain YEC.
My MS program in physics at the Whiting School was only a part-time evening program that I stretched out over 5 years. I had some desire to go onto a PhD physics program at University of Illinois Urbana Champagne because they looked favorably on the work of the Proton-21 laboratory that researched alternative nucleosynthesis models. Unfortunately, my commitments prevented me from ever enrolling in a full-time program of learning. Bummer.
Also another Bummer is YEC physicist John Hartnett (who commands 6 million dollar science shop in Australia) invited me to be his PhD student. I had to turn down that offer too. Bummer.
So I will hope to respond in more detail to your query about the long range radio isotope dates.
That said, an objection you raised that is worth addressing, and I apologize for my delay in responding:
The date in excess of 6000 years is based on the small size of the traces of C14. If C14 influx was smaller in the past then it is now, or of the C14 levels at the beginning of creation were zero and then there was an influx of C14 over time, then the older C14 ages (of say 100,000 years) can be revised to 6,000 years.
But the point is, if 300 million year old carboniferous era coal has gone through 52,356 half life cycles, even assuming the entire Earth were C14, after 52,356 half life cycles, the C14 level should be effectively zero:
(1/2) ^ 52,356 ~= 0
And there’s just no way that C14 could get in that coal by some other process. Just no way. You are more certain of that, than the certainty with which every other piece of evidence for an old Earth is known.
No, coal from this one obscure coalmine somewhere in australia has enough C14 to isotopically date it about 28.000 years old, therefore the entire Earth (and this coal) is 6000 yo. That’s the best explanation.
Here is an excellent objection worth addressing!
Of course there is a way, it’s called contamination, but unlike chemical contamination, C14 has a half-life. If one contaminates a C14-depleted sample of coal with C14 “rich” (I use the term loosely) isotopes, the C14 will uncontaminate itself spontaneously through radioactive decay.
Science papers have ruled out radio genic origin through decay products like Uranium and Thorium etcetera. Jay Wile a nuclear chemist can probably give the formulas, same with John Baumgardner, but there are also secular papers to that effect.
So, what must be needed to keep the C14 levels up to par since contaminant C14 keep spontaneously decontaminates itself through decay in the 5730 half life?
The illustration is like this. Consider trying to keep the water in a container warm by adding more hot water. So we add hot water to water that is a little cool, but then the new mix of water, after it cools off , needs even more hot water added to it to maintain the temperature. In short order one has an exponentially difficult time maintaining the temperature of the water by the process of “contaminating” the cool water with hot water!
In analogous manner, maintaining the C14 level over 300,000,000 million years through the process of contamination, results in absurd amounts of contamination. Say every 50,000 years we add 1% C14-“rich” carbon. Over 300,000,000 years that is 6000 refresh cycles.
The growth of the fossils mass is analogous to the compounding interest formula:
(1 + 1%) ^ 6000 = (1.01)^6000 = 8.4 x 10^25 growth factor
reductio ad absurbdum.
Most contamination arguments by the Talk Origin crowd never account for this issue, and hence it’s a lame refutation.
Sal, how did this one bit of “young” coal manage to lay the 60,000+ layers of yearly varves at Lake Suigetsu? How did it manage to lay the over 200,000 layers of yearly ice deposits in the EPIC2 ice core samples?
Sal nobody and I do mean nobody wants to hear you talk about what a well educated genius you are. Talk and talk and talk and talk….if your ego is that fragile go get some professional help.
That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen.
The C-14 doesn’t even decay to carbon, rather it becomes N-14 via the primary decay mode. Nitrogen is a gas, and it has a good chance of escape. And anyway, your made-up figure of 1% is ridiculously high:
These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 – 98.89%, C13 – 1.11% and C14 – 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material.
So another strange and wrong in at least two ways “argument by analogy,” a false accusation, and Sal has done his duty.
Glen Davidson
You need to learn to start to think rationally in the first place, and not patch up your poor illogical leaps and wishful-thinking “Pascal’s Wager” distortions.
No one is impressed by your “improvements,” that leave you essentially as wrong as beforehand.
Glen Davidson
And if it’s contaminated with atmospheric concentrations of C14, given that it is depleted in C14, it will show a C14 age much older than “current”.
They have? I have looked around and not found any papers that speak about ruling this out. I could be wrong, but please point them out then.
There are? Cite them.
That’s ridiculous. How about it was contaminated once, relatively recently? Why would it need constant or recurrent contamination?
stcordova,
Yes, but if there is replenishment … C14 is regenerated from nitrogen by any source of energetic neutrons. Atmospheric bombardment is but one – but then in a porous material, one has to be ever alert to groundwater, which has a cycle. One also has to be aware of other sources. Uranium, for example, is found in association with coal, because carbon has a strong adsoprtion properties.
A simple way to deal with all these anomalies is to cross-check with another dating method. Which is done. But instead you try and close off all objections, to preserve the premise/conclusion ‘young coal’ (often interleaved, inexplicably, with old limestone when both are ‘dated’ by the same method).
Just a drive by before heading off to work….I believe that Sal is referencing the RATE C14 data set. What he fails to mention is that this data set is completely worthless.
When the C14 determinations were made for the RATE data set there were no sample process controls included in the analytical methodology……they didn’t want to pay to have this critical aspect performed and instead choose to use sample process control data that predates the sample analysis by 5 years. Hardly kosher and renders the entire data set meaningless. Sample processing controls, used to monitor introduced C14 as contaminant, is crucial in every sample run since C14 is always introduced during sample processing……using 5-year old process control data is dishonest to the core but what else to expect from YEC ‘science’.
Recent contamination? As in recent (50,000 years or less) contamination in all the coal deposits world wide simultaneously for no good reason? How about hardened shells or other fossils?
The absurd alternative is recent contamination happened simultaneously around the world in most every fossil there is for no good reason, even the ones deeply buried! It’s very hard to find biological fossils that don’t have C14 traces!
The only ones that don’t have C14 traces are things like limestones which Allan argues are of biological origin, but which, as I pointed out, might be absurd to assume are solely of biological origin.
The problem of fossil C14 is so ubiquitous, archaeologists gave up trying to use C14 for artifacts supposedly older than 40,000-50,000 years because of this illusory C14 barrier. The C14 barrier is attributed to instrument and process inaccuracy, but as I pointed out, C14 may not be able to establish the exact age of an object, but it can establish what the age cannot be, like say 300,000,000 years.
These anomalies are swept away with obfuscation and equivocation saying C14 is inaccurate to establish age, but it is plenty accurate enough to establish non-age! The two situations (age vs. non-age) are not symmetric in terms of accuracy.
And C14 is not the only clock, there is the amino acid racemization clock, that even corrected with the Arrhenius equation indicates the fossils are young. There is also the DNA clock.
Now the complaint is we don’t know enough, we need to learn more. I’m all for that. Let’s see why the amino acids aren’t racemized. But there are issues with chemical kinetics that fly in the face of amino acids in these fossils.
Not to mention, after 500,000,000 years, the Cambrian fossils should have eroded into the sea. An average erosion rate of a few microns (MICRONS) a year will be sufficient to erode the fossil record away. So one has the problem of simultaneously building up the fossils record when nature works to erode it away.
So I’ve stated 4 clocking process that argue against long ages of the fossil record:
C14 half-life
amino acid racemization half-life
DNA half-life
erosion rates
The radiometric dates of the rocks, even if accurate, could be as irrelevant as the million year age of the rocks of that entomb recent burials in a cemetery. It’s a bit absurd to date the rocks something is buried in to help establish the time of death of the fossil when there are clocks that are within the fossils themselves (C14, amino acids, DNA).
Much of the data can be found in secular sources. Look at TalkOrigin and they admit to the problem. I’ve shown the “solutions” to the problems have major holes.
With respect to in situ maintenance of C14 by radioactive sources:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1127
Correction! I pointed out the problem of assuming contamination because of the compounding interest problem.
A summary of the C14 emergence through other decay routes, using rate limiting reaction formulas (like chemistry), can be found here:
http://creationevolutionuniversity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37
If you (or others) don’t like the calculations, anyone is welcome to answer basic questions such as those I posed to Thornton:
I responded:
He never provided a number, neither did anyone else, nor is it found in the mainstream. Poor Thornton (whoever he is).
How about citing those secular sources?
Do you mean this article on AMS C14 analysis and the problems with the RATE claims?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
by Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.
The RATE data is worthless for making any claims whatsoever due to the shoddy methodology.
These two paragraphs provide excellent evidence that you should either learn something about geology or stop talking about it. An average erosion rate is irrelevant if some areas undergo net erosion and others net deposition. Take a look at the Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase, and associated formations. Cambrian rocks are exposed only inside the canyon and elsewhere are covered by Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and/or Cenozoic sediments. There has been more net deposition than erosion over that area for much of its history. There is no problem.
You have never considered this in sufficient detail to come up with a sensible scenario for how such a thing could work. I’ll save you the trouble: there is no such scenario. Fossils might conceivably (and are in a very few cases) be older than the rocks that surround them. But there is no way for them to be younger. The only exception is intrusive buria, which leaves evidence behind.
So just to be clear, there are NO peer reviewed studies where radiation contamination from invading U/Th, or other sources of contamination, are ruled out.
John Harshman,
Sal seems not to recognize that erosion generally can’t occur without deposition.
Does he think that the matter just disappears when it erodes?
Glen Davidson
No Sal, all the coal deposits “world wide” do NOT show evidence of C14 contamination. That’s just some shit you sit there and make up.
How about Gish galloping?
You’re going to have to produce references for your implicit claim that “most every fossil there is in the entire world” are showing anomalous C14 ages.
I’m going to take a WILD stab in the dark and predict you can’t produce such a reference.
Amino acids in what? How old is it? How much material is there?
References please.
DNA in what? How old is it? How much DNA is there?
References please.
Chemical kinetics of what in particular? Don’t be vague, be specific. Give references.
Gish would be so proud.
I just did from university of Arizona and I provided comments. If you ignore my citations, I’m inclined to ignore you.
I was hoping you would provide citations that supported your position instead all we get is your assertions
Want to try again?
No, you did NOT give references for what you were asked.
Here’s what you said:
So I’m asking for “secular papers to that effect”. What effect? That “science papers have ruled out radio genic origin through decay products like Uranium and Thorium etcetera.”
That’s what I’d like to see sources for. The secular papers that rule that out.
I see a source of confusion here though. Sal, the paper you link speaks of C14 being produced through very rare decays of things like Radium isotope decays whereby they release an entire C14 nucleus when the Radium nucleus falls apart. That’s not what I and others have been talking about as a source of C14 in coals. Rather, due to the association of the coal with U and Th species (and other natural sources of neutron radiation), the natural neutron radiation from these materials will convert atmospheric nitrogen to C14.
As soon as you dig up your coal, it comes into contact with air. Which is mostly N2. Coal, being a porous material, adsorbs atmospheric air. There in the coal, the N2 captures neutrons from decaying U and Th (and their decaying daughter isotopes) and basically continously produces C14.
So basically what I’m looking for is sources that rule this process out.
Oh really, from Wikipedia it’s evident this is widely accepted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
They offered flimsy explanations as to why. I pointed out the problem of assuming in situ contamination for something 300 million years old.
Alright, how about through handling and processing when you’re TRYING to avoid contamination. Say you have gallon (3785 milli-liters) of coal, a one needs about half a 37 mililiters (over 2 table spoons of contaminant) to get 1% contamination. What if were talking something hard like bone or marble? You think we can’t keep out 1% contamination when we’re really trying hard????
So how much uranium, radium or thorium do you think is needed to maintain a constant appearance of 1% PMC (percent modern carbon) of C14?
Give a figure? Rotta says 1 part carbon and at least 99 parts Uranium. You can disagree with it, but if one is skeptical, one should try to work out the calculations themselves. Why the absence of published calculations to that effect. What is wrong with Rotta’s calculation which I cited or Baumgardner’s. If you don’t understand them, neither do I completely, we can learn and figure out who is closer to the truth.
But in 1987, researcher ran into a mysterious “background” they found in all samples of coal they were looking at:
https://www-cambridge-org.mutex.gmu.edu/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/div-classtitlespan-classsup14spanc-background-levels-in-an-accelerator-mass-spectrometry-systemdiv/DB2535B0F0AE0E0BEAEE44B5063A218E
Must have been contaminated? Shoving a table spoon of contaminant into a gallon of coal when one is trying to avoid contaminants?
The researchers just gave up trying to use coal since it is persistenly has too much C14!
And from this anti-creationist site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html
“I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!” Yeah, because these 300,000,000 fossil fuels have C14!
So don’t accuse me of making stuff up. The reason they gave up trying to C14 date the “fossil” fuels is that they often give young dates. Why is that.
With respect to the correlation of Uranium and C14, correlation does not equal causation! If the amounts of uranium are too small (say less than 99 parts uranium to 1 part carbon), the correlation is not a causation. So Wiki and TalkOrigins are jumping to unfounded conclusions.
Bumped for Brave Sir Sal who always seems to go silent whenever facts his YECkery can’t explain are introduced.
Sal, why do these C14 calibration curves from so many independent sources all agree and show dates back over 50K years?
Here is a radio carbon dating outfit. Now, note, AMS machines can detect down to 0.002% Modern Carbon, which is about 90,000 years. Why is “background” considered 43,000 years (around 0.5% PMC).
The AMS machine can detect 0.002% PMC but the persistent background of 0.5% PMC keeps emerging. The AMS machines are thus detecting “background” amounts that are 250 times bigger than their measuring capabilities.
They say:
Ok, the Miocene era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene
Ok, pick the most generous number 5.33 million years ago. That is:
5,330,000 / 5730 = 930 C14 half life cycles.
One should get:
0.0000000000000000000000000……1% C14.
So why are they returning in the ball park of 0.5% C14?
It’s not like the creationists need to even take their own stuff for sampling, everyone appears capable of reporting “background” of around 0.5% PMC.
LOL! Beta Analytics has sent the Miocene samples to 7 different AMS labs and they can’t erase the “background” levels of 0.5% PMC in 5 million year old coal when it should be effectively 0.002% PMC or less.
All that gnat-straining is hard work.
I daresay Allan is closer to being a YEC now than he has ever been. Keep trying!
I should point out this study by creationist Andrew Snelling and Don DeYoung and others. I know them personally. Did I ever hear them say, “Hey Sal, we have to figure a way to fudge the data and bamboozle everyone.” No never. Instead they laughed at how expensive their tests were since they had to crush diamonds.
They crushed the diamonds, sent them off to AMS labs:
but if you doubt the YECs, here are the secular sources carrying out the same kinds of experiments!
OUCH!
So y’all were demanding secular sources. There you go!
So 14C dating of diamonds yielding ages of 65K to 80K years before present (the background noise of the AMS machine) are evidence the Earth is only 6000 years old.
That Cordova YEC logic is a sight to behold.
Carbon-14 dating can be used to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years old.
The carbon-14 isotope would vanish from Earth’s atmosphere in less than a million years were it not for the constant influx of cosmic rays interacting with atmospheric nitrogen.
One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites.
Source: Boundless. “Half-Life and Rate of Decay; Carbon-14 Dating.” Boundless Physics Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 13 Jan. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/nuclear-physics-and-radioactivity-30/radioactivity-190/half-life-and-rate-of-decay-carbon-14-dating-712-10946/