10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

No, but that is why I specified "origins" in my statement.

 

My point was more directed at process than these two specific attributes of the process, although you could not tell it by what I posted. Here is a link to the The Institute of Earth Sciences in Jerusalem (How do natural diamonds form?)on diamond formation that discusses how water rich fluids and mixing affect diamond formation. The evidence they site of this are the millions of tiny inclusions in diamonds. The very process of natural diamond formation, as we currently understand it, can and does alter carbon ratios.

No. Of course I do not need to suggest this to make my point. I was confused by why you are taking this tact for a while, but now I think I understand. You are coming at this from a ratio analysis perspective to determine chronologies. Correct me if I’m wrong. That is not germane to the issue as I understand it. It is the mere existence of C14 that is the issue, not ratio of parent/daughter products.

No, I’m not asserting that either. I believe you are continuing on in the reasoning I stated above. No conversion mechanism is needed for this line of reasoning.

At the risk of using a reflexive no….the answer is no. If there is measurable C14, and RATE has successfully ruled out outsides sources and artifacts of testing, the problem for long chronologies still exists.

I found this one on RATE C14 analysis. The diamond aspect is only a small part of this study.
Measurable C14 in Fossilized Organic Materials

Here is an interesting excerpt from AIG about the C14 analysis in general:

The results of RATE will be a hot topic for some time to come me thinks.

I would agree here. But I must point out that you are the one that introduced the critique of zircons to the thread, so you are aware that RATE’s results are being published and reviewed. To your point though, RATE’s C14 is very new and it will be a while before we know if it will stand up to peer review.

I agree about knowing the precautions, I am also very interested in the details of the study. But as I pointed out earlier, the ratio is not the issue since we are not trying to determine chronological inferences from parent/daughter composition. If the material is supposedly 3 billion years old, and C14 detection is limited to between 50K and 90K, depending on the facility, then there should be no measurable C14. Regarding the extant documentation of the C14 aspect of the study, I will say there seems to be more detail about the non-diamond minerals. I do know RATE is rushing to complete a book on the entire project, so that should provide plenty of information for review. We shall see I guess.

The article I provided goes into some detail on this, but I do not know if that will suffice for you. Let me know. We may have to wait a bit.

Regarding the T-Rex soft tissue, it seems we have come to a mutual understanding of the facts and their limitations. I really appreciate your reasonableness in this matter. People spend far too much time on this board bickering, and far too little working toward mutual understanding. Case in point, my discussion with Paul in the Theology forum. This is partially my fault though. Maybe he and I can reconcile things and communicate more like we do.

 

I don't think it should be. Natural science operates in the temporal realm. It can't make claims about the supernatural because there is no testable, empirical evidence for the supernatural. Scientists can only hope to better understand the mechanisms or laws by which the universe operates through study of the material world.

Faith in a Creator who established His creation and the laws that govern it is a different sphere of knowledge.

 

"I found this one on RATE C14 analysis. The diamond aspect is only a small part of this study.
Measurable C14 in Fossilized Organic Materials "

And we still have the same potential problem.

I read the whole PDF. (The link has now quit working. ICR reports it as dead.) Granted, it does not talk much about hte diamonds in particular, but it does discuss other supposedly old materials that still have some C14 left in them. It asserts that this much come from primordial C14 or from life that is not as old as we think.

Here is where they run into trouble.

The authors state that C14 is made from N14 in the atmosphere. That is all well and good. But if it is one of their assumptions that this is the only way to make C14, then they have a major problem. Let's look at why.

The relevent situations for our discussion are C13 being converted to C14 inside the diamond and N14 being converted to C14 inside the diamond.

Now, according to the paper you linked, a gram of carbon in the environment contains about 6 X 10^10 atoms of C14. This means that the diamond is about 0.00000000012 % C14 before any decay has occurred if it is organic and much less if you use their assumption that it is not.

It is about 1.1 % C13.

And according to this ( http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0953-8984/12/30/106/C030l6.html ) the range of nitrogen in diamonds is 0.0001 to 0.3%.

So the initial C13 concentration is 10 orders of magnitude greater than the C14 and the nitrogen is about 6 orders of magnitude greater.

And since they are dating to 50000 years, approximately, the level of C14 will have dropped by 3 more orders of magnitude.

From here, you should be able to see where I am going. Natural background radiation is known to produce new C14 atoms from C13 and N14 which are in tremendous abundance within a diamond when compared to C14. Once the C14 has decayed down to the level that was being measured, C13 could be converted to C14 at a rate 10^13 times more slowly (about) than C14 decays and give you your result. 10^9 for N14.

Background radiation for the earth is pervasive. Mostly it comes from either uranium or members of the uranium decay series. There is no way to avoid it. And this would account nicely for the minimum amounts of C14 being found. Constant production from natural background radiation.

This works really well for the coal samples, too. Maybe better. Coal contains some percentage of ash and this ash contains some fraction of uranium in general. So you have the uranium right there in the material with the carbon.

And this is what we need to see evidence from RATE on. Unless they disclose where and when the diamonds were procurred initially and can point to radiation measurements from that mine that for some strange reason would show that the mine does not have the expected background radiation, then there is another explanation for the readings.

The best thing about the alternate explanation is that it fits in with everything else that we know about geology. Extrodinary claims require extrordinary evidence. This one has a simple alternative that fits known data well.

 

Ok, maybe we are close to closing another discussion point (fossilized soft tissue being the first I believe) in general agreement of the facts, and the limitations thereof. Since I am going on vacation starting this Saturday, and will not be back for a week, this would be a good thing.

The details of trace C14 production (which you summarized quite well I might add) from surrounding contamination is a primary issue. If RATE did not address this problem, then obviously there would be a large loophole in their analysis. So we do agree here. We will wait for more info at this point.