[Ash1]

Barbarian,

Honestly, I don't have a background in this sort of thing, and I'm assuming you do, so I won't try to argue the details with you. But the way that DeYoung passage is written makes me think they're talking about an old-earth scenario, as shown in bold below:

DeYoung notes that there are three possible explanations for this presence of Carbon 14 that would preserve the diamonds' old age. First is contamination by Carbon-14 in groundwater supplying new atoms. This is very unlikely because different depths and densities of rock should show different levels of contamination, but the measured traces of Carbon-14 are fairly uniform.

[Paul Stan]

Originally Posted by Ash1

Barbarian,

Honestly, I don't have a background in this sort of thing, and I'm assuming you do, so I won't try to argue the details with you. But the way that DeYoung passage is written makes me think they're talking about an old-earth scenario, as shown in bold below:

DeYoung notes that there are three possible explanations for this presence of Carbon 14 that would preserve the diamonds' old age. First is contamination by Carbon-14 in groundwater supplying new atoms. This is very unlikely because different depths and densities of rock should show different levels of contamination, but the measured traces of Carbon-14 are fairly uniform.

I don't have a background in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that millions of years is irrelevent because C14 decays rapidly, so that after 100,000 years none should be left. So wouldn't the last 100,000 years of C14 production from close by radioactivity be all that would matter?

[Jukia]

Perhaps if those of you who are Young Earthers took the time to do some research and even speak with the people who do the science you might learn something instead to trying to shoe horn Genesis into the real world evidence.

Scary thought though, huh? Evidence, science.

[Flipper]

I notice from the show that the intent of this carbon dating of dino fossils does not appear to be to produce anything to engage the scientific community, but is rather to produce yet another video for the layperson.

You'd think that if the evidence was so good, these creationists would be able to make it stand in scientific terms but no, all we get is more propaganda.

And I'm having some problems considering Bob Enyart as a reliable source of information on this topic, after I heard him delightedly describing the Schweitzer samples of T-Rex soft materials on his show as looking like fresh meat on a butcher's slab. The reality, of course, was far from Bob's version, as the fragmentary proteins that were actually retrieved clearly demonstrated.

So color me extremely skeptical of scientific claims made by Bob Enyart. Particularly his "oh no, get your own dirt" comments regarding the use of existing fatty acids to make a primitive membrane for lab-created wet life.

Apparently, Bob may not know that a lot of fatty acids aren't hugely complex. They're not a major challenge to synthesize, and they do occur in nature in organic chemistry that doesn't require a lifeform. Heck, that was one of the first wins in organic chemistry, back in the 19th Century.

"Simple amphiphilic molecules have been found in meteorites and have been generated under a wide variety of conditions in the laboratory, ranging from simulated ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice particles to hydrothermal processing under simulated early Earth conditions."

Quote from Science Week.

Worse still for Bob's argument, if this artificial life is actually synthesized, the expectation is to use evolutionary processes to start selecting for more viable structures. Once it's been done once, different labs will begin testing different pathways until one or more viable routes using naturally occurring processes will be sketched out. And then, there's a pathway for non-divine life on earth.

Which then pushes the seriously contested ground for theism all the way back to the start of the universe, where it will stay uncontested for the foreseeable future. So don't worry, theists, there's still room for you in this big old universe.

[The Barbarian]

I don't have a background in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that millions of years is irrelevent because C14 decays rapidly, so that after 100,000 years none should be left. So wouldn't the last 100,000 years of C14 production from close by radioactivity be all that would matter?

The problem is that new C-14 can be produced by radiation of nitrogen. And it also turns out that there is nitrogen in diamonds. All that is necessary is that there be some radioactive elements nearby.

But in the blue earth were diamonds are found, we find radioactive uranium and thorium.

So we have a known source for carbon-14, that explains why it exists in very ancient material.

[BillyBob]

Originally Posted by The Retardian

I love to date dinosaurs! What's your grandmother doing Friday night?

[Grayven]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...21/ai_19226317

[Grayven]

OK ... The pope is pro evolution.

Does this mean I just have to argue with protestants about it now?

[BillyBob]

Yes.

[Paul Stan]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

The problem is that new C-14 can be produced by radiation of nitrogen. And it also turns out that there is nitrogen in diamonds. All that is necessary is that there be some radioactive elements nearby.

But in the blue earth were diamonds are found, we find radioactive uranium and thorium.

So we have a known source for carbon-14, that explains why it exists in very ancient material.

I assume from your reply that you agree that any C14 present in the diamond prior to 100,000 years does not enter into the analysis.

This means that if uranium and thorium were converting N14 into C14 for millions of years that prior to 100,000 years ago all the N14 would have already been converted to C14, which is not found to be the case.