Originally posted by godspawn
That is a great link.
Thank you! I only got to this site to play chess but that is an unexpected bonus.

Do you think God has laid down these clues for us to discover over time?

I believe He has laid down clues for us.

I like to just point out that the link gives lies and misinformation.
For example, the http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds link says:

“...In fact, if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away, based on today’s measured half-life! ...”

the problem with this is that because not all atom making up the earth was carbon-14 and because many of those other atoms are radioactive, tiny amounts of new carbon-14 is constantly being made from nuclear reactions from interactions of these other radioactive atoms as they decay. So at any one time, regardless of how old the Earth is, we should expect there to be small amounts of carbon-14 in various very old rocks in the Earth's crust and also in diamond, coal etc regardless of how old it is.
This is common knowledge in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

“...Other carbon-14 sources
Carbon-14 can also be produced by OTHER neutron reactions, including in particular 13C(n,gamma)14C and 17O(n,alpha)14C with thermal neutrons, and 15N(n,d)14C and 16O(n,3He)14C with fast neutrons.[7]...” (my emphasis)
and many of the radioactive elements in the Earth produce neutrons which can create new carbon-14 atoms.

But he link dishonestly makes out that the ONLY known source of carbon-14 in the Earth is from neutrons from cosmic rays converting N2 to carbon-14.

So where it says:

“...These results, from a different radiocarbon laboratory to that used by the RATE group, confirm that there is intrinsic carbon-14 in natural diamonds. THEREFORE , they CANNOT be hundreds of millions or billions of years old, as there is NO other current credible explanation for the presence of this carbon-14. ...”(my emphases)

it is simply lying.

I am afraid you will find that RJHinds will constantly give a vast number of links like that which just tell loads of lies and misinformation to support his creationist religious beliefs.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The moon gets very cold when the Earth is between the Sun and moon. Now there is an educated statement. That happens SO often, its surprising there isn't liquid water on the moon, is that how it goes?

Think about the kinetic energy of an incoming asteroid hitting the moon full bore, and the asteroid is 100 km across, coming in at 50,000 kilometers an hou ...[text shortened]... the same because it had been hit billions of years ago not last summer geologically speaking.

Your assumptions have to either be wrong or incomplete and probably both, because it did cool down in less than 10,000 years, Duffus.

Originally posted by humy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

You need to read up on the moon before you start making stupid statement.

it says:

“...
Most of the Moon's mare basalts erupted during the Imbrian period, 3.0–3.5 billion years ago, although some radiometrically dated samples are as old as 4.2 billion years,[47] and the youngest eruptions, dated by ...[text shortened]... ot logically imply that the radiometric dating to date rocks on the moon gives “bogus dates”.

I said allll radiometic dating is bogus, carbon-14 is just an example. So all the ages they list in that article are all wrong because they based there assumptions on there radiometic dating for starters. You are the one making stupid statements because you believe these fools. My statements are based on the truth of God's word. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by godspawn
That is a great link.
Thank you! I only got to this site to play chess but that is an unexpected bonus.

Do you think God has laid down these clues for us to discover over time?

I believe He has laid down clues for us.

Perhaps so.

Originally posted by humy
I like to just point out that the link gives lies and misinformation.
For example, the http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds link says:

“...In fact, if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decay ...[text shortened]... which just tell loads of lies and misinformation to support his creationist religious beliefs.

They do not mean there are not other sources of Carbon-14. They mean there are none known to be able tp penetrate into the core of diamonds.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I said allll radiometic dating is bogus, carbon-14 is just an example. So all the ages they list in that article are all wrong because they based there assumptions on there radiometic dating for starters. You are the one making stupid statements because you believe these fools. My statements are based on the truth of God's word. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

I said allll radiometic dating is bogus,

Thank you for expressing your religious belief. Meanwhile the science facts remain facts.

Originally posted by humy

I said allll radiometic dating is bogus,

Thank you for expressing your religious belief. Meanwhile the science facts remain facts.

Your facts are false.

Originally posted by RJHinds
They do not mean there are not other sources of Carbon-14. They mean there are none known to be able tp penetrate into the core of diamonds.

-And no carbon-14 needs to penetrate the core of diamond to form there.
There would normally be some impurity in the core of diamond usually mainly in the form of nitrogen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defects_in_diamond
“...The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen ...”

neutron particles thrown out by any decaying radioactive elements in the rock surrounding the diamond can easily penetrate throughout the diamond where it would readily fuse with nitrogen atoms which would then decay into carbon-14 atoms. What barrier would stop this from happening? -it is just a matter of applying common knowledge about physics and geology.

Originally posted by humy
-And no carbon-14 needs to penetrate the core of diamond to form there.
There would normally be some impurity in the core of diamond usually mainly in the form of nitrogen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defects_in_diamond
“...The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen ...”

neutron particles thrown out by any decaying radioactive ele ...[text shortened]... his from happening? -it is just a matter of applying common knowledge about physics and geology.

That has already been ruled out. You did not pay attention.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That has already been ruled out. You did not pay attention.

Where has it been ruled out?
Highlight please...

Originally posted by humy
Where has it been ruled out?
Highlight please...

Buoyed by this success, the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. Sure enough, the diamonds submitted for radiocarbon analyses did contain detectable, significant levels of carbon-14, equivalent to an age of around 55,000 years. Again, the laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this carbon-14 was due to contamination, in situ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. At 1–2 billion years old, these diamonds, which are formed deep inside the earth, are regarded as being related to the earth’s early history. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon-14 in these diamonds was consistent with a young age for the earth itself.

Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years.

These results, from a different radiocarbon laboratory to that used by the RATE group, confirm that there is intrinsic carbon-14 in natural diamonds. Therefore, they cannot be hundreds of millions or billions of years old, as there is no other current credible explanation for the presence of this carbon-14. Less carbon-14 was found in the diamonds in this study reported in the conventional literature. That was because the diamonds were mounted directly in the beam within the analytical instrument, whereas in the RATE study the diamonds were combusted to convert the carbon to carbon dioxide, which was then converted to graphite that was analyzed in the instrument. That process may have introduced some more carbon-14 to the analyses.[

The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument. Yet this begs the question as to why then did the Precambrian graphite contain on average more carbon-14 to yield younger ages than the diamonds? And why did the diamonds have such different carbon-14 contents to yield different apparent radiocarbon “ages”? Because the same instrument was used to analyze all the diamonds and the graphite, the results should surely have all been affected by the same “machine background.” Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions of the RATE radiocarbon project that natural diamonds, which are related to the earth’s early history, show evidence of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Buoyed by this success, the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surface ...[text shortened]... of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young.[/b]

Are you being deliberately stupid? You what, don't believe the real explanation? That radioactivity underground is what makes the C14 from N14 also in the diamond? And therefore the diamond starts it's clock ticking only when it is removed from it's underground hiding place?

Are you also denying there is underground radioactivity?

Exactly why do you keep presenting this crap as if it were real?

Ah, it's because you are grasping at straws again and now your cognitive dissonance can deny the relevance of the underground radiation issue, since all you have to do is deny, deny, deny and all the psychological boo boo's will all be made better and the world is really 10,000 years old again.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you being deliberately stupid? You what, don't believe the real explanation? That radioactivity underground is what makes the C14 from N14 also in the diamond? And therefore the diamond starts it's clock ticking only when it is removed from it's underground hiding place?

Are you also denying there is underground radioactivity?

Exactly why do you ...[text shortened]... hological boo boo's will all be made better and the world is really 10,000 years old again.

MORE PEOPLE LOSING FAITH IN EVOLUTION

Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said this…

“…over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

Are people loosing their faith in science? The answer is of course, no! There is a lot of science to be confident in. However, they are loosing more faith in evolution because there is more confirmation in science about creationism than ever before!

In our own day, doubts and apprehensions about materialism are barely suppressed, as the debate about Darwinian evolution illustrates. The rustling, nervous tension emanating from the Church of Science may foretell the coming retreat of materialist dogmatism and the resurgence of genuine science.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/the_church_of_science_losing_o041441.html

The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141657.htm

"A common assumption about evolution is that it is directed toward increasing complexity," said Erik Zinser, associate professor of microbiology. "But we know from analysis of microbial genomes that some lineages trend toward decreasing complexity, exhibiting a net loss of genes relative to their ancestor."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404125008.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
Buoyed by this success, the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surface ...[text shortened]... of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young.[/b]

Where there does the fact that I pointed out is “ruled out” as you claim?
None of that even mentions the word “neutron” nor “nitrogen” nor “radioactive” anything so clearly it doesn’t “rule out” what I just claimed which was:

no carbon-14 needs to penetrate the core of diamond to form there.
There would normally be some impurity in the core of diamond usually mainly in the form of nitrogen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defects_in_diamond
“...The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen ...”

neutron particles thrown out by any decaying radioactive elements in the rock surrounding the diamond can easily penetrate throughout the diamond where it would readily fuse with nitrogen atoms which would then decay into carbon-14 atoms. What barrier would stop this from happening? -it is just a matter of applying common knowledge about physics and geology.

are any of the premises of this deduction “ruled out”? If so, which ones? That there would normally be some impurity in the core of diamond usually mainly in the form of nitrogen? I have alredly shown proof that nitrogen is there with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defects_in_diamond
“...The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen ...”

-that neutron particles thrown out by any decaying radioactive elements in the rock surrounding the diamond can easily penetrate throughout the diamond where it would readily fuse with nitrogen atoms?
Exactly which part of that would you say is “ruled out” and how so?

If none of those things are “ruled out” then my conclusion follows from my premises -do you deny this and, if so, where exactly is my error in deduction?

Originally posted by humy
Where there does the fact that I pointed out is “ruled out” as you claim?
None of that even mentions the word “neutron” nor “nitrogen” nor “radioactive” anything so clearly it doesn’t “rule out” what I just claimed which was:

[quote] no carbon-14 needs to penetrate the core of diamond to form there.
There would normally be some impurity in the core of dia ...[text shortened]... n follows from my premises -do you deny this and, if so, where exactly is my error in deduction?

The objection:
The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds.

But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out:
‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen-14 captures neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ.’2
Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.