C14 dating diamonds

Preparing the Diamond for Research
Contents:
  1. Selecting Diamonds for Study
  2. Carbon dating
  3. C14 in diamonds, oil, dinosaurs : Earth Sciences • Rational Skepticism Forum

Google [Bot] and 0 guests. C14 in diamonds, oil, dinosaurs Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, Meteorology etc. C14 is found in diamonds, oil, dinosaurs. But some some scientists made a C14 test on them, and the result was that they are some thousands of years old.

Recommended Posts

Why is C14 in billion aged objects? From where are these C14? Are they from N? Print view this post. So if I understand right, the C14 is from decayed redioactive elements? This is why the C14 dating is wrong at very old objects?


  • Problem with Carbon 14 radiometric dating - Physics - Science Forums.
  • Carbon 14 Diamonds.
  • .
  • speed dating saint john nb?

C14 in diamonds, oil, dinosaurs by susu. How does one detect C14 in objects? An evolutionist said you can easily find diamonds that have no C14, which is then evidence against a year old earth.

Selecting Diamonds for Study

The question is, how do I explain that? He takes C14 in diamonds as contamination and lack of C14 in diamonds as evidence against a young earth. How would you explain that? For all I know they all have C14 in them. Why would evolutionists ever look for C14 anyway? Please help if you can!


  • no card dating sites!
  • Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution.
  • Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating.
  • Create an account or sign in to comment;
  • Navigation menu;

These days, carbon 14 is continuously created as cosmic radiation converts nitrogen 14 into carbon 14 in the atmosphere. The rate at which carbon 14 is produced has reached equilibrium with the rate at which carbon 14 naturally decays back into nitrogen. This article does a good job at explaining the technical complexities of measuring the very small amounts of C14 present in these ancient samples and why non-zero amounts are measured. I'm a complete non-expert in this field of radiometric dating, but it strikes me reading this how contamination by modern carbon introduced during sample preparation seems to be a severe issue.

I'm wonder whether they've extracted samples under an inert atmosphere and then used laser ablation to ionize samples in their mass spectrometers?

I'm probably teaching grandmother to suck eggs, as the old saying goes. Getting back to my OP - I feel that some definitive work needs to be done in this area. It's easy to see that the sceptical creationist is simply going to see the scientific response as making excuses for the data instead of holding up some hard data that either explains or explodes the anomaly. Another thing I've heard from creationists is that fossils made by soaking samples in tar pits appear to be extremely old.

Of course, the problem is that this process results in contamination with old carbon, making the sample appear older. In the case of old samples with almost no C, even the tiniest bit of contamination would make the sample appear far younger. Always remember that C dating is not a magical process; it is a measure of C and the age interpretation depends on a few assumptions.

It's also worth noting that C is only useful for a bit more than , years. The vast majority of fossils aren't dated using C at all, but other radioisotopes. Science has several very reasonable explanations for levels of modern carbon in very old samples. Although this satisfies the scientist, who for all sorts of other reasons quite reasonably assumes that these samples are truly old, it leaves enormous scope for the creationists to reinforce their followers' faith that the earth is young. I still feel that some definitive experiments in this area would be useful to test the various rational explanations for the c14 anomaly.

I can see though that science has problems taking on creationists because of the perceived risk of lending credibility to their ideas. Bit of a dilemma there. Also as soon as one creationist idea is exploded, they just move on to another area where uncertainty in the science offers them the opportunity to mislead.

Carbon dating

That begs the question that an anomaly even exists. What does exist are limits to the applicability of 14 C dating techniques. Several of the test results touted by creationists were definitive experiments to assess those limitations. There is no arguing with young earth creationists.

C14 in diamonds, oil, dinosaurs : Earth Sciences • Rational Skepticism Forum

They are immune to logic and evidence. Broadly speaking I agree with you.


  • Carbon dating - RationalWiki.
  • .
  • ?

But, reading the experts' explanations of the "anomaly" read to me, as a non-expert in this field, like perfectly reasonable explanations as long as you accept the "old earth" explanation. If you don't, such dismissive arguments as 'the extra C14 could be due to uranium decay' leave enough wriggle room uncertainty for the creationist to thrive in.

Claire's Geology Brief No. 6: Carbon 14 in Coal and Diamonds

You're right though, I'm probably being naive in thnking they will be convinced. Even so, it is always good when creationists have been casting doubt in some area to be able to completely explode their reasoning. I'm still looking for a reference, in a refereed scientific journal, confirming the finding of carbon14, in any amount, in diamonds or coal.

I suspect, but haven't been able to confirm, that the reports of carbon 14 in these substances have been made up out of whole cloth by Young Earth Creationists, but I am loath to make this claim, absent evidence that reports of these findings haven't been published in any journals that aren't connected with such organizations as the Institute for Creation Science. I further think that it is the fact that the claims are conscpicuously bogus that has accounted for their not having been responded to.

After all, to my limited understanding, carbon 14 is associated with organic processes, and, right off the bat, I find myself wondering why it would be found in any allotrope of carbon, which is an inorganic element. Can anyone out there either confirm or disconfirm my suspicions? You need to know that I will not be much impressed by anything coming from the ICR or any similar group.

Well one of two things could be happening, the carbon 14 signature is reset every time the rock melts because the carbon 14 disperses among the liquid rock, Also neutron bombardment from uranium decay could possibly have an impact, but you'd also have other trace elements that tell the tale of this neutron contamination.

Since the discussion is specifically about Carbon14 in coal I am unclear as to why you would be talking about molten rock.