Carbon 14 Diamonds
Diamonds: a creationist's best friend Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years by Jonathan Sarfati Carbon What do hard sparkling diamonds D., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free. Most diamonds are really old, and the half-life of 14C is around years. Why does rain contain a consistent 14% carbon atoms? so changes in this ratio over time can be measured against the atmospheric ratio. They only use the data they've been told without actually trying to measure c14 through experiment. Diamonds are vastly older than any archeological relic, so carbon dating—which can only date items back to around 60, years .. This is a standard procedure , much used in geochemistry, called isotope dilution.
C Found in Diamonds?
I mentioned diamonds having detectable C14 as well as coal —I think I got that from creation. An evolutionist said you can easily find diamonds that have no C14, which is then evidence against a year old earth.
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.
Carbon 14 Diamonds
Why would evolutionists ever look for C14 anyway? Please help if you can! These days, carbon 14 is continuously created as cosmic radiation converts nitrogen 14 into carbon 14 in the atmosphere. With any radioactive decay measurement, no trace of the parent atoms can be detected after ten half-lives.
- A Diamond Date
- Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution
It follows that carbon-dating cannot be used for anything that might have died more than about years ago. This clearly gives the lie to the statement that a supposed million-year-old fossil were dated by carbon-dating. Interestingly, some diamonds have been tested for carbon-dating. The diamonds are supposedly more than a billion years old.
As diamond structures are too tight for even a bacterium to enter, they should not contain any trace of carbon The fact that they do indeed contain measurable amounts of carbon suggest that they are a good deal younger than the billion years claimed, and certainly must be less than years old.
This does not prove a biblical age of years, but it is certainly consistent with that position.
Of course, serious evolutionary scientists do not make such mistaken claims about fossil dating, yet 'popular' TV science programmes frequently make such errors. Yet such is society's conditioned bias in favour of evolutionary ideas, that when I correct such emailed opinions, the senders rarely accept the logic of real science. Half the amount of carbon is depleted every 5, years. This means that for a finite 1 gram sample there will be absolutely no carbon left in the sample after aroundyears.
So these are the base assumptions for all radioisotope dating remember axioms? Now remember, anything pastyears or earlier should be totally carbon dead if the assumptions hold. This was originally attributed to limited machine accuracy. But machine accuracy has improved, in fact, scientists have known about this problem for over 20 years. The obvious conclusion was that something they were doing was contaminating the samples assumption 3.
A Diamond Date: What's the truth about carbon-dating
So they scour the lab, set up the most strict procedures. Before doing a test they dunk a sample in acid, then base, then acid again to remove any outside contamination. What they found is that the carbon levels remained. Eventually, people working at the carbon dating labs concluded that the samples must be contaminated out in the field, before it ever got to the lab, and dropped the issue. Carbon dating is only used for things considered recent for this reason.
It took a group of very unorthodox scientists called the RATE team to look at it again. This is why I like people who go against the grain.