Young earth creationists and Carbon-14 "dating" of diamonds

Young earth creationists are using this "Carbon-14 dating of diamonds" to argue that geologists are all wrong that the earth has been around for millions and billions of years. In this video I discuss the directly relevant science information that the young earth creationists are conveniently ignoring.

(By the way, yes, I misspoke in the video about C14 being produced from C12 in the atmosphere; it's produced from nitrogen atoms, not carbon atoms.)

Here is some relevant reference information (of course, as you'll notice from numerous examples of how young earth creationists behave in the comments sections of my videos, they are apparently incapable of lifting a finger to actually look up and read any real science information; they avoid/evade it like the plague; so this information is just for everyone else):

Excess carbon-14 abundances in uranium ores: Possible evidence for emission from uranium-series isotopes
by D. Barker, A. J. T. Jull, and D. J. Donahue
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 12, Issue 10, p. 737-740 [1985])

Carbon-14 Abundances in Uranium Ores and Possible Spontaneous Exotic Emission from U-Series Nuclides
by A. J. T. Jull, D. Barker, and D. J. Donahue
(Meteoritics, Vol. 20, p.676 [Dec. 1985])

14C in uranium and thorium minerals: a signature of cluster radioactivity?
by R. Bonetti, et al
(European Physical Journal A, Vol. 5, No. 2, 235-238 [Jun. 1999])

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• creationism
• creationists
• geology
• carbon-14
• c14
• radiocarbon
• evolution

[greeneto]

@jouc12, I can always count on young earth creationists to keep right on defiantly spouting their falsehoods based on their own ignorance. Uranium is formed naturally inside the zircon mineral because of the chemical bonding. When (some of) the uranium decays into lead atoms, the lead does not "fit" the chemical bonding of the mineral, but they're locked in because they can't get out - but then when the structure of the mineral is damaged enough by the radiation itself over time these lead...

[greeneto]

@jouc12, also you wrote, "I can always count on atheistic self contradictory foolishness..." And, of course, I notice you enjoy throwing around that word "atheist" frequently in connection with this subject. The reality is that the vast majority of CHRISTIANS around the world disagree with your religious doctrine because they accept the scientific fact that the earth has been around a lot longer than just 6,000 years. Why do you try to stupidly pretend those millions of Christians don't exist?

[greeneto]

@greeneto, [cont'd] ...charade is that you see your objective as to try to prop up your belief in your religious dogma no matter what, even if it means ignoring and telling lies about science to do so. You should explain why it's apparently impossible for you to look up the details of C14 dating in the Wikipedia at the click of a button, to alleviate your ignorance, instead of disingenuously pretending I'm supposed to educate you with posts limited to 100 words or less? That's just STUPID.

[greeneto]

@rn502pd, you wrote, "This has nothing to do with beliefs, It has everything to do with what your video indicates."

Bullshit. Typical creationist telling lies. This has *everything* to do with how you creationists PRETEND (i.e., tell lies) that you all so interested in science - when the fact of the matter is that you deliberately ignore dealing with - even ignore just learning about - the relevant scientific details. The reason for your charade is that you see your objective as to try to...

[greeneto]

@greeneto, uh oh - a misstatement on my part in my response - I wrote: "I never made any statement that atmosphere adds carbon to materials". I left out a very important detail in that sentence. Here is my correction: "I never made any statement that the atmosphere adds *additional* carbon to materials." That word "additional" is the key point - but it's exactly the word I accidentally omitted.

[greeneto]

@rn502pd, you wrote, " You seem to be quite confused that your video indicates that if outside sources add carbon then the carbon dates are unreliable." You again demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. Moreover, I have already pointed out your misunderstand previously (my "First" and "Second" points), and yet here you are now completely ignoring what I pointed out and spouting remarks based on your ignorance and incomprehension. Typical creationist.

[greeneto]

@rn502pd, you wrote, "your video claims that atmosphere and uranium add carbon to materials". Half right, and half wrong. I never made any statement that atmosphere adds carbon to materials. What I pointed out was that in the ground energy (from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium) can hit nitrogen atoms and change them into C14 atoms. (Note: In the video I said "carbon" instead of "nitrogen" atoms, which was an off-the-cuff misstatement.)

[rn502pd]

@greeneto Im confused because your video claims that atmosphere and uranium add carbon to materials. Then use your claim as an explaination of why Carbon dating is reliable? You seem to be quite confused that your video indicates that if outside sources add carbon then the carbon dates are unreliable. This has nothing to do with beliefs, It has everything to do with what your video indicates. Again, please explain the point to your video.

[greeneto]

@rn502pd, just as you acknowledge, you are very confused. The reason you're confused is because you don't know what you're talking about. First, you don't comprehend how atmospheric C14 is "absorbed in materials". Second, you don't comprehend how, and where, C14 is produced in, for example, diamonds, by radioactive decay in geological context (i.e., in the ground). You cannot help but be confused, because you are driven by ignorance, and a religion-motivated determination to remain ignorant.

[rn502pd]

@greeneto I must be confused as you say. I truthfully thought the video said that atmosphere and uranium cause carbon to be absorbed in materials. I guess I mistakenly thought this meant that since that admittedly happens, there would be little use to use carbon dating because of the two factors you just claimed skew the dating. What exactly were you trying to point out?

[greeneto]

@rn502pd, you know, I really like creationists like you, because of how when you open your mouth and spout off you almost always prove just how clueless and lacking in comprehension of science you really are - not to mention how you prove how much you thoroughly enjoy misrepresenting everything in sight based on that ignorance and incomprehension. Your statements are not stated or implied in anything I said in the video. Thanks for playing, but no cigar.

[rn502pd]

The only thing your "research would prove is that Carbon dating can NEVER be used because carbon 14 continues to be absorbed in material. So while the diamond and coal arguement may not be proof that they are young, your video basically says all carbon 14 dates in the past are unreliable. But you know that.