Young earth diamond dating

Article from answers in genesis:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

Article of the actual test:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJN-4N1T1J7-6&...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Answers
• in
• genesis
• AIG
• AMS
• evolution

[BroCope]

and would have outgassed millions of years ago. Look at the molecular signature of diamonds. See any nitrogen?????? C-14 is the greatest evidence of a young earth. How about those TRex bones that, when broken open, yielded up soft tissue. That tissue, carbon dated came in at 10,000 years, not 65,000,000. Let's hear it for science. It points to God when viewed without the predetermined agenda of an evolutionist.

[Zucadragon]

@BroCope A very interesting point you bring up, got any articles that explain this principle so I can take a look at them? I'll check em out and get back to you with em.

The soft tissue issue isn't really an issue. If you actually read the articles on that one, you'd realize that it's not about "soft tissue" as found in the body of live beings, but mineralized tissue that through different procedures has been made "soft". And no, it didn't get carbon dated to 10.000 years.

[Zucadragon]

If I'm wrong though, show me the evidence. Don't talk about "proof", science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence, the fact that you say such things requires me to think that you are just copying from a source and have no idea about the topic yourself.

Again, what I want from you, is the article on N14 and C14 that you are explaining from, so I can check them out, and if you can manage, the article with the details on carbon 14 testing on the mineralised "soft tissue" 

[BroCope]

Raise up a smoke screen so you wont have to answer the question of why there is ANY C-14 in diamonds. If the diamonds are placed in the carboniferous period, as they usually are, no C-14 could survive the 35,000,000 years since then. No, Zucadragon, any C-14 at all, no matter how much or little is a prima facea proof that the diamonds are very young, and therefore the Carbonifierous period could not have been 35mm years ago. Think less than 10,000.

[Zucadragon]

@BroCope You didn't really watch the video it seems, it deals with this exact point. Actually, so does the scientific article linked in the info AND on the AIG website.

Go read or actually watch what I'm trying to explain before you say stupid things like this.

[BroCope]

@nyBrit Check out the energy level differencess between the high energy particles from the sun (which are energetic enough to change N-14 int C-14, and the low energy alpha and beta decays of nearby radioactive elements. Your theory falls apart. Localized radioactivity is not energetic enough to convert N-14 to C-14. Any C-14 found in diamonds had to be present when the diamond was formed. Besides. even if there were nitrogen in the carbon that was compressed into the diamond, it is a gas

[nyBrit]

@BroCope Diamonds get their carbon 14 from a different source, nuclear particles. Carbon dating is extremely accurate for non-marine organic life. Trying to prove carbon dating is wrong by using diamonds or marine life is just utterly dishonest.

[ProphetLuong]

@Zucadragon What do you think? Of course, I had to endure the 2:34 min of your annoying silly voice talking about another half-baked theory in order to write my comment.

[Zucadragon]

@ProphetLuong Did you watch the video at all, or just come here to sprout your nonsense?

[ProphetLuong]

@Zucadragon Preciously because diamonds WERE CREATED AROUND 5,500-6K YEARS AGO with the Earth, they have C-14 in them!!!

Conclusion, SCIENCE PROVES the Holy Bible is correct!!!