Carbon dating diamonds

Carbon dating diamonds

Over time, the diamond is moved upwards by rising magma. Natural diamonds are commonly believed to have been formed millions of years ago. If the rate carbon decays has been consistent, any carbon older than , years is undetectable by current measuring techniques. But carbon has been measured within natural diamonds. Either the decay rate of carbon is not uniform, the diamonds are younger than believed, or both.

A Diamond Date

Rarely a week goes by without someone emailing me with a comment similar to the following: There is a lot to be written about dating methods-and many articles on the subject appear on the Answers in Genesis website-but what I am more concerned about in this article is, why do so many people believe that carbon-dating has dated fossils to be millions of years old.

The evolutionary scientists themselves have never said that carbon-dating has been used on fossils; so why do people in the media and on the street think that they have? Carbon-dating is not a measure of all the carbon. Carbon exists in a number of different types, called isotopes, which have different masses, depending on the number of neutrons in the nucleus.

In carbon, the main isotopes have mass numbers of 12, 13 and 14 respectively. There is little of interest in what is by far the most common and stable kind, carbon Carbon is also stable, radioactively, but carbon is radioactive. Atoms of carbon are produced in the atmosphere by neutron bombardment of atoms of nitrogen This decay process follows a mathematical rule, depending on the length of the so-called half-life. For example, suppose there were g of a substance with a half-life of ten minutes.

Ten minutes later there would be 50g. After another 10 minutes, there would be 25g left. After yet another 10 minutes, there would be just Carbon has a calculated half-life of about years. This is calculated, because, obviously, no one has been measuring it for that long. So, if the amount of carbon in the newly dead organism is known, and the present measured amount, then it would be possible to calculate how long ago the organism died-in a live organism, it is assumed that the proportion of carbon always remains constant, because there will be continuous input of carbon from carbon dioxide or food.

With any radioactive decay measurement, no trace of the parent atoms can be detected after ten half-lives. 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. Real science is always gratifyingly consistent with the Bible.

In January , he published his first book, Just Six Days, in which he arranged contemporary creationist thinking into biblical order as a commentary of Genesis chapters 1 to He is a regular contributor to the AiG website and is in demand as an itinerant speaker and media commentator, as well as writing numerous articles, many of which are published in various Christian magazines. These isotopes have longer half-lives and so are found in greater abundance in older fossils.

Some of these other isotopes include: Please try to achieve some mastery of a scientific concept before making claims for or against it. And if you don't understand it, please don't write an article pretending that you do. The article gives off the impression that they agree with the carbon dating process but say it is flawed by the non-constant carbon to carbon12 ratio. The website actualy agrees with the half-life and radioactive decay. Are they unaware that isotopes of other radioactive elements such as Uranium have a half-life of 4.

How come creationists aren't pouncing on this? It seems unfair that Carbon can be accepted because it's half-life sits in the timescale of the bible yet Uranium goes unnoticed even though it's half-life is as old as the earth They can have whatever kind of C they want! C, C, etc. They also have a nasty tendency to decay into graphite, but that's another story. Nothing has to "get into" a diamond to give it C Diamonds come from charcoal that is millions of years old, which came from dead organisms.

If you knew anything about radioactive decay, you would know that you don't need an entire half-life to pass in order to calculate it. You only need to wait for a few particles to decay, then you can do some relatively simple math to calculate the half-life. We have proven this method to be accurate by using various other substances that have extremely short half-lives on the order of seconds, hours, etc. You also seem to be confused about what a half-life is.

It is a statistical measure of how long it takes for half of a given amount of a substance to decay. This is how carbon dating works -- we know how much C is in something when it's "new," then we measure how much is in it now. If it's half of the "new" value, one half-life has passed. Please check your facts next time, maybe with a scientist. Articles like this make some people think that religious types are out to cut down anything that disagrees with their previously-held beliefs, and will ignore anything they don't like and just stick with misinformation and ignorance.

So now the public will have to catch up with the truth of carbon dating Add your comment We welcome your opinions but libellous and abusive comments are not allowed. Generate another one We are committed to protecting your privacy. By clicking 'Send comment' you consent to Cross Rhythms storing and processing your personal data. For more information about how we care for your data please see our privacy policy.

Cross Rhythms is impacting youth and the wider community for good through FM radio, training, contemporary Christian music and a globally influential website. Latest Track: The Road Artist: Voluntary Opportunities Work Experience. About Paul Taylor. He read chemistry at Nottingham University and taught science for 17 years, eventually becoming a Head of Department, and gaining a Masters degree in Science Education at Cardiff University. View all articles by Paul Taylor. Comment Bookmark Tell a friend Print version.

Reader Comments Posted by vic in tampa, fl Even if it is "less" than 57, years old, it might be 51, years old, which is nowhere close to the 6, year figure Bible literalists claim. There is a lot more room for "Bzzt. WRONG" than "certainly consistent" there. The fact is not a single person starts out without presuppostions or assumptions. Evos' are just more rampant and ridiculous and above all, unprovable. Thank you again my brother, for using their own POOR understanding of knowledge and science against them.

Posted by Claire in Scheepers Posted by NellyFrizzle The major problem with carbon dating is that its based on an assumption. Assuming that the amount of C14 and C12 in the atmosphere to be in equilibrium during the time the fossil in question was alive. Now, like summer has kindly noted, you need to know how much C14 you are starting off with in order to make any calculations on its continuing half-life count down. The only way to do this is to take into account the ratio between the stable C12 and C14 and work your way down from there.

And we all know now that C12 and C14 are not in equilibrium stats And diamonds being pure carbon dated at the hundred of millions of years should not contain C The point is that all C14 should have expired and leave no trace, unless of course they are not in the millions of years age group. The "get into" impossibility means that it can't be contaminated or injected externally with C The only C14 in it are the ones present the day the diamond was formed.

Which apparently wasn't that long ago As for potassium, uranium and others of the same family of unstable elements for dating, they are all built on the shoulders of assumptions. Do some research, all dating techniques spring not from a given fact, but an assumption. For example in potassium 40, it is assumed that no calcium or Argon were initially present Reply by Greg in NZ Have ALL diamonds that have been examined show significant C14 residues?

Or are they the exception to the rule? So far I have only found 1 reference to six diamonds tested from a Namibian mine, tested and funded by a creationist group, which whilst I respect their findings is not exactly unbiased sourcing. Put another way, if examining data on drug effects in the research base, you wouldn't include research funded by a pharmaceutical group for a product they sell. As for the other isotopic dating techniques, maybe you would care to share the links or state the articles which you feel make them suspect.

That way we could all learn a bit more about it, as despite what you say, finding the credible scientific data for either side of the debate is tricky and not well laid out on either creationist or evolutionary sites. Reply by Jason Wreight in Melbourne Posted by godhammer in USA Posted by Matthew in Melbourne Posted by Summer Glau in Wisconsin

Diamonds are vastly older than any archeological relic, so carbon dating—which can only date items back to around 60, years ago—isn't. Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to.

By Griffon , December 29, in Physics. I've been poking about on the internet again as you do and found a whole load of stuff by creationists about the problems with carbon 14 radiometric dating. Specifically they report with some glee that coal has been found to contain measurable amounts of carbon14 which it should not of course because it is about million years old and dates from the carboniferous period. C14 has a half life of years and is only good to date objects to 50, years or so. Although I can find any number of references to this seemingly vital finding on the creationist sites, I can find almost no attempt to refute or explain this anomaly on serious science sites.

Carbon dating max age Why do ancient coals and oil are not billions of carbon is dating - join the free.

Seventy years ago, American chemist Willard Libby devised an ingenious method for dating organic materials. His technique, known as carbon dating, revolutionized the field of archaeology. Now researchers could accurately calculate the age of any object made of organic materials by observing how much of a certain form of carbon remained, and then calculating backwards to determine when the plant or animal that the material came from had died.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Carbon dating , also known as radiocarbon dating, is a scientific procedure used to date organic matter. It depends upon the radioactive decay of carbon 14 C , an unstable isotope of carbon which is continually synthesized in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. Plants take up atmospheric 14 C for as long as they live, through the process of photosynthesis. Animals take up atmospheric 14 C indirectly, by eating plants or by eating other animals that eat plants. Measuring the proportion of 14 C as opposed to 12 C remaining in a sample then tells us how long ago the sample stopped taking up 14 C — in other words, how long ago the thing died. Carbon dating has a certain margin of error, usually depending on the age and material of the sample used.

Diamonds and Strata Have Too Much Carbon-14

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon. Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C, and the old C starts to decay back into N by emitting beta particles. The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. C decays with a half-life of 5, years.

Rarely a week goes by without someone emailing me with a comment similar to the following:

About the authors: The authors would like to thank Dr. Dating Diamonds.

Carbon dating

However, these excessively long ages are easily explained within the biblical worldview, and 14 C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth. Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division. Any carbon atom has six protons within its nucleus, but the different isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. Cosmic rays mainly high-energy protons trigger a process in the atmosphere that changes atmospheric nitrogen into 14 C. However, unlike the other two carbon isotopes, 14 C is unstable and eventually decays back into nitrogen. The decay rate can be measured for a large number of these 14 C atoms. Since this decay process slows as the number of 14 C atoms decreases, it may be expressed best in terms of a half-life, which is the amount of time for half of any given sample of 14 C to decay back into nitrogen. Thus, after one half-life, 50 percent of the original 14 C atoms will remain. After two half-lives, 25 percent of the original 14 C will remain, and so on. Once they die, however, organisms no longer take in new carbon, and the amount of 14 C in their bodies begins to decrease. But the calculated dates will only be accurate if the assumptions behind the method are correct. Sensitive instruments called acceleration mass spectrometers AMS are used to count the 14 C atoms within a sample of material.

Choose country

According to evolutionary scientists, radiocarbon dating also known as carbon dating is totally ineffective in measuring time when dealing with millions of years. In his book, Genes, People, and Languages , renowned Stanford University geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, in a discussion on the theory of human evolution, commented on radiocarbon dating, stating: Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins also dealt with the limitations of radiocarbon dating a few years ago in his highly touted book, The Blind Watchmaker. He was even more critical of this dating method than was Cavalli-Sforza, saying:. Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates.

Carbon 14 Diamonds

They are both forms allotropes of carbon. Most carbon atoms are 12 times heavier than hydrogen 12 C , about one in is 13 times heavier 13 C , and one in a trillion 10 12 is 14 times heavier 14 C. Of these different types isotopes of carbon, 14 C is called radiocarbon, because it is radioactive—it breaks down over time. Some try to measure age by how much 14 C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left.

Thanks to Fossil Fuels, Carbon Dating Is in Jeopardy. One Scientist May Have an Easy Fix

Can carbon 14 dating of diamonds prove a young Earth? Your articles on radiometric dating assumptions have been extremely helpful in educating me on this. 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?



Half-life and carbon dating - Nuclear chemistry - Chemistry - Khan Academy
Related publications