Re: Article on RATE Intrinsic Radiocardon, Submission to TO

On Jun 30, 7:55 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE
hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon” but are consistent with
contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a
“radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory. As contamination becomes better
understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will
diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including
many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination
mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.
The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth
contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C” [1].

Maybe it's just me, and a minor point, but the language here seems to
me to make "intrinsic radiocarbon" sound like a special kind of
radiocarbon that proves the existence of God, whereas the RATE
hypothesis, as I understand it second-hand, is merely that the sample
material was formed in the past containing carbon-14 in more-or-less
the ordinary way, some of which carbon-14 still exists as itself -
implying that either the sample has a measurable radiocarbon age
(despite being otherwise dated outside the scope of radiocarbon
dating), or that the whole theory of radiocarbon dating is bent
somewhere.  Nevertheless, the /hypothetical/ "intrinsic radiocarbon"
is just the same material that you would hopesto detect in any
radiocarbon dating exercise.

The phrase "intrinsic radiocarbon" comes from Baumgardner. He used it
to exclude the notion that the observed counts are due to
contamination or instrument error.

“radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” also may be not the best choice of term.

It is cute.


"Phanerozoic radiocarbon", to coin another shorthand for the exercise,
and overlooking that Phanerozoic means /now/ (? - whoops) - original
carbon-14 in samples supposedly too old to contain an amount to be
distinguished reliably from experiment contamination and margin of
error - has been shown to be not detected, since the claimed detection
is precisely in the range of experiment contamination and margin of
error.  But is that a gap?  The experiments look for Phanerozoic
radiocarbon and really see nothing.  A signal would be a problem for
modern radiocarbon dating, since there is not supposed to be a
signal.  (Although it wouldn't be enough to make the world 6,010 years
old after all.)  But there is no signal.  So there is no problem.
Even if accuracy improves in future, there is only a problem if /then/
a signal appears.  For now there's nothing.

I notice with interest that it's restated that natural radioactivity
produces new carbon-14 in coal, but the interesting claim of carbon-14
in diamond is dismissed as mere error.  May I infer that Kirk Bertsche
managed to process or print the monster-size PDF "poster" that
apparently constituted "publication" of the results on diamond, and
that defeated my own PC?  I think it was A0 size or something.  Side
of a truck.

The difference between the coal and diamond samples comes from their
different geological settings and chemical properties. Coal is
typically bedded with clays and sand. The sands allow considerable
amounts of ground water to circulate, and the clays nearly always have
measurable uranium which is a source of neutrons. Also, as pointed out
in the article, unprocessed diamond has less "intrinsic" radiocarbon
than processed diamond samples which points to processing
contamination/instrument error.

Do you suggest that Kirk expand on this?

GH

.

Relevant Pages