radiometric dating

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Yehren]

CArbon is beinbg lost by the biological process of changing 14C to 14N, so there is less carbon than at creation. As I understand it carbon-14 is cahnged to nitrogen-14 by a 40 day process.

This is true. However, new C-14 is being continuously produced in the high atmosphere.

Properly speaking, it is not a biological process; it is considered to be nuclear chemistry.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

An example of a beta-emitter is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is a naturally occurring radioisotope found in the Earth's atmosphere. It can also be manufactured by humans. It has a half-life of 5,700 years. The natural amounts of Carbon-14 that have been taken into organic materials are often used in archaeological studies to determine the ages of human remains and other organic artefacts from ancient civilisations.

I find this half- life interesting because it corresponds very closely with the age of the earth. Also when I was reading the page and as I understand carbon-14 production, that there is less and less available carbon on this planet as time goes by.

No this is incorrect the carbon decays back into Nitrogen.
In the upper atmostphere cosmic rays produce carbon 14 by interacting with Nitrogen 14.
n+N14 --> C14 + H

Once formed C14 has a half life of 5,700 years as it gradually decays back into Nitrogen.

This should be of interest to carbon based life.

If accurate carbon-14 measurments can be taken, this establishes a carbon loss rate, that can be extrapolated 4.5 billion years into hypothetical geological time.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, since the carbon 14 half life is 5,700 years accurate measurements can only go back 50,000 years. (Even farther with more modern measurement techniques.)

If you want to know how this technique works let me know.

Nope won't work because carbon 14 daughters to Carbon-12 which is its parent, but nontheless I find carbon-14 half life to be interesting.

Again not sure what you mean here. Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen.

CArbon is beinbg lost by the biological process of changing 14C to 14N, so there is less carbon than at creation.

You forget that the C14 came from Nitrogen in the first place.

As I understand it carbon-14 is cahnged to nitrogen-14 by a 40 day process.

Incorrect carbon 14 has a half life of 5730 years. And this decay is not a biological process.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Chapter 5 of Dr. Fange book presents numerous findings that show geological time and thus evolution to be the drivel it is.

http://www.rae.org/ch05tud.html

This doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.
Please just let me know if you accept the following as facts or not.

Uranium-236 has a half-life of 23.9 million years
Technetium-99 has a half-life of 0.212 million years (thats 212,000 years.)

They don't occur naturally on earth.

Plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80 million years and can only be found in very trace quantities as a result of a rare process in uranium-238 decay.

I had asked earlier what your evidence that Uranium 236 and Technetium-99 do not occur naturally on earth, but never got an answer?

They do occur but only in trace ammounts and this quantity can be attributed to the decay of other particles such as Uranium 238.

Also then are you saying they are here by some supernatural cause?

No it's a commercial byproduct of nuclear reactors used in medicine.

Also If you could deal with those issues and I was really hoping that you were going to take this explanation of radiometric dating further.

The abundance of elements on earth follows a pattern with elements lower on the periodic table being more than those higher, yet these lements are far less abundant than would be predicted by this curve.

Why would there be only minute trace ammounts of Uranium 236 and Technetium 99?

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Yehren]

Unless an organism uses geological carbon (e.g. mollusks) the amount of C-14 is at an equillibrium. When it dies, the C-14 remains, and then decays slowly, which provides the clock needed to date relatively recent things.

It is of almost no use to paleontologists, since it cannot be used to day most fossils.

It is of primary use to biologists and archaeologists.

[sandy_mcd]

So Nitrogen is converted into 14C and 14C is converted to 12C by radiation and to N by biological processes.

14N is converted in the upper atmosphere into 14C. The 14C then decays at a constant rate back to 14N. These are nuclear reactions and essentially independent of the chemical or biological environment.

When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

No it's a commercial byproduct of nuclear reactors used in medicine.

How is this not a natural cause? AGain either it is here by a natural cause or you are saying that humans are supernatural

YOU ASKED ME IF IT WAS A SUPERNATURAL CAUSE!

Also then are you saying they are here by some supernatural cause?

Again this is not a jab at you, I remeber asking earlier.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?

To continue:
Are you refering to my statement that these elements do not occur naturally in the Earth?
So everything a human being makes is natural? From a microwave to a car, all nothing more than a biologically produced product, akin to a beehive?

Occuring naturally and natural cause are completely different animals in this discussion.

Perhaps the best explanation for the virtual absence of these elements is that enough time has passed that the original stockpile the earth contained has long ago decayed.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

No I said "They don't occur naturally on earth. "

Well they are either akin to biological processes, or else man is supernatural. If you want to be able to complain about the actions of man like global warming and such, than you must believe that his actions are not part of the natural order. Either man is a product of natural selection and is simply a higher animal in which case there is no ground to complain about what he does any more than what another animal does, or else man is separate from the animals and his actions are more than biological processes. I don't see how you can have it both ways. So is the presence of the elements here by natural processes or not?
__

Natural cause and occuring naturally are not the same thing.

We use the natural means to extract this element from nuclear reactors, however they do not occur naturally in the Earth.