Problems with radioactive dating methods
I further think that it is the fact that the claims are conscpicuously bogus that has accounted for their not having been responded to.After all, to my limited understanding, carbon 14 is associated with organic processes, and, right off the bat, I find myself wondering why it would be found in allotrope of carbon, which is an inorganic element.In fact, the experiments cited by the creationists appear to be attempts to establish the measurement error of there equipment.Older carbon dating techniques directly detected decays of C14 atoms. The most common contaminant is nitrogen, 0.1% in gem-quality diamonds.
I know I visited several times in the last two years, last time being about a month or so ago.)What is more alarming is that the Google searches for "carbon 14 RATE", "carbon 14 diamond", and "carbon 14 coal" yield hits predominantly in woowoo fundamentalist sites, and no hits on the first 15 pages (10 links per page) to anything at or pandasthumb.org, period.
C14 has a half life of 5730 years and is only good to date objects to 50,000 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. There seem to be some unsubstantiated references to the possibility of neutrons generated by uranium decay resulting in an anomalously high presence of C14.
The problem: If the material is too old, the small amount of C14 present may not decay in the measurement interval. Nearby radioactive material could trigger exactly the same C14 production process from nitrogen as occurs in the upper atmosphere, albeit at a much reduced rate.
Newer, more accurate techniques use mass spectroscopy. It doesn't take much contamination to spoil a sample with near-zero quantity of C14. Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section.