[fishtank]

"The short answer to what is going on here is "Abuse the instrument, measure noise." There's a preferred instrument for every date range, one for which the element half-life makes sense. C-14 is only useful for very recent objects because of the short half-life. With any physical measurement, as the thing being measured shrinks, the spike of signal tends to go down not to zero but into a fringe of noise. These guys appear to be lawyering on the noise."

No. The lower limit of detection (LLD) for the AMS instrument is 0.002 pmc (percent of the modern ratio of C-14). In Figure 3 in their paper, the mean pmc for 10 samples of coal was pmc = 0.247, which is about two orders of magnitude higher than the pmc.

No, they are not "measuring noise".

I just wrote a document dealing with LLD determination for radioactive dose measurements. (I am the lead researcher on a new instrument.) They are not measuring noise.

The tables have turned. The statues are falling. Many scientists are being exposed as being not only fallible but biased, deceiving and dishonest on the question of evolution.

[narby]

I just wrote a document dealing with LLD determination for radioactive dose measurements. (I am the lead researcher on a new instrument.) They are not measuring noise.

Assuming you're correct, and the original piece is correct, then why does the C14 in some older samples "prove" that God created the world in 6 days? There are a great many other things that might have generated the same measurements. (By the way, read 50sDad's post, its great. If your goal is to insure that most scientifically people never find God, then continue your creationist work).

The tables have turned. The statues are falling. Many scientists are being exposed as being not only fallible but biased, deceiving and dishonest on the question of evolution.

You got a quote in a scientific journal along that line? Knowing that scientists compete with each other like dogs for new discoveries, any scientific traction along a creationist bent would be huge (hugh) news. The lack of any acknowledgement along that line in the scientific literature of such things would mean you're blowing smoke.

[VadeRetro]

No. The lower limit of detection (LLD) for the AMS instrument is 0.002 pmc (percent of the modern ratio of C-14). In Figure 3 in their paper, the mean pmc for 10 samples of coal was pmc = 0.247, which is about two orders of magnitude higher than the pmc.

I'm not talking about what your physical equipment can detect against zero background. I'm talking about what occurs in the environment from contamination, all sources.

I just wrote a document dealing with LLD determination for radioactive dose measurements. (I am the lead researcher on a new instrument.) They are not measuring noise.

So you're a recognized authority.

The tables have turned. The statues are falling. Many scientists are being exposed as being not only fallible but biased, deceiving and dishonest on the question of evolution.

So the recognized authorities are wrong.

[Right Wing Professor]

I just wrote a document dealing with LLD determination for radioactive dose measurements. (I am the lead researcher on a new instrument.) They are not measuring noise.

Unfortunately, the measurements dicussed here are mass spectrometric, not radioactive.