Carbon Dating

[JVW]

Hey all. I need a sanity check. This article, https://medicinegirl.substack.com/p/diamonds-are-a-frauds-best-friend, argues about why carbon dating shouldn't be trusted but there's only one counterargument in the comments and it's not arguing against her analysis of carbon dating. I don't know if anyone here knows a lot about carbon dating but I would appreciate it if there were someone here who does if they would provide an argument for how this article is wrong (excluding the opinion statements she makes, which is like 30% of the text of the article, so feel free to sweep those statements under the rug).

For those who don't want to read it because it's rather long, let me just put some things into this OP to make it long instead.  Also, please note, I don't care about credentials or expertise, I care about the argument as its presented and the reasoning used, so when you argue against it please don't just say "she's dumb because she's not a geologist or whatever" because I think that's a lame argument.

The first half of the article basically says that the story of how diamonds are formed is made up based on inferences from how lab grown diamonds are formed but has very little basis in scientific thought. It also talks about how diamond supply has been artificially throttled (which was old news to me). What I liked about this part of the article was her explanation about how lab diamonds are grown. I thought that was interesting.

Quote

In HPHT machines, the seed is surrounded by carbon-bearing powder and molten metal catalysts made from iron, nickel, or cobalt. The catalyst dissolves the powder and delivers the carbon to the seed under tightly controlled temperature and pressure. In CVD systems, the seed sits in a vacuum chamber filled with methane and hydrogen. Microwaves break the gas into plasma, and free carbon atoms settle onto the seed one layer at a time.

Pretty cool. Anyways, onto carbon dating!

To start with the author says

Quote

The method begins with the idea that carbon exists in multiple forms called isotopes. These isotopes are defined by their atomic mass. Carbon twelve is said to contain six protons and six neutrons. Carbon-14 is said to contain six protons and eight neutrons. The additional neutrons are claimed to make carbon-14 unstable and radioactive.

According to the model, carbon fourteen forms naturally in the upper atmosphere when cosmic radiation interacts with nitrogen. This carbon-14 is said to mix evenly with carbon-12 in carbon dioxide and to enter plants through photosynthesis. Animals then ingest plants, and humans ingest both plants and animals. While an organism is alive, it is assumed to maintain a constant ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 that mirrors the atmospheric ratio.

When the organism dies, the model claims that carbon intake stops. From that point forward, carbon fourteen is said to decay at a fixed rate while carbon twelve remains stable. By measuring the remaining amount of carbon-14 and comparing it to carbon-12, scientists claim they can calculate how long the organism has been dead.

I have no idea, but that sounds about right according to what I've learned in the past about this method of dating. She then proceeds to talk about how carbon dating works

Quote

In mass spectrometry, a sample is destroyed, ionized, and passed through electromagnetic fields. The instrument detects how charged fragments behave under those fields. Heavier fragments deflect differently from lighter ones. From these deflections, the machine produces signal peaks. Those peaks are assigned numerical masses. The masses are then assigned to specific isotopes according to the existing isotope framework. The framework is where the translation happens, and meaning is assigned to their numbers.

In radiation counting methods, scientists ... measure ... radiation coming off a sample. Certain types of radiation at certain energy levels are assumed to come from carbon-14 as it decays over time. When a detector detects radiation, the machine converts the signal into a number using mathematical formulas that assume carbon-14 decays at a fixed rate.

In both radiation counting and mass-based methods, the isotope itself is never directly observed. It is inferred. Scientists assume that a specific signal indicates the presence of carbon-14. The tools used to make this judgment are calibrated using reference materials that already assume the isotope model is correct. In other words, the system checks itself using its own assumptions, never direct observations.

This sounds like it could be a little murky and open for dispute. In a comment below the article someone summarized the carbon dating process as follows

Quote

1) First they take some old bones and grind them into a fine powder.

2) Then they take the material through a series of harsh acid baths and washes with hydrochloric acid.

3) Then they bake it.

4) Then they freeze dry it and run it through a special machine that spits out measurements.

5) Then they bake again at super high temperatures.

6) Then they hand it off to the computer software and mark it on the calendar.

Is this what the actual process of carbon dating looks like? If so, that's fascinating but also kind of weird.

The author continues on suggesting "points of failure" for current carbon dating methods:

Quote

The first failure point is the assumption of isotopic uniformity. Carbon dating requires the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 to be stable or reconstructable across time, geography, climate, and biology. In reality, this ratio varies due to factors they attribute to solar activity, geomagnetic activity, altitude, industrial emissions, nuclear testing, ocean exchange, soil chemistry, and biological processes. Calibration curves are continually revised to account for these variations, so the clock is adjusted after the fact to match known dates.

This is a point that I've considered in passing. I understand that radioactive decay, when measured in a lab, is uniform. But how can it be proven that decay is uniform across thousands or millions of years? If that assumption is wrong, I wonder what margin of error could be introduced to account for it? +/- a a few thousand years? A few million?

Quote

The second failure point is biological behavior. Living systems do not treat carbon as a single interchangeable substance. Carbon uptake, storage, recycling, and excretion vary widely between species, tissues, and environmental conditions. Bone, collagen, shell, wood, and charcoal all behave differently. This introduces an error that cannot be resolved solely by isotope ratios.

I have no inkling about whether this statement is true or not, but it sounds reasonable.

Quote

The third failure point is contamination and alteration. Carbon does not remain isolated after death. It moves through soil, water, air, microbes, and chemical reactions. Older samples can absorb newer carbon. Younger samples can lose carbon. Laboratories attempt to clean samples, but there is no way to verify that the remaining carbon reflects an original closed system.

Again, no idea if this is true. I don't even know if this is applicable in the model she's critiquing? I assume she's talking about absorbing that mixture of carbon-12 and carbon-14 from the upper atmosphere here, but the model assumes that absorption stops after a living organism dies?

Quote

The fourth failure point is circular validation. Carbon dating results are routinely checked against historical timelines, archaeological expectations, or other dating methods. When dates do not align, the carbon date is labeled anomalous or calibrated. This means the method does not independently confirm history. It is being changed to fit the story.

I have heard of this before. I saw a discussion online about a guy who measured some fresh volcanic rocks in Hawaii and they were dated to like 10,000 years ago and the rebuttal was that the rocks were too new so carbon dating wouldn't work on them. It was in-line with this idea that if a result is anomalous it needs to be explained away or adjusted to fit a preexisting timeline.

Quote

Carbon dating does not measure age because it relies on a contradiction. The method assumes that carbon can be separated into independent parts and measured in isolation, even though carbon itself has never been shown to exist as a complete, independent substance in nature. It appears only after destruction, combustion, or chemical processing, when living matter is broken apart and altered. If the substance being measured only exists after transformation, it cannot be treated as a stable component of the original living system. There is no disputing this fact. You can quote me on that.

Ok, you have been quoted, dear author. I'm not sure that I agree with her sentiment here but it is interesting nonetheless, she continues

Quote

You cannot divide water into parts of the whole. It exists only as water, which cannot be created or destroyed. You cannot divide air into smaller components.

This is a paradigm shifting idea since I was raised to view water as Hydrogen and Oxygen combined, yet I do think her idea is reasonable because if water is "taken apart" it is no longer water. So in a way, it is a primary element of its own. Also, I don't know that water has ever been synthetically created by smushing Hydrogen and Oxygen together, I don't really know about the history behind the discovery of the chemical composition of water.

Quote

Carbon dating attempts to extract a fragment from a destroyed system and treat it as if it once functioned independently within a living whole. That assumption collapses the method. What is being measured is not age. It is the byproduct of breakdown, interpreted through a model that misses the elemental design of living systems.

Carbon dating is not a clock sitting in nature, quietly keeping time. A real clock works whether you believe in it or not. Carbon dating only works after you agree to a long list of assumptions. You have to believe that carbon even exists and somehow can be broken into meaningful pieces, that those pieces behave the same way everywhere, that they change at a steady rate, and that a living system can be measured by isolating one imagined part of it without disturbing the whole.

But that is not how the real world works. You cannot pull a single thread from a living fabric and pretend it tells the story of the entire cloth. You cannot smash something, burn it, alter it, and then claim the chemical soup carries an untouched timestamp. The act of measurement permanently alters the thing being measured.

I believe that carbon exists, but not in an independent matter like water. AFAIK carbon is always bonded to something else and doesn't exist in isolation. If you think diamonds are proof against that, that is what the first half of her article addresses. I do agree that "the act of measurement permanently alters the thing being measured" I think that is irrefutable. I don't know if scientists can prove that the radiation being detected is unaltered before it is measured after that cooking process it goes through.

Quote

So what you actually get is not a date. You get a number generated by a probability framework, constrained by chosen assumptions, corrected by other assumptions, and then presented with the visual authority of mathematics. The output looks precise because it is formatted that way. The precision is cosmetic. It is a rotten cake with perfect frosting.

In closing, I don't believe it's possible that she is 100% wrong in this article. I think it would be unscientific of me to regard her argument that way. My natural inclination is to believe she's mostly right, but I have no exposure to the carbon dating field and knew next to nothing about it (other than the common stuff we all learn in school) before reading this article. It is possible she is mostly wrong and just crafting a nice little story that's not grounded in reality to argue her point. In another article she wrote about Magnesium there were all sorts of experts that came out of the woodworks to rebut her and in my mind, after the dust settled, she was 50% wrong, which is great.

Again, if anyone has some added perspective or arguments against her arguments (not her credentials or opinions!) please elucidate and help correct my perspective. Thank you!

[longview]

Doesn't C14 have greater mass than C12? I queried chatGPT:

how are carbon 14 formed as compared with carbon 12? do C14 have greater mass than C12? are there other isotopes of carbon? do diamonds have the expected ratio of C14 with C12? would there be greater variances in the ratio thru various epochs of geological processes?

 

Below is a structured, technically precise response to each of your questions, using standard nuclear physics and geochemistry terminology.

---

1. How is carbon-14 formed compared with carbon-12?

Carbon-12 (¹²C)

• Origin: Carbon-12 is a primary (primordial) isotope.

• Formation mechanism: It is produced in stars through stellar nucleosynthesis, specifically the triple-alpha process, in which three helium-4 nuclei (alpha particles) combine.

• Stability: ¹²C is stable and does not undergo radioactive decay.

• Abundance: ~98.9% of all natural carbon.

Carbon-14 (¹⁴C)

• Origin: Carbon-14 is a cosmogenic radionuclide.

• Formation mechanism: It is produced continuously in Earth’s upper atmosphere when cosmic rays generate fast neutrons that collide with nitrogen-14:

  14N+n→14C+p^{14}\text{N} + n \rightarrow ^{14}\text{C} + p14N+n→14C+p

• The resulting ¹⁴C oxidizes to CO₂ and enters the biosphere via the carbon cycle.

• Stability: ¹⁴C is radioactive, with a half-life of ~5,730 years.

---

2. Does carbon-14 have greater mass than carbon-12?

Yes.

• Carbon-12 has:

  • 6 protons + 6 neutrons

• Carbon-14 has:

  • 6 protons + 8 neutrons

The additional two neutrons give ¹⁴C greater mass while preserving the same chemical behavior (since chemical properties depend on electrons, not neutrons).

---

3. Are there other isotopes of carbon?

Yes.

Naturally occurring isotopes:

Isotope	Stability	Approx. abundance
¹²C	Stable	~98.9%
¹³C	Stable	~1.1%
¹⁴C	Radioactive	~1 part per trillion

Artificial (short-lived) isotopes:

• ⁸C through ²²C have been synthesized in laboratories.

• All except ¹²C and ¹³C are unstable.

• These have no geological or biological relevance due to extremely short half-lives.

---

4. Do diamonds have the expected ratio of C¹⁴ to C¹²?

No—diamonds contain essentially no measurable carbon-14.

Reasons:

1. Geological age

   • Natural diamonds form deep in the mantle and are typically millions to billions of years old.

   • After ~10 half-lives (~57,000 years), ¹⁴C is effectively gone.

2. Isolation from the carbon cycle

   • Diamonds crystallize in environments isolated from atmospheric carbon.

   • They do not exchange carbon after formation.

3. Empirical confirmation

   • Radiocarbon dating of natural diamonds consistently yields “radiocarbon dead” results.

This absence of ¹⁴C is one of the strongest confirmations of both diamond antiquity and radiocarbon decay behavior.

---

5. Would the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio vary through different geological epochs?

Yes—the atmospheric C¹⁴/C¹² ratio has varied measurably over time, though within constrained bounds.

Primary drivers of variation:

1. Cosmic ray flux

   • Influenced by solar activity and Earth’s magnetic field strength.

2. Geomagnetic field intensity

   • Weaker field → higher cosmic ray penetration → more ¹⁴C production.

3. Carbon cycle dynamics

   • Changes in ocean circulation, biosphere size, and CO₂ reservoirs.

4. Human activity (recent)

   • Fossil fuel burning (“Suess effect”) dilutes atmospheric ¹⁴C.

   • Nuclear weapons testing (1950s–60s) temporarily doubled atmospheric ¹⁴C.

Magnitude of variation:

• Typically on the order of a few percent, not orders of magnitude.

• These variations are well documented in:

  • Tree rings (dendrochronology)

  • Ice cores

  • Marine sediments

Implication:

• Radiocarbon dating requires calibration curves, which correct for historical fluctuations in the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio.

---

Summary Table

Question	Answer
How is C¹² formed?	Stellar nucleosynthesis (triple-alpha)
How is C¹⁴ formed?	Cosmic ray interaction with atmospheric nitrogen
Is C¹⁴ heavier than C¹²?	Yes (2 extra neutrons)
Other carbon isotopes?	Yes: ¹³C (stable), many artificial radioactive ones
Do diamonds contain C¹⁴?	Essentially none
Does C¹⁴/C¹² vary over time?	Yes, modestly, due to cosmic and geophysical factors

[JVW]

12 minutes ago, longview said:

Doesn't C14 have greater mass than C12? I queried chatGPT:

how are carbon 14 formed as compared with carbon 12? do C14 have greater mass than C12? are there other isotopes of carbon? do diamonds have the expected ratio of C14 with C12? would there be greater variances in the ratio thru various epochs of geological processes?

 

Below is a structured, technically precise response to each of your questions, using standard nuclear physics and geochemistry terminology.

---

1. How is carbon-14 formed compared with carbon-12?

Carbon-12 (¹²C)

• Origin: Carbon-12 is a primary (primordial) isotope.

• Formation mechanism: It is produced in stars through stellar nucleosynthesis, specifically the triple-alpha process, in which three helium-4 nuclei (alpha particles) combine.

• Stability: ¹²C is stable and does not undergo radioactive decay.

• Abundance: ~98.9% of all natural carbon.

Carbon-14 (¹⁴C)

• Origin: Carbon-14 is a cosmogenic radionuclide.

• Formation mechanism: It is produced continuously in Earth’s upper atmosphere when cosmic rays generate fast neutrons that collide with nitrogen-14:

  14N+n→14C+p^{14}\text{N} + n \rightarrow ^{14}\text{C} + p14N+n→14C+p

• The resulting ¹⁴C oxidizes to CO₂ and enters the biosphere via the carbon cycle.

• Stability: ¹⁴C is radioactive, with a half-life of ~5,730 years.

---

2. Does carbon-14 have greater mass than carbon-12?

Yes.

• Carbon-12 has:

  • 6 protons + 6 neutrons

• Carbon-14 has:

  • 6 protons + 8 neutrons

The additional two neutrons give ¹⁴C greater mass while preserving the same chemical behavior (since chemical properties depend on electrons, not neutrons).

---

3. Are there other isotopes of carbon?

Yes.

Naturally occurring isotopes:

Isotope	Stability	Approx. abundance
¹²C	Stable	~98.9%
¹³C	Stable	~1.1%
¹⁴C	Radioactive	~1 part per trillion

Artificial (short-lived) isotopes:

• ⁸C through ²²C have been synthesized in laboratories.

• All except ¹²C and ¹³C are unstable.

• These have no geological or biological relevance due to extremely short half-lives.

---

4. Do diamonds have the expected ratio of C¹⁴ to C¹²?

No—diamonds contain essentially no measurable carbon-14.

Reasons:

1. Geological age

   • Natural diamonds form deep in the mantle and are typically millions to billions of years old.

   • After ~10 half-lives (~57,000 years), ¹⁴C is effectively gone.

2. Isolation from the carbon cycle

   • Diamonds crystallize in environments isolated from atmospheric carbon.

   • They do not exchange carbon after formation.

3. Empirical confirmation

   • Radiocarbon dating of natural diamonds consistently yields “radiocarbon dead” results.

This absence of ¹⁴C is one of the strongest confirmations of both diamond antiquity and radiocarbon decay behavior.

---

5. Would the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio vary through different geological epochs?

Yes—the atmospheric C¹⁴/C¹² ratio has varied measurably over time, though within constrained bounds.

Primary drivers of variation:

1. Cosmic ray flux

   • Influenced by solar activity and Earth’s magnetic field strength.

2. Geomagnetic field intensity

   • Weaker field → higher cosmic ray penetration → more ¹⁴C production.

3. Carbon cycle dynamics

   • Changes in ocean circulation, biosphere size, and CO₂ reservoirs.

4. Human activity (recent)

   • Fossil fuel burning (“Suess effect”) dilutes atmospheric ¹⁴C.

   • Nuclear weapons testing (1950s–60s) temporarily doubled atmospheric ¹⁴C.

Magnitude of variation:

• Typically on the order of a few percent, not orders of magnitude.

• These variations are well documented in:

  • Tree rings (dendrochronology)

  • Ice cores

  • Marine sediments

Implication:

• Radiocarbon dating requires calibration curves, which correct for historical fluctuations in the C¹⁴/C¹² ratio.

---

Summary Table

Question	Answer
How is C¹² formed?	Stellar nucleosynthesis (triple-alpha)
How is C¹⁴ formed?	Cosmic ray interaction with atmospheric nitrogen
Is C¹⁴ heavier than C¹²?	Yes (2 extra neutrons)
Other carbon isotopes?	Yes: ¹³C (stable), many artificial radioactive ones
Do diamonds contain C¹⁴?	Essentially none
Does C¹⁴/C¹² vary over time?	Yes, modestly, due to cosmic and geophysical factors

Ok, that information lines up with the article. That's interesting!

[The Nehor]

That article is conspiracy theory nonsense.

In summary:

Carbon dating works because of how diamonds work but our theory on how diamonds are created comes from the suspect “they” who lie to us all the time.

The way diamonds are formed is just speculation. The cover up to hide this was to make diamonds artificially scarce to make them valuable so no one would find out the truth about them. It is true that diamond supply is curtailed to increase cost but it is not part of a scientific cover up.

I am not trained enough to understand the rest of this but since they are lying in the first half and peddling conspiracy I am just going to assume the rest is also delusional insanity.

[Calm]

Since ChatGPT is the nearest ‘authority’, I appealed to it.  It’s been awhile (maybe years, possibly a decade or more when I last encountered criticism of carbon dating and therefore looked into it and there was some stuff in the quotes that seemed problematic to me, but brain is not on and details aren’t pulling up memory, so I don’t think the explanation I studied found a permanent home in my brain.

I broke up the whole rant and fed it to ChatGPT and said to identify false claims and analyze…I skipped the whole manufactured scarcity claim because I have known since Junior High iirc that the diamond market is heavily controlled for profit, etc…I think due to a mystery or two I read (murdered diamond merchants or diamond smugglers is a common plot).

part 1 rebuttal

The article’s claim that carbon is “unstable and unreliable” is false. Carbon exists in multiple isotopes and forms, but the stability of C-12 and the predictable radioactive decay of C-14 are well-established through direct measurement. The existence of diamonds, whether lab-grown or natural, does not determine the reliability of carbon as an element or the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. Carbon dating depends on nuclear physics and measured decay rates, not the structure or purity of diamond crystals.

The suggestion that diamonds are proof of “pure carbon” and therefore central to all carbon science is incorrect. Diamonds are only one allotrope of carbon and have long been studied for their lattice structure and mineral inclusions. Carbon’s properties, isotopic ratios, and behavior in chemical and biological systems are validated through independent experiments, spectroscopy, and nuclear measurements. Diamonds are illustrative examples, not foundational evidence.

The argument that natural diamond formation is unobserved and therefore mythical relies on a fallacy of ignorance. High-pressure and high-temperature conditions can be recreated in laboratories, and geological evidence from inclusions, mantle mineralogy, and isotopic signatures supports deep-earth formation. Scientific models frequently infer unobservable processes based on measurable outcomes; direct observation is not required for validation.

Finally, the article’s claim that debunking diamonds would collapse climate science, carbon dating, and carbon credits is a false keystone assumption. These fields do not rely on diamonds for their validity. Climate models use atmospheric chemistry, radiative physics, and observational data; radiocarbon dating relies on isotope decay; and carbon accounting tracks emissions and sequestration. The reasoning conflates unrelated domains and presents a modular, well-verified system as if it depends entirely on one illustrative example.

Bottom line: The article misrepresents scientific understanding, conflates separate concepts, and uses rhetorical framing to create doubt. Its claims about carbon instability and the “diamond myth” are scientifically unfounded and irrelevant to the accuracy of carbon-based methods.

 

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Part 2:

Natural diamonds do exhibit variability in hardness, thermal conductivity, fluorescence, and other properties. This is expected due to impurities, crystal orientation, and structural defects. Variation does not indicate that carbon is unstable or that diamond contradicts textbook chemistry. Diamonds remain composed primarily of elemental carbon, and their differing properties reflect natural geological processes rather than a flaw in the element itself.

The presence of inclusions such as fluids, olivine, or metallic iron is also well-understood in mineralogy. High-pressure and high-temperature conditions in the mantle can trap fluids and minerals, and local heterogeneities in redox or chemistry produce inclusions that seem “incompatible” at first glance. These inclusions do not invalidate mantle formation models; they provide insight into the dynamic and complex environment where diamonds crystallize.

Finally, the claim that formation conditions have “never been observed or explained” misrepresents scientific methodology. While direct observation deep in the mantle is impossible, laboratory experiments, phase diagrams, isotopic measurements, and inclusion studies have produced a coherent, testable model for natural diamond formation. Presenting variability and inclusions as evidence of a global deception is a logical fallacy; it conflates natural complexity with impossibility.

Bottom line: Diamonds’ variable properties and inclusions are consistent with natural formation under extreme mantle conditions. They do not undermine carbon as an element, the reliability of radiocarbon dating, or carbon-based scientific models.

part 3

The article claims that internal growth zones and abrupt chemical shifts in diamonds “cannot be explained” by mantle formation. While diamonds do exhibit zoning and variations in inclusions, this is expected during natural growth over millions of years under changing pressure, temperature, and chemical environments. Existing mantle models account for these variations, and they do not invalidate the geologic origin of diamonds.

 

The suggestion that radiation trails inside diamonds show they are “far younger than billions of years” is misleading. Fission tracks and radiation damage can be partially reset by geologic events such as heat or deformation. These phenomena are well-studied and do not contradict isotopic dating of diamond inclusions, which reliably indicates formation deep in the Earth over geologic timescales. Claims of a cover-up are unsupported.

 

The article emphasizes laboratory diamond growth (HPHT and CVD) as proof that natural diamond formation is impossible. While it is true that lab-grown diamonds require seed crystals and tightly controlled conditions, this does not imply that natural diamonds cannot form. Mantle diamonds crystallize under extreme pressure and temperature over millions of years, and lab techniques are designed to replicate these conditions artificially, not to dictate them.

 

Finally, the claim that misunderstanding diamonds would “collapse” carbon science is false. Radiocarbon dating, climate modeling, and carbon-cycle science do not depend on diamond formation. Diamonds are illustrative examples of carbon, not a keystone for all carbon-based research. Using diamond anomalies to suggest the collapse of all carbon science is a non sequitur and a rhetorical tactic, not a scientific argument.

 

Bottom line: This section mixes accurate descriptions of diamond structure and lab growth with false causal claims, misrepresented evidence, and conspiracy framing. The geological evidence for natural diamond formation is robust, and nothing in lab synthesis or zoning patterns undermines carbon-based scientific methods.

 

[Calm]

Part 4:

Carbon dating is often described as a calculation rather than a direct measurement, but this does not make it unreliable. While it depends on the decay of carbon-14 relative to carbon-12, the half-life of C-14 is directly measured in laboratories and consistently verified. The process by which carbon-14 enters the carbon cycle, through atmospheric formation and incorporation into plants and animals, is well understood and forms the basis of a reliable dating method.

The article exaggerates variability in atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratios. While these ratios have fluctuated over time due to solar activity, geomagnetic changes, and fossil-fuel emissions, scientists account for these variations using calibration curves derived from tree rings, corals, and other known-age samples. These corrections ensure that radiocarbon dating remains accurate for both recent and ancient samples.

Finally, carbon movement through living systems is well-characterized. While some biological and environmental factors can affect local ratios, these are minor, measurable, and correctable. Carbon dating, when applied correctly, provides robust and scientifically validated estimates of age. The presentation of these well-understood processes as speculative or assumption-driven misrepresents decades of empirical verification.

Part 5

It is true that carbon-14 atoms are not directly observed with the naked eye, but this does not undermine radiocarbon dating. Both mass spectrometry and radiation counting methods rely on well-established, repeatable physical principles. In mass spectrometry, ionized carbon atoms behave predictably in electromagnetic fields according to their mass; in radiation counting, beta decay events are directly measurable. These methods provide reliable data about the presence of C-14, even if individual atoms are inferred.

The article’s claim that reference materials create a circular system is misleading. Standards used to calibrate instruments are based on independently verified samples and isotopic measurements. Cross-checks against dendrochronology, historical artifacts, and other known-age materials confirm that radiocarbon measurements accurately reflect age in natural settings. Background radiation, contamination, and chemical bonding effects are explicitly considered and corrected for in established protocols.

Finally, the notion that the isotope model is “defective” or untested in natural environments misrepresents decades of empirical validation. Radiocarbon dating is robust because its assumptions are continuously tested against real-world samples. Indirect measurement, standardization, and calibration are normal, reliable practices in physics and chemistry, not evidence of deception or failure.
 

part 6

While radiocarbon dating relies on a model and assumptions, these are empirically validated and carefully tested. The C-14/C-12 ratio is not arbitrarily assigned; it is derived from direct measurements of atmospheric carbon and calibrated against tree rings, corals, and other independent chronological records. Fluctuations due to solar activity, geomagnetic changes, or human emissions are accounted for using well-established calibration curves.

The claim that biological variation or contamination invalidates carbon dating is misleading. Laboratories isolate chemically stable components, such as collagen in bones, to minimize variability and contamination. Protocols are designed to remove exogenous carbon, and residual uncertainties are quantified. Radiocarbon dating is robust precisely because these factors are studied and corrected for.

Finally, the suggestion that carbon does not exist in living matter or that carbon dating is not a valid “clock” misrepresents the science. Carbon is a measurable element in organic and inorganic matter, and C-14 decay occurs at a predictable, quantifiable rate. While carbon dating is model-based, like all scientific measurements, it is validated through independent cross-checks, not circular assumption. The method produces reliable ages for archaeological, geological, and environmental samples when applied according to standard protocols.

Bottom line: This section misrepresents uncertainty and calibration as fundamental failure. Radiocarbon dating is not a mere story or cosmetic number; it is a scientifically validated, quantitative tool supported by extensive empirical evidence.

[Calm]

Last part:

Diamonds are not the standard for elemental carbon; they are a crystalline form among several allotropes. Their properties do not determine the behavior of carbon isotopes, the reliability of radiocarbon dating, or the validity of climate models. Carbon’s stability, isotopic behavior, and chemical properties are measured independently of diamonds and are well-understood in both laboratory and natural systems.

Radiocarbon dating remains robust because its assumptions are empirically tested and calibrated. Variability in C-14 production, biological carbon handling, or potential contamination is accounted for using chemical pretreatments, calibration curves, and independent chronological records. The method does not collapse under scrutiny; it continues to provide reliable ages across a wide range of archaeological and geological samples.

Climate models do not assume carbon behaves identically everywhere. Atmospheric CO₂, carbon fluxes, and oceanic exchange are measured continuously, and models incorporate spatial and temporal variability. Diamond formation, laboratory growth, or internal zoning has no bearing on the physical accuracy of climate projections or carbon-based measurements.

Bottom line: The final claims rely on misrepresented connections between unrelated phenomena. Diamonds, radiocarbon dating, and climate modeling are scientifically independent, and none of them fail due to variation in diamond formation. Presenting them as a collapsing framework is rhetorical, not factual.

———-

since that might be too long, I let Chat summarize….

 

1. Diamonds and Carbon Purity

The article repeatedly claims that diamonds are evidence of “pure carbon” and that their variability undermines carbon science. While it is true that diamonds can show internal growth zones, inclusions, and variable properties such as hardness or thermal conductivity, these features do not contradict elemental carbon. Diamonds are only one allotrope of carbon, and their variations are well-understood as a result of impurities, structural defects, and the dynamic conditions of mantle formation. Laboratory-grown diamonds mimic these extreme conditions artificially, but this does not imply that natural diamonds cannot form under similar high-pressure and high-temperature conditions over geologic timescales.

Inclusions such as fluids, olivine grains, or metallic droplets are also expected under natural mantle conditions. They reflect local chemical heterogeneity, variable redox conditions, and episodic growth. Geologists have studied these inclusions extensively, and they provide valuable information about the deep Earth, rather than evidence of deception or failure. The assertion that natural diamond formation has “never been observed” ignores the fact that indirect measurements, thermodynamic modeling, and isotopic analysis provide robust evidence for their deep-mantle origin.

2. Carbon-14 and Radiocarbon Dating

The article critiques carbon dating by emphasizing that C-14 atoms are not directly observed, that the method relies on assumptions, and that biological and environmental variability undermine accuracy. While it is true that carbon dating is model-based, the criticisms misrepresent how science validates and calibrates the method.

Isotopic behavior: C-14 decay is directly measurable and reproducible in laboratories. Mass spectrometry and radiation counting provide reliable indirect measurements of C-14 relative to C-12. Indirect detection is standard in atomic and nuclear physics and does not imply uncertainty or circular reasoning.

Calibration and atmospheric variation: While atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratios fluctuate due to solar activity, geomagnetic effects, fossil-fuel emissions, and other factors, these variations are well-understood and corrected using calibration curves (e.g., IntCal), derived from tree rings, corals, and other independently dated samples.

Biological variability and contamination: Different tissues and species incorporate carbon differently, and contamination can occur. Laboratories account for these factors by chemically isolating stable components, such as bone collagen or charcoal, and by quantifying uncertainty. These procedures make carbon dating robust and reliable.

Cross-validation: Radiocarbon dating is tested against independent chronological records, including dendrochronology, ice cores, and historically dated artifacts. This ensures that calibration is empirically grounded, not circular or arbitrary.

Contrary to the claim that carbon dating is “not a clock,” it is a quantitative method based on predictable nuclear decay, validated across multiple independent lines of evidence. While model-based, its assumptions are continually tested and refined, and it consistently produces accurate dates for archaeological and geological samples.

3. Climate Models and Carbon as a Global Variable

The article asserts that climate models and carbon-based systems collapse if diamonds or carbon dating are questioned. This is factually incorrect. Climate models account for variability in atmospheric CO₂, carbon fluxes, and oceanic exchange. Observational data from satellites, ice cores, and atmospheric monitoring validate the models’ input parameters. Diamond formation and laboratory synthesis have no bearing on the global carbon cycle or the predictive power of climate models. Carbon is measured, not assumed, and its chemical and isotopic behavior is well-understood in natural systems.

4. Summary of Logical and Scientific Errors

The article relies on several recurrent logical fallacies and misrepresentations:

Non sequitur / keystone collapse: Variations in diamond structure are presented as if they invalidate all carbon science. In reality, diamonds are illustrative, not foundational.

Argument from ignorance: Claims that mantle formation has “never been observed” are presented as evidence of failure, ignoring extensive indirect observations and modeling.

Misrepresentation of assumptions: Radiocarbon dating’s assumptions are framed as arbitrary, while in reality they are tested, calibrated, and validated against independent chronological records.

Conflation of variability with failure: Natural variability in diamond properties, C-14 ratios, and biological carbon uptake is presented as catastrophic, ignoring that science quantifies and corrects for these variations.

5. Conclusion

Diamonds’ internal variations, inclusions, or differences from laboratory-grown crystals do not undermine the chemical or isotopic stability of carbon. Radiocarbon dating is a reliable, empirically validated tool that accounts for natural variability, contamination, and calibration requirements. Climate models operate independently of diamonds and rely on measured carbon cycles, not assumptions about gemstone purity. Claims that carbon science “collapses” due to these factors are rhetorical, not scientific. The criticisms presented in the article misrepresent both the evidence and the methodology, conflating natural complexity with fundamental failure.

[Calm]

I just scanned her iodine article.  She definitely doesn’t understand chemistry.…or biology.  So it makes sense she doesn’t understand physics, climate science, etc.

Her claim that water can’t be created or destroyed…has she never heard of electrolysis?  What does she think running an electrical current through water does?  Evaporates it into water vapor?  And evil scientists have hidden oxygen and hydrogen to pull out at the end and say ‘duh duh!’

I am not even sure she understands what elements are.  Either she was asleep during high school chemistry class or never took it.

And this is the opening paragraph of her article 1:

Quote

Anyone familiar with my series on the Periodic Fable of Elements knows the pattern. Chemistry presents a polished story of discovery, yet most so-called “elements” were not found as intact, independent substances. They were produced in controlled laboratory conditions and labeled as if they represented raw truth rather than manufactured outcomes.

Yeah, she doesn’t understand basic chemistry or physics…. What elements and compounds even are.

Quote

Alteration removes the natural intelligence of the substance. It removes the energy exchange that living systems rely on.

It appears she prefers woo (I need a non derogatory word that functions as well as “woo” here, pseudoscience just doesn’t seem to have the proper nuance).

Quote

The myth of isolating elements in chemistry persists. In reality, chemists transform materials through destructive processes and then label the residue as a “pure element.” This is not base building blocks revealed, but a product of intervention.

Take the classic example of iodine from kelp. The public imagines a scientist lifting iodine from seaweed, as one might extract juice from an orange. The real procedure looks nothing like that. Kelp is burned. The ash is dissolved in water. Chemicals like sulphuric acid are added. The mixture is boiled, filtered, treated again, and then forced through additional reactions until a recognizable substance emerges. That substance is then labeled iodine, as if it had been waiting inside the plant all along just waiting to be coaxed out with the right formula. What we actually have is ash, acid, and the predictable chemical behavior that follows from combining them under heat. We have not revealed a hidden element. We have created a for-profit laboratory product.

Where the heck is she getting this?

Quote

This is the same pattern used across the history of chemistry. Early chemists treated every laboratory transformation as evidence of discovery. They heated minerals until they glowed, added acids, filtered the remains, and declared the final residue an element. They were told they were stripping substances down to their essence. They were however performing the old religion of alchemy. Instead of interpreting the new substance as a product of their procedures, they interpreted it as an object that had existed independently before the experiment.

The modern field kept the language of discovery but retained the EXACT SAME methods of “transformation”. That is why the lettered scientists on here attack me and the research. They were told they have an isolated an element in the same way a Christian reads the words of Jesus in the Bible. There is no questioning what they were taught. The logic collapses the moment a layperson applies critical thinking, yet we are told we are ignorant of their high-level university training that functions as indoctrination rather than education. We are questioning the very logic and the very assumptions they must beLIEve in order for the entire story to work and for the masses to be guided into consuming chemicals that slowly lead them toward their own demise. Yet they defend them to the end.

I don’t think she even knows the logic and assumptions if this is her portrayal.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

15 hours ago, JVW said:

Also, I don't know that water has ever been synthetically created by smushing Hydrogen and Oxygen together

You can burn hydrogen gas in the presence of oxygen to create water.

 

 

[Calm]

She spends a huge amount of time constructing her theory, but doesn’t spend 5 seconds doublechecking her own claims that something is wrong.

She can’t understand how adding an additional chemical to another chemical can pull out some of its parts, specifically sulfuric acid pulling out nitrates, so she just dismisses it rather than seeing if she can find something that explains it.

I found this video in the time it took to type out “sulfuric acid pulling out nitrates” and hitting return:

 

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

I don’t understand why she thinks the diamond companies need this elaborate hoax on how natural diamonds occur in order to inflate costs and drive up the appeal of diamonds and just as “background truth”.  Diamonds were treasured long before the science was known.  And they were rare before more modern methods of mining were used.  

And you don’t need a scientific theory to market something as desirable….give them sex, status, or safety.

The “a diamond is forever” marketing campaign linked diamonds to eternal love, making them more emotionally appealing and less likely to be resold, not to geological formation.  She says so herself, but then she latches on the allegedly fraudulent theory as if an essential part of the ad campaign.

It’s disjointed.

I feel like I both wasted the last couple of hours, but was also fascinated by it.  I really don’t comprehend the conspiracy minded.  It makes life so complicated (I don’t deny all conspiracies, De Beers did sit on a massive stockpile for decades, just the really convoluted ones).  Think of trying to explain GPS without satellites.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

I wish she used footnotes so I could know where she got her distorted ideas of chemistry from.

While she has some details right (possibly when she is just repeating a description), her analysis is riddled with errors. The best course is to question everything.

Quote

Here is where the logic completely breaks down. If you hand a chemist three piles of ashes — one from burned wood, one from burned plastic, and one from burned slugs — the test cannot tell which is which. The process cannot reconstruct the original material. It cannot distinguish a living organism from a synthetic product. It only measures what remains after all that is meaningful about the material has been eliminated.

ILike this…they do have tests that can tell which is which and usually what the original looked like.  Whoever told her this lied, passed on a lie unintentionally, or fundamentally misunderstood what they were looking at.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

The first part about diamonds is odd.  Sure, the diamond industry created an artificial shortage and sure they market that diamonds are forever, but marketing is not science.  One of the earliest experiments to prove what diamonds were made of was back in the 1700s when they burned a diamond.  They did that to understand the composition of diamond.  And they found that it behaved similar to coal, which is when we started to learn that diamond and coal were made of the same thing.  So diamonds can't be forever if we have been burning diamonds.  Using the diamond marketing to "debunk" science is not very good debunking.

I also can't tell if the article is arguing that isotopes don't exist or that they do exist.  The way it discusses carbon-14, it kind of sounds like it is a made up isotope or even a made up chemical.  The problem with this is that we know of lots of isotopes.  And we learned about them from weighing them as each isotope has a different weight (because of the difference in number of neutrons).  So we know that carbon-14 definitely exists.  It isn't a laboratory invention.  It fits the patterns of hundreds of isotopes we have discovered.  And these isotopes act differently.  For instance, there is a substance called "heavy water".  It is made up of H20 but the hydrogen is a isotope called deuterium.  We know how to manufacture heavy water and even though it is water, it has slightly different characteristics that are used in different ways that normal water can't be used in.

Quote

Carbon dating is not a clock sitting in nature, quietly keeping time. A real clock works whether you believe in it or not. Carbon dating only works after you agree to a long list of assumptions. You have to believe that carbon even exists and somehow can be broken into meaningful pieces, that those pieces behave the same way everywhere, that they change at a steady rate, and that a living system can be measured by isolating one imagined part of it without disturbing the whole.

That quote is kind of funny to me.  A real clock has the same problems the article is complaining about carbon dating.  There are a long list of assumptions for clocks that we just accept.  Clocks don't count seconds or minutes or even time.  They just count the number of swings or gear shifts or vibrations of an atom (which I bet the article would not accept since it seems like atoms aren't a real thing).  We then convert those counts into seconds based on assumptions of how gravity works or how the physics work.  Clocks skew all the time.  And we've even shown that clocks in fast moving objects (like satellites) track time differently.  So, no clocks are just as problematic as carbon dating.

Quote

In both radiation counting and mass-based methods, the isotope itself is never directly observed. It is inferred. Scientists assume that a specific signal indicates the presence of carbon-14. The tools used to make this judgment are calibrated using reference materials that already assume the isotope model is correct. In other words, the system checks itself using its own assumptions, never direct observations. Which is so convenient when the story matches the revenue streams.

The article is really focused on carbon-14, but we use this same process (mass spectrometer) for a host of other things.  It wasn't invented for "revenue streams".  It was invented to try and understand substances and what they were made of.  And if the mass spectrometer was given incorrect results, it would have been tossed out.  Again, the article seems to be saying that isotopes don't exist which is really odd.

20 hours ago, JVW said:

This is a point that I've considered in passing. I understand that radioactive decay, when measured in a lab, is uniform. But how can it be proven that decay is uniform across thousands or millions of years? If that assumption is wrong, I wonder what margin of error could be introduced to account for it? +/- a a few thousand years? A few million?

Radioactive decay isn't uniform.  It is random.  And the half lives have margin of errors because of that.  For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5700±30 years.  We've known about radioactive decay since only the early 1900s and it was a big discovery.  Until then, it was assumed that the elements (which were still being discovered) were constant and never changed.  The discovery that a sample of rock generated energy by itself was shocking.  And then we discovered that if you weighed the rock before and after, it weighed less.  This meant that the energy leaving the rock was somehow changing the rock.

The earliest method to calculate half-life is by taking a sample of known number of atoms that includes some radioactive isotopes, weigh it, wait some time for it to decay, and then weigh it again.  The weight before and after will tell you how many atoms decayed (carbon-14 turns into nitrogen-14 which has a different weight).  But getting the exact known number of atoms in the first sample is hard, so we do it a bunch of times to average out the possible differences.  And we do it a bunch of times to account for the randomness of the decay.  You can even do this experiment at home though you'll need really sensitive scales.  Another way to measure is to take your sample and put a Geiger counter next to it.  Then record the amount of radiation that is being emitted.  Using the amount of radiation over time, you can also calculate the half life.

20 hours ago, JVW said:

I have heard of this before. I saw a discussion online about a guy who measured some fresh volcanic rocks in Hawaii and they were dated to like 10,000 years ago and the rebuttal was that the rocks were too new so carbon dating wouldn't work on them. It was in-line with this idea that if a result is anomalous it needs to be explained away or adjusted to fit a preexisting timeline.

Volcanic rocks can't be dated with carbon dating.  That would have been a different dating mechanism.  Carbon dating only works with living things because it assumes that living things are constantly breathing in (for plants) and consuming (for animals) new sources of carbon.  So their bodies are constantly refreshing the carbon and are picking up new C14.  A rock doesn't do that.

Carbon dating also can only go back about 50,000 years.  And it is almost always used with calibrated values.  The industrial age drastically changed the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and nuclear testing in the mid 1900s changed it even more.  Usually, what they will do is find tree samples with known dendrology dates and carbon date those tree samples.  Then, if you want to carbon date something in the nearby area (within a few 1000 miles), you will compare the C14 rates to the tree samples with known dates.  That will allow you to get some fairly precise dates (within a 10 years).  If you don't have dated samples, then the dates are usually within 100 or even 1000 years.

20 hours ago, JVW said:

I believe that carbon exists, but not in an independent matter like water. AFAIK carbon is always bonded to something else and doesn't exist in isolation. If you think diamonds are proof against that, that is what the first half of her article addresses. I do agree that "the act of measurement permanently alters the thing being measured" I think that is irrefutable. I don't know if scientists can prove that the radiation being detected is unaltered before it is measured after that cooking process it goes through.

Coal and diamonds are pretty much pure carbon that are not bonded to anything.  There are impurities in it but it isn't chemical bonding like a molecule.  So carbon does exist in isolation and is independent.  I don't know why you say water is independent since it is composed of two elements.  And water has impurities just like coal and diamonds.

[JVW]

Thank you all for your responses, this is exactly what I was hoping for! I've learned a lot of interesting things from you all.

[Calm]

I had some time to pass just now while waiting, so I read her periodic table rant.  She must have had a bad experience in chemistry class somehow.  And with doctors.

She is a registered nurse so I assume her chemistry class taught the same things as mine so I really don’t understand why she is making the false generalization about the what and why of the table.  Everything gets seen through her conspiracy filter though, so while some stuff is sort of right, it gets used in the wrong way.  And a lot of stuff is wrong.

Quote

Eventually, the periodic table stopped functioning as a scientific organizer and became an economic infrastructure. Textbooks reinforced it. Universities built entire courses and degrees around it. Agencies wrote regulations around it. Government recommendations cited it. Careers depended on it. Once the table carried that much weight, it protected the substances on it more effectively than any PR department could.

At that point, science and profit fused. An element’s square created an industry. The industry then defended the square. It funded the research. It trained the experts. It shaped the public’s understanding. It decided what counted as evidence. The periodic table became a shield used to silence any question about whether a substance belonged in the human environment at all.

Now the next step becomes obvious. Once the table granted that level of legitimacy, industries used it to move harmful or unnecessary substances into food, water, medicine, and wellness culture with no resistance.

Right, because uranium and plutonium have their own shelf of medicines and supplements in every pharmacy and health food store I have been in…

Arsenic used to be used in cosmetics and ‘medicines’, but isn’t now and the reason for that is chemists doing basic chemistry.  It being next to phosphorus on the periodic table is a hint to why it can be so dangerous (arsenates can replace phosphates where they shouldn’t).  The periodic table is very useful in explaining why things happen in nature, not only in the lab.
 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21719071/#:~:text=Abstract,in many orders of magnitude.

Chemists figured out the toxicity issue with lead paint and lead in gasoline.

[JVW]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had some time to pass just now while waiting, so I read her periodic table rant.  She must have had a bad experience in chemistry class somehow.  And with doctors.

She is a registered nurse so I assume her chemistry class taught the same things as mine so I really don’t understand why she is making the false generalization about the what and why of the table.  Everything gets seen through her conspiracy filter though, so while some stuff is sort of right, it gets used in the wrong way.  And a lot of stuff is wrong.

Right, because uranium and plutonium have their own shelf of medicines and supplements in every pharmacy and health food store I have been in…

Arsenic used to be used in cosmetics and ‘medicines’, but isn’t now and the reason for that is chemists doing basic chemistry.  It being next to phosphorus on the periodic table is a hint to why it can be so dangerous (arsenates can replace phosphates where they shouldn’t).  The periodic table is very useful in explaining why things happen in nature, not only in the lab.
 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21719071/#:~:text=Abstract,in many orders of magnitude.

Chemists figured out the toxicity issue with lead paint and lead in gasoline.

She's pretty fun to read lol. I'm just happy to have some perspective on where she goes wrong. I've only read a few of her articles but her magnesium one had a really fun comments section with all sorts of qualified people saying how she's wrong and others defending here. I love when comments sections have a bunch of debate, hence why I moved here for the OP article b/c debate wasn't happening on that article.

[The Nehor]

On 12/16/2025 at 11:31 PM, JVW said:

She's pretty fun to read lol. I'm just happy to have some perspective on where she goes wrong. I've only read a few of her articles but her magnesium one had a really fun comments section with all sorts of qualified people saying how she's wrong and others defending here. I love when comments sections have a bunch of debate, hence why I moved here for the OP article b/c debate wasn't happening on that article.

It is not a debate. It is educated people disproving a charlatan.

[webbles]

On 12/16/2025 at 10:09 PM, Calm said:

I had some time to pass just now while waiting, so I read her periodic table rant.  She must have had a bad experience in chemistry class somehow.  And with doctors.

She is a registered nurse so I assume her chemistry class taught the same things as mine so I really don’t understand why she is making the false generalization about the what and why of the table.  Everything gets seen through her conspiracy filter though, so while some stuff is sort of right, it gets used in the wrong way.  And a lot of stuff is wrong.

Right, because uranium and plutonium have their own shelf of medicines and supplements in every pharmacy and health food store I have been in…

Arsenic used to be used in cosmetics and ‘medicines’, but isn’t now and the reason for that is chemists doing basic chemistry.  It being next to phosphorus on the periodic table is a hint to why it can be so dangerous (arsenates can replace phosphates where they shouldn’t).  The periodic table is very useful in explaining why things happen in nature, not only in the lab.
 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21719071/#:~:text=Abstract,in many orders of magnitude.

Chemists figured out the toxicity issue with lead paint and lead in gasoline.

I just read the next article about the periodic table, the one called "rise of medicium" and she is either intentionally conflating elements and molecules to prove her point or she doesn't know the difference between the two.  She talks about how a new element is discovered "medicium" and describes the process.  I'm assuming this is a made up element since searching for the name only finds her blog post.  But she talks about using some chemical experiments to discover a new element and then getting it approved as a new element and getting a spot on the periodic table.  If we discovered a new element that way in the last 50 years, it would be huge.  It would either be the discovery of the fabled "zone of stability" or rewrite the periodic table.  The last element that was not manufactured as byproducts of fusion, fision, or bombardment was in 1939.

She seems to be ignoring how elements were discovered historical.  Sure, they were done through chemical reactions but it was an attempt by those at the time (who weren't really even scientists) to explain what they were seeing.  The periodic table came into existence in 1869 and only 25 elements were discovered since then (ignoring all the manufactured ones that almost never exist on Earth naturally).  None of them were discovered to get a special grid on the periodic table.  Most of those aren't in any supplements.  They weren't discovered to make money, but to explain things.

And this quote is shocking to me:

Quote

Combustion experiments use the same loop. A flame behaves differently in different air conditions. This is labeled as evidence of oxygen, but the observation is simply that fuel interacts differently with denser or drier air.

She is trying to explain that oxygen doesn't really exist.  That instead, it is just a label for an observation.  And I would 100% agree with her if this is the only way we observe oxygen.  But we've been able to extract oxygen out of non air things (such as water which she also doesn't believe is composed of hydrogen or oxygen and rocks).  And we know it is oxygen because if we take the thing that we extract from air and the thing we extract from water and the thing we take from minerals and run a battery of tests against this thing, it all acts the same.  So it has to be the same thing.  The name oxygen even comes from the idea that it is found in all acids so many of the first experiments were around liquids, not air.  Yes, we are labeling what we observed, but why is that a problem?