Carbon Dating

[FenderElctrc]

Seems it's not so great - http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

 

[Mallon]

Neither is that website.
Of course carbon dating a dinosaur bone will give you a rediculous result. Dinosaurs are much too old to use for carbon dating. I see Amy wrote in to the website to make that point, but the site author doesn't even deal with the issue. He pretends that carbon dating is the only form of dating available, and insists that scientists must therefore assume that dinosaurs are millions of years old. He's either sadly misinformed, or a liar.
For what it's worth, every fallacy raised by the author is dealt with here (follow through the next 5 claims or so):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
Angelfire sites are rarely accurate sources of information.

 

[archaeologist]

Seems it's not so great

they all aren't. most run on assumptions and ideals and are unverifiable as to accuracy. dr. Baumgardner (sp) has done research on this field and i will have to look to see where those articles are or ask someone i know who posted them on another form to shoot them over to me.

my own research into the dating systems has left me ignoring them all together as dating is very subjective with or without these tools.

 

[philadiddle]

Of course carbon dating a dinosaur bone will give you a rediculous result. Dinosaurs are much too old to use for carbon dating.

Although, the creationists i've heard in the last few years raise the question, "How is there enough C14 in a dinosaur bone to give it a 16,000 year old date? Shouldn't there be next to no C14 left?"

 

[ExpatChristian]

my own research into the dating systems

Someone told me that you have previously referred to C14 dating as C4 dating. C4 is a plastic explosive as far as I know and not the same as C14. I hope this helps with your research.

 

[notto]

they all aren't. most run on assumptions and ideals and are unverifiable as to accuracy.

This is a completely false statement.

How can they be based on assumptions and of an unverifiable accuracy when they are run on samples of a known age.

You do understand that they are calibrated against samples of a known age, right?

If you don't understand that, then you certainly need to do more research.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/10radiometric.html

 

[Mallon]

Although, the creationists i've heard in the last few years raise the question, "How is there enough C14 in a dinosaur bone to give it a 16,000 year old date? Shouldn't there be next to no C14 left?"

If they raised such a point, I would just link them here and be done with it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

 

[shernren]

Of course I believe in carbon-dating. I can't possibly imagine making out with a computer, can you?

Just to justify this post: notto, I couldn't help noticing that the last four PNG points and the last two Lake Lisan points seem to be very far out. What's the explanation?

 

[notto]

Of course I believe in carbon-dating. I can't possibly imagine making out with a computer, can you?

Just to justify this post: notto, I couldn't help noticing that the last four PNG points and the last two Lake Lisan points seem to be very far out. What's the explanation?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/gold99/pdf/7613.pdf
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/rdc/2000/00000042/00000003/art00007

I would have to dig further but my first read of the source material is . . .

The Lake Lisan dating was most likely affected by background U-TH sources. The further back you go, the closer the background rate is to the actual dated material so it would not be surprising that the older data points have more error of collection associated with them.

I'm guessing that the same is true of the PNG dating of coral.

The one/one line is most likely based on tree rings and there may be some error there as well.

Overall, the calibration shows that several independent lines of evidence for yearly phenomena that can be counted all converge on each other within some expected error.

Suggesting that C14 or any radio dating is based on some assumption and is not validated independently is nonsense.

 

[philadiddle]

If they raised such a point, I would just link them here and be done with it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

I have to play the part of a YEC for a while, but unlike the YEC, I actually want to understand.

That link addresses contamination in coal, not dino bones. Also, how can contamination be detected in more recent fossils? I could go in more detail about what I'm asking, but I hope you get the jist of it.

 

[notto]

I have to play the part of a YEC for a while, but unlike the YEC, I actually want to understand.

That link addresses contamination in coal, not dino bones. Also, how can contamination be detected in more recent fossils? I could go in more detail about what I'm asking, but I hope you get the jist of it.

The idea that you are looking for is background radiation. Once you get to about 30,000 years old the older you get the more the level of C14 left is hard to distinguish from the background radiation and other contamination that would exist and the equipment must be very sensitive. Remember, we are dealing with an exponential decay. That is why other methods that have a higher half life that C14 are used to date dinosaur bones.

Suggesting that a false date of a dinosaur bone is some sort of evidence that C14 dating is flawed is demonstrating ignorance of the method, the material, and the accepted use of the dating method.

Only creationists claim that C14 is a valid way to date dinosaur bones. It is a strawman argument.

Another note - in order to use Carbon dating, a specimen needs to be made of carbon (it needs to actually be organic material). My guess is that the supposed sample of a dinosaur fossil was contaminated.

Dinosaur fossils typically don't contain organic material.

Another reason to be suspect of the creationist claims.

 

[archaeologist]

here are some links from Dr. Baumgardner:

http://globalflood.org/

http://globalflood.org/

http://globalflood.org/papers/papers.html

have fun with them

 

[Willtor]

here are some links from Dr. Baumgardner:

http://globalflood.org/

http://globalflood.org/

http://globalflood.org/papers/papers.html

have fun with them

The advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio for 14C dating from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to extend to dramatically older ages the fossil material that could be measured by this technique. (from here)

I think you've been fooled. I find it difficult to believe that any scientist, even a creation scientist, actually believes that fossils are dated using carbon isotopes. This site is probably a parody, not a real creationist site.

 

[R3quiem]

Seems it's not so great - http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

So you base your view on one poorly made website? That site is based on angelfire, it's probably made by a college student, and his list of references is pathetic- it's all his view.

Plus, dinosaur bones are mostly dated by knowing how old the rocks are that the bones are found in- not by carbon 14 dating.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually carbon dating is recognized as useless for dates older than something like 50-75K years, so it is not used for dating dinosaur bones. Of course another problem is that when it has been used on dinosaur bones it has often given "anomalous" results. Various strata such as "precambrian" strata have often had residual carbon-14 when there should be none left.

 

[KerrMetric]

Of course another problem is that when it has been used on dinosaur bones it has often given "anomalous" results. Various strata such as "precambrian" strata have often had residual carbon-14 when there should be none left.

And you know darn well that "there should be none left" is not necessarily true. I've seen this pointed out to you before so what is the word I am looking for here in regard to you?

 

[laptoppop]

Unwilling to accept untrue arguments?

The truth is that after something is over 100K years old - there should be no measurable c-14 left. However, there still are measurable amounts of c-14 in samples supposedly millions of years old. hmmmmm.

 

[KerrMetric]

Untrue???

based on what - the fact you don't like it? It sure as heck isn't based upon your personal physics background is it?

It ws predicted ahead of time - just like the reservoir effect in dating was. Of course, that's a thorn in the creationist spin machine.

 

[KerrMetric]

The truth is that after something is over 100K years old - there should be no measurable c-14 left. However, there still are measurable amounts of c-14 in samples supposedly millions of years old. hmmmmm.

Not necessarily. And it was known a priori as well. In many cases there SHOULD be C14 present no matter how old it is.

 

[notto]

Unwilling to accept untrue arguments?

The truth is that after something is over 100K years old - there should be no measurable c-14 left.

Where has this been concluded?

I think what you meant to say was that no original C14 will be left and that is a valid assumption and no evidence to the contrary exists. There are other well known sources of C14 contamination and creation of C14 that will cause C14 to be added to any sample.

Claiming that no original C14 is expected would be accurate. What you have stated is not.