I am now a YEC

[random_guy]

This is a good website to look up objections on radiocarbon dating ect. www.contenderministries.org

Again, bad link. It labels radioactive dating under evolution. If I wanted to find problems with radioactive dating I look under geology or physics, not evolution.

Also, I wouldn't trust any site that lies

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.

The bone found was fossilized, and no blood cells were found in it.

The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.

But did you expect anything different?

 

[gluadys]

This is a good website to look up objections on radiocarbon dating ect. www.contenderministries.org

How can it be good when it uses all the typical errors about C-14 dating?

e.g. Speaks of "millions of years" implying that C-14 dating can be used to measure this period of time when it is only accurate for 50,000 years or less.

Confuses C-14 formation with rate of decay and hence makes the false statements that the rate of formation must be constant, and the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere must be constant. Neither is true.

The article also confuses balance and proportion leading to the ridiculous statement that the amount of C-14 being produced currently is equal to the amount of C-12 being produced. (It is actually 1 C-14 atom to every trillion C-12 atoms.)

And of course he dredges up the example of live molluscs being dated as 2000 years old, in oblivious ignorance that C-14 cannot be used accurately when 1) the specimens are still alive and 2) the specimens do not acquire their C-14 from the atmosphere, but from other sources.

Hardly a good source of information at all.

 

[Sabra]

shernren:

This method of dating is not circular by your defintion since no fossils were involved, only pure radiometric dating.

True, but radiometric dating methods use unprovable assumptions (which are presupposed from an old age framework) and hence, it could be considered circular in its reasoning...

gluadys:

I was about to comment, but I think you looked at a different article than I did. I took a link that took me to an Answers in Genesis article What about carbon dating? and was about to rubbish your argument when I realised that you must have been looking at The problems with Carbon-14 Dating by Contender Ministries.

The article also confuses balance and proportion leading to the ridiculous statement that the amount of C-14 being produced currently is equal to the amount of C-12 being produced. (It is actually 1 C-14 atom to every trillion C-12 atoms.)

Well, this is nonsense, especially when the article says: "Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms" in the third paragraph.

Confuses C-14 formation with rate of decay and hence makes the false statements that the rate of formation must be constant, and the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere must be constant. Neither is true.

The ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere is assumed by evolutionists to be a constant or there about (for if it were not, how could they conclude anything with certainity?), which is what the article commented on when it said: "Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere."

 

[gluadys]

gluadys:

I was about to comment, but I think you looked at a different article than I did. I took a link that took me to an Answers in Genesis article What about carbon dating? and was about to rubbish your argument when I realised that you must have been looking at The problems with Carbon-14 Dating by Contender Ministries.

Correct. I didn't bother with the AiG article as I already knew how bad it was. Since the original link was to Contender Ministries I looked for an article there.

The article also confuses balance and proportion leading to the ridiculous statement that the amount of C-14 being produced currently is equal to the amount of C-12 being produced. (It is actually 1 C-14 atom to every trillion C-12 atoms.)

Well, this is nonsense, especially when the article says: "Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms" in the third paragraph.

Yes, he quoted the correct figure early on in the article (a section which sounds as if it is quoted from a text) and later stated that equal amounts are being produced. So the second statement contradicts the information he used himself. Sounds like he is very confused on the subject.

Confuses C-14 formation with rate of decay and hence makes the false statements that the rate of formation must be constant, and the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere must be constant. Neither is true.

The ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere is assumed by evolutionists to be a constant or there about (for if it were not, how could they conclude anything with certainity?), which is what the article commented on when it said: "Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere."

The ratio of C-14 formed in comparison to C-12 formed in the atmosphere is constant. The amount is not constant. And when additional C-14 or C-12 is added from other sources, even the proportion is not constant. The current use of fossil fuels will make C-14 dating in the future very difficult, as it is adding huge amounts of old C-12 to the atmosphere. Unless this is taken into account, scientists a few hundred years from now will incorrectly date most of the organic material from the late 20th century as being older than it really is.

But even in the more distant past there have been fluctuations in c-14/c-12 proportions. That is why raw data from c-14 measurements need to be calibrated in reference to other measurements to ascertain the correct date range.

The article, of course, mentions nothing of this, but states incorrectly, that scientists assume a constancy which they do not.