Relic bone attributed to Saint James, 'brother' of Jesus, radiocarbon dated to 214 - 340

[Job 33:6]

Actually there are ways to investigate the question of if daughter elements were present at formation. One such method involves looking at the crystalline lattice of minerals that contain these elements. Ie: some daughter elements do not properly "fit" into the lattice of parent mineral structures.

It's like, if you could imagine building a house out of rectangular "parent" legos, and some of the legos decay to ball shaped "daughter" legos. It becomes apparent that daughter elements had not originally been present, given that they're locked into lattices in which they do not fit.

It's also worthwhile to consider that radiometric dating is performed using multiple samples. For example, k-t boundary dating has involved dozens of samples collected worldwide, analyzed by multiple independent research teams and utilizing different radioactive decay methods, all yielding identical results.

But I'm sure Creationist websites don't bother talking about these concepts.

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

 

[lesliedellow]

Even if it could be carbon dated to the first century, I would like to know how they could be sure it belonged to a particular person.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Even if it could be carbon dated to the first century, I would like to know how they could be sure it belonged to a particular person.

It's true this process could not verify the identity, even if the timing were right.

 

[Strathos]

Even if it could be carbon dated to the first century, I would like to know how they could be sure it belonged to a particular person.

It's a relic that was said to belong to James via tradition. Seems like it probably didn't, now.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's a relic that was said to belong to James via tradition. Seems like it probably didn't, now.

I kinda guessed that. Just as there are enough pieces of the true cross to populate a rain forest. It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Estrid]

I kinda guessed that. Just as there are enough pieces of the true cross to populate a rain forest. It was a rhetorical question.

I doubt they would add up to more than enuf for a modest cottage.

 

[tas8831]

Radiocarbon dating is not 100% accurate.

How Accurate is Carbon Dating?

Great rebuttal....

 

[tas8831]

It's funny how dating methods can't be 200 years off when measuring religious artifacts but if dating methods are a couple of million years off when dating dinosaur bones it is called "standard deviation".

Yeah, wow, especially when DIFFERENT dating methods are used.

I'm not saying those bones are from James, I'm just pointing out the prejudiced way of thinking.

Yes - YOURS.

 

[Kylie]

Radiocarbon dating is not 100% accurate.

How Accurate is Carbon Dating?

Something tells me you wouldn't be so doubtful of the results if they dated to about the time when James is said to have lived.

 

[Kylie]

Hmm. I either misunderstand your comment or you have no clue of dates/dating methods. There are no dinosaur bones from 100 million years ago. All dinosaurs found contain C-14 which means they're not older than 60,000 years.

Have you got a source for this claim?