Carbon dating is radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is simply using the quantities of a radioactive element in a substance to determine its age based on the half-life of the element. There are several elements used for dating: In the case of "Carbon dating" they use the isotope Carbon This is also called Radiocarbon dating. Of course, some people don't understand the differences between uses or the duration of the half-lives of these elements, so they lump them together. Carbon has a fairly short half-life of about years and therefore is only used on recently geologically speaking deceased organisms.
It is not used on fossils and other inorganic material for the sheer fact that there is no carbon to date. That said, Carbon does have its limitations on uses even when attempting to date some organisms. The biggest drawback is something called the "Reservoir Effect" which causes marine organisms, and animals that primarily feed on marine organisms to date as older than they really are. This is due to the fact that the isotope C does not enter the water supply at the same rate that it does in the atmosphere.
First, that you can consciously and knowingly defraud a test does not prove that the test is invaluable. I could get a passing score on any certification exam if by cheating. You can beat speed traps using radar detectors.
- 45 Comments!
- speed dating format.
- Discover the world's research?
- Supplementary Material.
The point of carbon dating is a reasonably useful test for artifacts that are legitimately old , not for items that are planted with an intent to deceive. Second, you might want to react to a theist who insists on using their faith to try to invalidate science with a genuine passion in their claims. Please help show me why it is true. I've been searching for 15 minutes and haven't found anything. It wouldn't surprise me if it were made up. Anyone making such a claim in a scheduled interview should be prepared to supply sources if they want to be taken seriously. I don't know about a million years, but mollusks give incorrect results due to inactive carbon 14 being introduced.
Ahhhhh, but "burden of proof" is likely to be a little too scientific for anyone making that claim. This is just a wild guess on my part, but the only controversy I can find involving C dating and chicken bones is this one - although the controversy revolves more round genetic mutations in chicken DNA being used to determine the geographic origins of Chilean chickens. However, the bone in question was carbon dated and determined to be of pre-Colombian origin which, in turn, has led to questions being asked as to whether it was dated correctly. I can see how a scientific discussion on possible dating inaccuracies due to not correcting the carbon dating of the bone's age for possible marine carbon offset would evolve eventually, through the usual processes of simplification and embellishment in the name of god, into something similar to what you have described above.
The theory sounds plausible, where does it fall short? So it failed once. There are too many instances where it worked 1 involving artefacts from historic periods and 2 with other radiometric dating methods with overlapping ranges to discard it for one failed case.
The author declares no conflict of interest. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.
More Problems with Carbon and Old-Earth Assumptions – Proslogion
Published online Aug Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Footnotes The author declares no conflict of interest. Thomson VA, et al. You know, I watched your debate with Dr. Wile, and he seemed unshakably certain that modern dating methods were accurate. Keith, I recently debated him again , and he was just as unshakably certain.
He even said that there are no contradictions in radiometric dating.
Want to add to the discussion?
Wile and I read different things. I read it years ago but possess no copy at this moment. I cannot remember his wording but I have a vague recollection of his suggestion of God creating some sort of essence of various life-forms on one day, then realizing those life-forms the next. Which of course is a stunning claim but the Bible says what it says and like other commentators such as Augustine he was big enough to say that he did not understand it. You think they will attempt to answer these questions? Unlike yourself, they have decided how it all happened.
Augustine and the Church Fathers were dim! I will tell you one person the whole crew will not debate. A man with an open Bible. Which all goes to show how dumb the Darwinists must be! Philip, the book to which you refer is The Genesis Record. I have read it, and Morris says no such thing. In fact, he discusses Genesis 2: Unlike the first narrative, however, the second narrative focuses on man.
Yes, Ham and Co. And yes, they debate people with open Bibles all the time see here and here , for example. Like the old-earth creationists, they take Genesis very seriously, and they use it as their primary source of information regarding creation. I am not sure why you dislike Ham and Morris, but please stop making false accusations against them.
If you continue to make such accusations, I will stop approving your comments. Thanks for the response, Dr.
No evidence for sample contamination or diet offset for pre-Columbian chicken dates from El Arenal
But then, the burden of production would seemingly fall to them. Have any of them responded to your arguments that contamination is an unlikely hypothesis in explaining this data? I like my blog to be interactive. Honestly, the only other explanations I have gotten for these data are ineptitude and nefariousness.
Radiocarbon Dating of Calcined Bones: Where Does the Carbon Come from?
In other words, some think that these crazy young-earth creationists are either incapable of doing the field work and analysis properly or they are faking the results in an attempt to win people to their position. Obviously, I disagree with both of those arguments as well. I have looked at the work carefully, and I see no indication of either. Consequently, it is not clear that the best minds have been focused on the issue.
The two papers I linked in the second paragraph are found only in the creationist literature, which is not exactly widely read. Given the fact that this presentation was wiped from the program once it was given, I doubt that such results will get into the mainstream scientific literature any time soon. It will happen eventually , however, since science is inherently self-correcting.
Unfortunately, it took a couple thousand years for the mainstream scientific community to give up on spontaneous generation in all its forms. Thus, I suspect it will take a while before the mainstream journals are willing to evaluate this issue fairly.
Welcome to Reddit,
At any rate, thank you for your hard work and research. I added your blog to my blog roll and intend to write an article summarizing your research, as time allows. Thank you so much, cl. I am quite happy that you have added my blog to your blogroll, and I look forward to reading the article you write. I just now drove 24k to get this book from a neighbour. Quoting commentary on Gen. It would seem, if anything, that the land animals were of a higher order than the others and therefore they should have taken a higher category of divine activity. I read this commentary something like fifteen years ago and was shocked to find the author by implication placing himself above the great men of God and eminent scholars who brought to us the Holy Scriptures as we have them.
He repeatedly, glibly dismisses time-honoured translations from the Hebrew in favour of his own Johnny-come-lately notions. As I have said previously, to his credit, he acknowledges that the Bible is saying at 1: That is the inescapable meaning. To his credit, he acknowledges a difficulty with his approach to the text. Land animals are obviously as complex or more complex than aquatic life.
His explanation is novel and non-literalist. The formation of land creatures merely involved new types of organization of materials already in existence, including the nephesh [Hebrew, life, my insert] as well as the physical elements……. The formation of land creatures merely involved new types of organization of materials already in existence, including the nephesh as well as the physical elements. All involved the same fundamental biochemical structure and reproductive mechanisms. All three categories of land animals were made simultaneously, as is evident from the inverted order of listing in verses 24 and Once again, it is obvious that there is not the slightest correlation with the imaginary evolutionary order that is, insects, then amphibians, then reptiles, then all mammals.
As a matter of fact, evolution places insects, amphibians, and land reptiles all before the birds that Genesis says were made the day before. That is, their bodies were composed of the same elements as the earth; and when they died, they would go back to the earth. In this respect, they were like air and water animals Genesis 1: Anyone who reads this full quote will see that Morris is not saying anything close to what you are trying to claim he says. What he is saying is that the principle of nephesh life had been created on day 5.
In the end, Morris just says that all the necessary components were made on day 5, and all that had to be done on day 6 was to rearranged them to make completely new animals. As a chemist, I can start with one set of component chemicals and make several completely different molecules. Then on day 6, I come in and use those same chemicals to make molecule Z. The fact that molecules Y and Z are made from the same components does not affect when they came into existence. This is what Dr. A new necessary component nephesh life was made on day 5.
God used that component and other components He had made previously to bring some animals into existence on day 5. He then used those same components to bring other animals into existence on day 6. Nothing from your previous comment stands. You mischaracterized what Morris says, and more importantly, you made false accusations against Ham and Co.
- No evidence for sample contamination or diet offset for pre-Columbian chicken dates from El Arenal.
- (PDF) Radiocarbon Dating of Calcined Bones: Where Does the Carbon Come from?;
- hook up grill to house propane tank.
- agamata dating site.
False accusations do not help your case, Philip. They also are the best way to have your comments sent to the trash bin in the future. Just a side note from your previous comment, Dr. When you mention how Dr. Morris used the Hebrew words to say that land animals were reorganized from the biochemistry of sea animals and flying creatures, it sounds slightly like the book of Genesis is making the case of homology, a science used for evolution now used for creationism. Jacob, I think Dr. However, it does serve as one possible creationist explanation.
There are additional options. One of these you addressed, and that is the issue of contamination. Seiler and the RATE authors and you believe they have successfully ruled out this possibility, but other Christian researchers e. One should not be surprised that very old carbon-containing geological substances—coal, bones, diamonds—would contain at least some carbon Organic-rich substances or layers in sedimentary rocks promote the reduction and deposition of uranium.
This uranium emits neutrons, which can cause the same nuclear reaction that transforms nitrogen into carbon in the atmosphere. This almost certainly contributes some radiocarbon to bones and coal; the effect should be orders of magnitude less for diamond. This increased concentration of uranium around organic substances also explains why, in Dr. Contamination, background radiation, and induced nuclear reactions can certainly be used to answer some of the YEC carbon claims, and perhaps all of them.
More likely, this is just another faulty YEC argument. Kevin, you probably ought to make it a practice to read the previous comments before commenting yourself. As I pointed out then, the data simply do not behave like contamination or background. Contamination would not form the patterns seen in the data, and background should be constant for a given instrument.
As a result, no matter how desperate a person is, neither of those explanations work. If uranium was involved in producing new carbon, there should be a pattern related to the supposed age of the rock in which the sample was found. The older the rock, the longer the uranium has been producing new carbon, so the more carbon there should be.
- 100 free french dating sites.
- boise speed dating.
- are you officially dating online.
- lds dating site for lds singles!
- mydailyflog dating site;
However, a large section of the talk is devoted to the fact that this is most certainly not the case. If you think that there is some magical steady state reached in which the uranium produces new carbon just as quickly as old carbon decays, then there should be no difference in the level of carbon in the samples.
In science, we look at the patterns found in the data, and the patterns tell us that contamination, background, and uranium are not feasible explanations for what has been observed. At best, these are desperate attempts to explain around the data, and they are probably just another set of faulty OEC arguments. In response to your comment October 6, at When I write a program, then desire to write another program, I often invoke code from the first program to create the second.
Rather, the fact of re-usage is precisely what we would expect from a supra-intelligent Creator creating with respect for efficiency. Evolutionists view the evidence through Darwin-colored glasses, then attempt to usurp the evidence as supportive exclusively of their preferred metaphysical conclusion. But, if I may invoke that great genius Sherlock Holmes:.
Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing… It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different… There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. If the expert says all samples, even those that contain no C, appear to show some level of C, then that is the way it probably is.
We are talking about measurements that are near the limits of what can be detected by the AMS method. There should not be a correlation between age of the samples e. Cretaceous or Eocene and the amount of carbon in the samples.