Welcome To Atlanta
To help get you started, we created an FAQ to explain all the rules, and help you get the lay of the land. University of Georgia is now refusing to C14 date any more dinosaur bones from creationists. Sounds like UGA recieved some "samples" which were not identified as anything. Just samples - "please date them". UGA has no idea what the samples were, or where they came from, they didnt conclude anything other than the date of the samples they were given, which could be anything.
Bear in mind typically fossils are found - not bones or tissue - when it comes to dinos. Lots of creationists are bosnian dating site usa to make an eureka moment but unless the chain of custody and true source of these samples can be proven there is no science here. There are plenty of C14 traces in fossils supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. This isn't an isolated incident.
These C14 traces aren't just discovered by creationists, lots of geologists and physicists are well aware of the supposed anomaly. If the anomaly is so radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones, if ceases to be an anomaly but rather the norm. Some quietly recognize it is the norm. Accelerator mass spectrometry AMSa sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some blender dating site login finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40, years.
Though this radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would finosaur seem to djnosaur a problem for the established geologic nones, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately million years ago. Since the halflife of carbon is 5, years, any that was present the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products.
The author uses the word "some" to describe C14 discoveries. We actually know now it is MOST not some of the coal! She tries to explain the C14 away, radiocarbom I don't buy her explanation. In any case, the creationists aren't scamming UGA, they are only representing what is already quietly acknowledge as evidenced by the pro-Darwin website in the link. Does this anomaly have any connection to levels of C14 in the earth's atmosphere that gets absorbed into organic material?
Yes, but not enough to cause a million-year-old fossil look like it is only 50, years old since that vedic kundli matchmaking require an insane amount of C14 to start with, maybe more than what the einosaur can hold. So a little more C14 in the air might move the date just a radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones. Say there was twice as much C14 in the air, it would push the dates forward by only 5, years.
The problem is it is too hard to tell. A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts bons C, enough to give them C ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this? Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium K decay.
Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:. Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.
Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N to C in the first place. K decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin.
However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones bonee notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years. Radiometric dating is not like radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones a thermometer Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists datijg that radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones of them contain measurable amounts of C.
Evolutionists admit they are finding so many instances of C in million-year-old samples, they gave up trying to find large quantities free of C You're just cutting and pasting NCSE talking points, not actual reported lab and field observations. And furthermore there are some supposedly tens-of-millions-of-years-old radiocarbon dating dinosaur bones with 22, year dates which mean they have greater than 6. Do you even understand how an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer AMS works --the machine in question at the University of Georgia?
It's not a Geiger counter or some other similar instrument counting radioactive emissions. It radikcarbon count emissions, it counts isotopic ratios. Please tell me you know that beta emissions counts are not the same thing as isotopic ratios. An AMS machine can distinguish something like the isotopes of Tin mean atomic mass Tin wouldn't be mingled with the C14 after the separation process in an AMS.
Radiometric C14 dating isn't the same as counting radioactive decays in real time. The above dionsaur a total distortion of what is being measured. Radiometric C14 dating is about determining and comparing carbon isotopic ratios not real time beta decay rates. Perhaps you should follow your own advice instead of posting confused science that insinuates C14 dating is something akin to using Geiger Counters instead of Accelerator Mass Spectrometers.