C14 Dating

[Zakuska]

Ok so Im reading this article. And now Im a bit confused.

http://www.andreadul...dfs/megamam.pdf

It says that a layer of clay above the bone bed carbon dated to 21,490 +- 120 14C YR BP.

I'm OK with that.

Then it says a piece of Charcoal next to the bones carbon dated to. 47,040 +- 900 14C YR BP.

I'm OK with that too.

However... here is were it gets muddy.

Calogen in the bone itself carbon date to 2770 +- 90 14C YR BP

How exactly should this data be interpreted? (For details see page 10)

[ELF1024]

Ok so Im reading this article. And now Im a bit confused.

http://www.andreadul...dfs/megamam.pdf

It says that a layer of clay above the bone bed carbon dated to 21,490 +- 120 14C YR BP.

I'm OK with that.

Then it says a piece of Charcoal next to the bones carbon dated to. 47,040 +- 900 14C YR BP.

I'm OK with that too.

However... here is were it gets muddy.

Calogen in the bone itself carbon date to 2770 +- 90 14C YR BP

How exactly should this data be interpreted? (For details see page 10)

So, if I'm reading this right... and I may not be...

The Calogen in the bone is 44,270 years younger than the Charcoal, and 18,720 years younger than the Clay.

The only way I can make sense of that, is that someone dug a hole a buried the bones next to much older material. However, I'm not an expert, so your mileage may vary.

[Zakuska]

So, if I'm reading this right... and I may not be...

The Calogen in the bone is 44,270 years younger than the Charcoal, and 18,720 years younger than the Clay.

The only way I can make sense of that, is that someone dug a hole a buried the bones next to much older material. However, I'm not an expert, so your mileage may vary.

You wouldn't have to dig a hole and bury it.

The bones were deposited and then through natural processes of errosion upstream they were covered by clay filled with organic material in it that was much older than the bones themselve. Thats why the bones themselve must be tested and their age not interpreted by things found around them. As many to date have been.

PS. Some of the bones are of "Cuvieronius".

[Vance]

Watch out Zak, the worshipers of C14 dating aren't kind to questioners of their religion.

[Zakuska]

Watch out Zak, the worshipers of C14 dating aren't kind to questioners of their religion.

It's funny what the author himself says...

Three AMS radiocarbon dates were secured

from TP1 (Table 1). The first came

from a collagen sample extracted from an

untreated Eremotherium rib head. It provided

a date of 2770

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's funny what the author himself says...

Yep thats it.... since it doesn't meet our preconceived notion of when they went extinct. We have to come up with some other explanation for it.

Is it so hard to admit that a "young animal" died, and then was buried by natural processes by older material washing away from upstream?

This does represent an issue with c-14 dating. I think c-14 is some what accurate. I don't dispute the dating method. But there is an anomaly and it seems that when this happens scientists just assume that it really is much older because of a preconceived notions.

I think the only thing this tells us is that we cannot assume somethings age just because things around it date to a certain age.

I am sure there is another explination.

The other thing that drives me nuts is his explination. How is he going to go about testing it? So far he just asserts it. I find that alot of times this happens then other people just run with it as if it is backed by evidence.

[semlogo]

It's funny what the author himself says...

Yep thats it.... since it doesn't meet our preconceived notion of when they went extinct. We have to come up with some other explanation for it.

Is it so hard to admit that a "young animal" died, and then was buried by natural processes by older material washing away from upstream?

You're right, C14 is Satan's deception, and the Flintstones was a documentary. Yabba dabba DOOOOOOO!

[Zakuska]

You're right, C14 is Satan's deception, and the Flintstones was a documentary. Yabba dabba DOOOOOOO!

Satans deception?

No Satans deception is Arm-Chair-Scientists fixing extinction dates at 10000 bc and when data comes in to dispute it. Conclude the data must be in error.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Satans deception?

No Satans deception is Arm-Chair-Scientists fixing extinction dates at 10000 bc and when data comes in to dispute it. Conclude the data must be in error.

AS you can see Logo generally offers very poor reubuttles to the issues at hands. His favorite techniques are the straw man and the red herring.

I think the last sentence is the most interesting. They conclude the data is in error because it runs against preconceived notions.

[ERayR]

AS you can see Logo generally offers very poor reubuttles to the issues at hands. His favorite techniques are the straw man and the red herring.

I think the last sentence is the most interesting. They conclude the data is in error because it runs against preconceived notions.

Pay attention they can spin tales of the life and loves of the speciman from a single bone.

[Zakuska]

Well here are some intresting "ancient" Carbon dates.

* A freshly killed seal dated by C-14 method showed it had died 1300 years ago.

~~ Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, Sep-Oct. '71, pg. 211.

* Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2300 years old.

~~ Science, vol. 141 (1963), pg. 634-637.

* Living snails shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago.

~~ Science, vol. 224 (1984), pg. 58-61.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/224/4644/58.pdf

* Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian period" supposedly 300 million years old,

was C-14 dated at 1680 years old.

~~ Journal of Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966.

Yes, I lifted these from a young-earth web site.

http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/stillinthebeginning.html

[Zakuska]

..

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pay attention they can spin tales of the life and loves of the speciman from a single bone.

Ha, I remember you bringing this up in a different thread.

AS you can see from these bones. Lucy clearly had a hard time living. She must have been sad because she could not find food for her new baby.

It is all in the bones.

[semlogo]

Satans deception?

No Satans deception is Arm-Chair-Scientists fixing extinction dates at 10000 bc and when data comes in to dispute it. Conclude the data must be in error.

I'm with you, brother!

[semlogo]

AS you can see Logo generally offers very poor reubuttles to the issues at hands. His favorite techniques are the straw man and the red herring.

I think the last sentence is the most interesting. They conclude the data is in error because it runs against preconceived notions.

What are you talking about? I'm agreeing with you guys!

Explain this one, science!

[semlogo]

Well here are some intresting "ancient" Carbon dates.

Yes, I lifted these from a young-earth web site.

http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/stillinthebeginning.html

Right on! Teach the controversy!

[William Schryver]

This improbable age may have been caused by a major alteration of the specimen

[SilverKnight]

You're right, C14 is Satan's deception, and the Flintstones was a documentary. Yabba dabba DOOOOOOO!

Why are religious people so terrified of scientific dating techniques?

[Zakuska]

Why are religious people so terrified of scientific dating techniques?

I wasn't aware that religious people were even intrested in the courtship rituals of "brainiacks".

[semlogo]

Why are religious people so terrified of scientific dating techniques?

Because science is demonic. The earth is only 6000 years old, and scientists are trying to cover it up with their so called "facts" and "knowledge" and "education" and "expertise" and "reality." Who are you going to believe, the guy who made this website or thousands of PhDs?

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

Six Thousand Years:

The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?

The age of the earthThe Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is older than 6,000 years old.

The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 yers old. Here's why:

Fossilize raptorHow do we get fossils?

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:

When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.

Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31 NASB)

God didn't call His creation just good. He called it very good. A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died after God created Adam, and after the fall.

[cdowis]

Why are religious people so terrified of scientific dating techniques?

I guess for the same reason that unbelievers are so defensive about it.

Anyway, LDS beliefs do not require a young earth.

[bu11fr0g]

A couple points:

The Caribbean Journal of Science is probably not the best place to find good science. When I see an article in a journal like this, there is normally a very good reason it is in a low tier journal.

The author noted that this was "improbable" but was willing to publish his findings rather than suppressing them. It is through the accumulation of unexplained findings that theories change. The people attacking the theory based on this are still forced to explain all of the other observed phenomenon relative to C14 data. The author himself finds that he cannot explain his "young animal" findings relative to the body of published works.

The lack of mentioning of calibration, controls and techniques for the carbon dating itself is highly problematic and suggestive of a methodologic problem. Note that the paper itself states that the site was poorly controlled relative to rain.

The mental twists needed to explain carbon findings to date to match a preconceived dating scheme are much deeper.

[thesometimesaint]

William Schryver:

I don't know where you are getting million and billions of years from. C-14 has a known rate of decay. After about 62,000 years there is so little left that is it no longer accurate measure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

[Zakuska]

William Schryver:

I don't know where you are getting million and billions of years from. C-14 has a known rate of decay. After about 62,000 years there is so little left that is it no longer accurate measure.

http://en.wikipedia....iocarbon_dating

And what happens when we measure living organisms that died on a known date and we get particularly OLD ages?

Does that not show our assumptioon of a constant C14 absorption rate in error?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why are religious people so terrified of scientific dating techniques?

Who is terrified? This is getting hillarious.