C14 dating of fossils

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

C14 dating of fossils

Postby Snoppen » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:14 am

I can only wonder what is meant by referring to "C14 dating of fossils" elsehere on this blog. In case there should be any confusion about the different radiometric dating methods in use, to the best of my knowledge it has long been common knowledge that the C14 dating method is not suitable for dating objects older than ~50.000 years.

The half life of C14 is too short for going beyond that. But there are many other methods for dating objects all through the history of the planet and I believe that sometimes several methods of dating can overlap and serve to strenghten the evidence. But I presume such methods are not approved by young earth creationists.
Snoppen
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:27 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Hezekiah Wang » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:18 am

Snoppen you are allowed and encouraged to post your dissenting opinion in the Creation Science forum. Once you start a thread, you set the rules of the discussion. Thank you for visiting. I can try to move this thread to the Creation Science forum if you wish.
Hezekiah Wang
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:53 pm

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby WinstonEwert » Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:54 pm

It is certainly true that C14 dating isn't suitable for anything more than 50,000 years old. After 50,000 years there shouldn't be any C14 left. If instead we find that there is C14 in fossils, that rather suggests that the fossils are much younger than 50,000 years. We do apparently find this C14 in very old fossils.
WinstonEwert
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:01 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Thorton » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:22 pm

WinstonEwert wrote:It is certainly true that C14 dating isn't suitable for anything more than 50,000 years old. After 50,000 years there shouldn't be any C14 left. If instead we find that there is C14 in fossils, that rather suggests that the fossils are much younger than 50,000 years. We do apparently find this C14 in very old fossils.

There has never been any credible evidence of C14 being found in fossils. What has been presented is incredibly slipshod or deliberately dishonest work by Creationists and self-published on YEC web sites. This shoddy work includes both dating fossils contaminated with modern materials like lacquer from museum samples and claiming that mass spectrometer machine background noise readings represents valid data.
Thorton
 

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Paul Giem » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:11 am

Thorton,

I assume you are prepared to defend this with citations from the peer-reviewed literature. I am awaiting the references.
Paul Giem
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:23 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby tjguy » Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:05 am

Thorton,

The problem here is that since you already "know" that the earth is old, you aren't even open to the possibility of C14 in fossils. Your evolutionary paradigm prevents you from even investigating the claim. Instead, when such a claim is made, it evokes an automatic response like the one you wrote.

Maybe contamination by the lab or maybe dishonesty on the part of the YEC scientists, or maybe something else, but we "know" it can't be real leftover C14.

I assume that would mean you would expect no C14 in the growing number of soft tissue dinosaur finds as well. Sure wish they would test that stuff.

This article gives some strong evidence for C14 in diamonds and basically rules out the possibility of contamination.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... n-diamonds
tjguy
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:22 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Thorton » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:30 am

Paul Giem wrote:Thorton,

I assume you are prepared to defend this with citations from the peer-reviewed literature. I am awaiting the references.


You have it backwards. You're the guy claiming C14 has been found in fossils, you're the one who needs to support the claim with references from the peer reviewed professional scientific literature. There are quite a few Creationist woo woo sites out there making the astounding claim but nowhere was their "evidence" anything but self-published nonsense.

I await your references.
Thorton
 

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Thorton » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:21 am

tjguy wrote:The problem here is that since you already "know" that the earth is old, you aren't even open to the possibility of C14 in fossils. Your evolutionary paradigm prevents you from even investigating the claim. Instead, when such a claim is made, it evokes an automatic response like the one you wrote


No. The real problem is that science has hundreds if not thousands of independent lines of evidence that show the Earth couldn't possibly be younger than the 50,000 year limit set by radiocarbon dating. Things like ice core samples that date hundreds of thousands of years. Geologic formations like Gooseneck State Park in Utah that took milllions of years to erode. In Yellowstone Park there is a place called Specimen Ridge that has over 60 mature forests buried sequentially, one on top of another. Each forest was buried by volcanic lahars then another grew on top. We know the forests were buried in place and not transported because of the layers of paleosoils around their root. It's estimated Specimen Ridge took over 2 million years of volcanic activity and forest growth to form.

In science we have to look at ALL the evidence taken as a whole. YECs will cherry pick individual pieces that they can twist and spin while ignoring all the huge amounts of evidence that directly contradict the YEC claim.

Maybe contamination by the lab or maybe dishonesty on the part of the YEC scientists, or maybe something else, but we "know" it can't be real leftover C14.


Even if you made the amazing find of a species of dinosaur still living in the Amazon with fresh C14 that wouldn't show the Earth is old, only that some of the animals on it lived recently. It doesn't negate all the other evidence we have for an Earth old age.
Thorton
 

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Paul Giem » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:42 am

Thorton,

I await your references.

With pleasure.

Remember, you didn't ask for a "peer-reviewed article", but "references from the peer reviewed professional scientific literature". So here is an article with over 40 "references from the peer reviewed professional scientific literature". (The article itself is peer-reviewed, although I think you would argue by the wrong peers.) I encourage you to check out the references to make sure that I am not literature bluffing.

Carbon-14 in Fossil Carbon http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

After you are through reading, could you give your references?
Paul Giem
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:23 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby stcordova » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:06 am

Dr. Giem,

I did start a thread for a more scholarly discussion of C14 in which Thronton is excluded. The more scholarly discussion is here and it references your work at GRI:
C14 in fossils is credible evidence fossils are young

What you have written in this thread is quite instructive.

But I feel bad if you should ever waste time with the sort of interactions that Thornton is notorious for. On the other hand it is by rule that in people in general will be allowed a hearing, they just can't jump discussion they are not invited to, but they can participate where they are invited or in thread they start themselves.


But thank you anyway for saying something. Thornton's reaction is evidence of the defenselessness of his position or at the very least his unwillingness to examine the data. That's why in general I won't bother with him.

Advice to creationists: there is benefit in interacting with Thornton if you want to improve your debate skills. That is about all.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Next

Return to Creation Science

cron