Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

We have samples of the Earth's atmosphere for every year for the past 600,000 years. That's well, well beyond the effective dating range for radiocarbon dating. What that means is this - we have samples of the atmosphere with which to calibrate the "carbon scale" for every year for which radiocarbon dating can be used. No evolutionist has done this. The only people who try to get radiocarbon dates on these materials are creationists who are trying to fraudulently impeach the radiocarbon dating process.I suggest that you improve your understanding of radiocarbon dating processes.

It's not fusion. Fusion:

quote:

---

In physics, nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus.

---

One neutron is not a nucleus. Therefore the absorption of a neutron is not fusion. On the other hand, fission:

quote:

---

Nuclear fission - also known as atomic fission - is a process in nuclear physics in which the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller nuclei as fission products, and usually some by-product particles.

---

A single proton is, by definition, a nucleus. (It's the nucleus of a hydrogen atom.) Therefore the process where an atom absorbs a thermal neutron and emits a proton is correctly described as fission, because the nucleus is splitting into two nuclei, one of which is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (the proton.)

Not a single word of that is a relevant response.

I've ready through every post in this thread and the only posts I would describe as "hysteric" have been yours.Pretty typical randman response, though. Evolutionist enthusiasm for science is twisted around to prove creationism right; but creationist enthusiasm for the destruction of science is held as evidence of creationism.Indeed, randman offers anything and everything in support of creationism, except actual scientific evidence. If randman gets a paper cut, that proves creationism. If he doesn't, that proves creationism. If an evolutionist disagrees with him, that proves creationism. If an evolutionist agrees with him on the most unrelated issue, that proves creationism too.Nobody's fooled by you, randman. Absolutely nobody believes for an instant that you've ever bothered to honestly and objectively assess the issue.

Fossil bones are, yeah. They've mineralized. They're essentially bone-shaped stones, at that point.

I'm sorry, but Paul rebutted this already. Radiocarbon dating is only valid for organisms whose main source of carbon is atmospheric, not marine.The Phanerozoic record is almost entirely marine organisms. Thus, no conclusions can be drawn from radiocarbon tests performed on them. The data is junk data that supports no conclusions whatsoever.Also - my guess is that any C14 reading that supports a date around 250,000 ya as they suggest isn't actually a reading at all - it's a ghost peak in the mass spectrometer. There's a reason that the maximum practical age limit for radiocarbon dating is 50k years; that's because C14 levels below that amount can't be reliably detected by any instrument. Thus, a claim that the instrument is detecting them at an age beyond 50 kya is obviously unsupported.

Right, and what I'm saying is that "250,000" isn't a number you could concievably get with radiocarbon dating at all, which tells me that they're just making up numbers. No, they're not. They're meaningless. No, it's not. Science abundantly disproves the young earth position. The vast weight of evidence is that the Earth is 4 gyo. The data you refer to is fundamentally flawed, and exists only because creationists have chosen to misrepresent the science and try to fool the gullible with invalid results from an invalid test scenario.

OMG you work at the reactor! That's awesome, we're practically neighbors. I work at the Rollins Bottoms experiment station back behind the reactor sometimes. Down past the golf course.