Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

And this part explains how it is that fossils get dated, namely, by dating volcanic ash or igneous intrusions that are "nearby" in the geologic sequence.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Not all fossils contain that and the OP had the ABSURD claim that 90% of fossils carbon date to less than 10000 years. 90% of fossils do not contain left over carbon. Most fossil are completely mineralized.So anyone who is carbon dating some of those fully fossilized samples is invalidly using the method on INORGANIC material.But that is not the extent of Creationists misuse of the method. Even though it is known that you cannot carbon date fossils or marine animals Creationists seem to do that any and then claim that it invalidates the method.My reply do you had a link to one high profile example of this.Snelling's invalid use of radiocarbonThere is also the oft talked about snails and other marine animals that carbon date old. This is in COMPLETE contrast to the rules for when the method is valid. You cannot carbon date inorganic material. You cannot carbon date marine organisms because they are permiated with carbon from ocean sediments rather than from the atmosphere.Creationists either ignorantly or purposefully dishonestly carbon date these inappropriate samples and then use them to claim that the method is invalid. Neither case looks good for the Creationist in general.As I have always said on this board. You can carbon date a plastic spoon and it will give you a date. But that date does not MEAN ANYTHING.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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

Mineralized fossils simply should not have any of its C14 remains that fossilized, the problem is that C14 is found within these fossilized remains.I'll agree however in advance that dilution would affect the ratio adding additional C12, C13 to the mineralized fossil making it date older.The problem is that not even a single atom of C14 should be present in a mineralized bone or even within a mineralized wood sample.http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.htmlMEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODELAn astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.

If you feel you are the victim of Forum Guidelines violations, please do not attempt to handle it yourself by committing Forum Guidelines violations of your own. Please take such issues to the General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7 thread.I'm sorry you didn't like the replies to your opening post, but the excerpt you included contains misinformation of a nature that makes it hard to ignore the possibility that it is deliberate. You are perfectly within your rights to argue here in this thread that the excerpt contains accurate information, but please do so in a manner that conforms to the Forum Guidelines by focusing on the topic and not on the people you're debating with. Failure to follow this request will result in a suspension of posting privileges.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

I'm sure the creationists would agree with you, but they never said they dated these fossils to be 250,000 years. They were just making a point that the fossils at the very least are younger than 250,000 years because detectable C14 remained.The tests are valid on marine fossils, not that the date is the age of the marine fossil but that the Phanerozoic record fossils are said to be 570 million years ago is not an accurate statement because no C14 atoms could be present if the fossil mineral remains were older than 250,000 years (C14 only has 43.6 half lifes).Its just science confirming that the Phanerozoic fossils are not millions of years old and that the earth is a young earth.Phanerozoic Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comPhan·e·ro·zo·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnr--zk)
adj.
Of or relating to the geologic time period from approximately 570 million years ago to the present, comprising the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras, and marked by an abundance of fossil evidence of life, especially higher forms, in the corresponding rockshttp://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.htmlMEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODELABSTRACTGiven the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C. (One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives should reduce that number by a factor of 7.3 x 10-14.) An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.

What does that mean?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

From your link: What element related to carbon-14 is always found in living organisms? Nitrogen, maybe? Nearly all of it nitrogen-14? That's the kind that can react with neutrons to give 14C. Neutrons are not uncommon down in the dirt - uranium and thorium are two sources, and they are much more common than silver or gold - or bromine - in the crust. And what's the concentration of 14N 100 miles up in the atmosphere? I'll bet it's orders of magnitude lower than in an average fossiliferous rock.It'd be a good project for a geochemistry grad student - correlate 14C content of coals with the in-situ radioactivity or neutron flux where it was dug up. You can bet that the ICR won't touch it, though.

That means nothing at all. Nada. Nichts.

That's what I thought. Thanks.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

No, you still have to deal with other sources of C14 such as the C14 generated in the ground, which you tied to dismiss by onvoking Cold Fusion. You still have given no reason to think that Cold Fusion (which is all about fusing hydrogen atoms) is relevant.r

Unsupported assertion, and prima facie false. ¹⁴C ingested during an organism's lifetime is known not to be the only possible source of ¹⁴C, and we do not know that we know all the possible sources of ¹⁴C.Since the major premise of the "paper" is false, there's no need to discuss any more of it.

We've already went over reputable scientists that are not creationists, explaining that no fusion happening within the earth. They have expressed its due to coloumb barrier and the sediment self shielding making it not possible.Fusion is happening naturally like N14 has been proven to (accept a neutron in the upper atmosphere) to produce C14. This is all thats been proven no fusion (cold or hot) happening within the earth).You do realize if fusion of any flavor was violating the coloumb barrier within the earth you'd have to throw out all the isotope methods because they too would be violated.The creationists have taken the high ground (based on science) while some evos have taken the low ground (not based on science) but a belief that (within the earth) the coloumb barrier has somehow been violated.How could it be violated (no answers) hmmm however (Don't answer) Cold fusion or fusion of any flavor has been deemed off topic.The facts are that C14 is within these fossils and after 43.6 half life's is impossible if the fossils are older than 250,000 years.Truly all the creationists have proven is that the earth is a young earth.