Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

If I understand your attempt, you are saying that C14 is removed from an organism as it decomposes and is fossilized.All isotopes of C are removed at that time. But C14 would be decaying (half-life 5,730 years) at the same time.By the time an organism is completely fossilized there is no C of any kind left. You have mineralization. The C14 will have left earlier most likely due to beta decay.But there will often be tiny amounts of C14 reintroduced from natural radiation. Only creationists make a big deal of these trace amounts, which are generally about the limit of detection of the equipment being used.An analogy about the limits of detection: How much beyond 36" inches would you expect accurate measurements if you are using a single yardstick? You would quickly be forced to conclude >36" wouldn't you? Same with the radiocarbon method, where samples are often reported as >36,000 years (or whatever, depending on the equipment and the shielding).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Do you have evidence that the cellose thats undigestable loses all its isotopes of Carbon? Perhaps this is where you and the Rate boys disagree?

Fossils are mineralized. Except for rare occasions they have no carbon.And the RATE Project proponents and I disagree because I believe their data and they do not.They set out to show that the decay constant is a variable; they failed. Their own data, costing over a million dollars to produce, showed that the decay constant is a constant. They refused to believe their own data.From an analysis of the RATE Project:

Source.

In other words, they are doing creation "science" and not real science. I wouldn't rely on them much for help in these discussions of radiocarbon dating.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So you're confirming, for about the fiftieth time in in last five years or so on this forum, that you have not an inkling of a clue of what isotopes even are, let alone how they behave chemically?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This response will get things back to the OP and the basic fact that has been ignored and completely mistated over and over.Coyote wrote:"Fossils are mineralized. Except for rare occasions they have no carbon."Exactly, which is why C14 dating should not yield young dates per the OP. It would not produce erratic young data as has been misstated several times. The fact that organic samples that are supposed to be fossilized found in layers presumed to hundreds of millions of years old and have no c14 have yielded dates in the tens of thousands of years is proof of the bias inherent in dating techniques.Coyote states:"They set out to show that the decay constant is a variable; they failed. Their own data, costing over a million dollars to produce, showed that the decay constant is a constant. They refused to believe their own data."Wrong. They produced evidence that there has been massive acceleration in decay rates."we discovered several major evidences for accelerated nuclear decay during the eight-year project, and therefore we felt justified reporting them as we did." RATE Dialogue - in PSCF (March 2008)Coyote quote a critique of the material instead of RATES own material to try to tell us what RATES own conclusion was and in his own conclusion grotesquely twisted RATES own evidences. Disingenuous and dishonest at best.No one in these posts have dealt with the real issue in the original post. C14 present in organic samples that are not supposed to have any C14.And I would add the blatant evidence of bias in methodology of Evo's in these posts. They keep repeating the mantra that C14 is not used for dating fossils which is the bias itself...it can be if the fossil has any C14 in it, which if millions of years old it shouldnt. So then they state that it cannot be used which is false. They mean, our assumptions are that all fossils are millions of years old and fossils that are millions of years old will have no C14 therefore, C14 cannot be used to date fossils. That is circular reasoning.Relatively recent tests using C14 on 'fossilized' wood, coal, diamonds and dinosaur bones which is not supposed to yield any C14, did yield C14 demonstrating ages in the tens of thousands of years and not millions.The Scientific method is based on prediction. Now I cant wait for the responses as to why the C14 dating done at Arizona State University and Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston, on organic samples are invalid and I predict no one will even look up the original sources but make biased statements stating something like 'the sources must have been contaminated' or 'this or that to skew the dates must have occurred.'PhileoRob

This has been dealt with in a number of posts including several of mine.Summary: creationist wishful thinking.Let me try to put it in simple terms.The radiocarbon method determines the amounts of C14 present in a sample. Even in contemporaneous samples this amount is exceedingly small. That amount is always decaying, but in living samples is replenished from the atmosphere. In dead organisms it is no longer replaced, and the levels begin to drop via beta decay. The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years, so every 5,730 years the level drops by half. Most commercial labs lose the beta decay signal in the background in samples beyond about 50,000 years. Some labs with less sophisticated equipment or poorer shielding have upper limits closer to 35,000 years, while a couple of labs are experimenting with AMS dating in the range of 80,000 years.Samples with true ages over about 30,000 years have vanishingly small amounts of C14 left.There are other ways for tiny amounts of C14 to be created other than in the upper atmosphere. C14 can be created in small amounts by local radioactivity. In addition there are always contamination problems; breathing on a sample can introduce the same vanishingly small amounts of C14. Either of these factors can produce the same vanishingly small traces of C14 in odd materials such as coal, diamonds and dinosaur fossils. Creationists grasp this as a dying man grasps a life preserver, and twist it into evidence for a young earth. It is not.Sorry.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Oh. Dear. God. Just when you thought the stupidity could not get any worse Have you read anything in this thread??? Have you any clues as to why meaurements may throw up dates in the tens of thousands of years???

Actually your response is 'Uneffing believable'Randman was asking a question and not even stating a case. As well you stating that any testing of fossils over 50,000 years will yield a date of 50,000 years is just plain stupid. 1)The dates were obtained using ams (mass spectrometer tests) which finds the amount of C14. Rock and fossils will not yield C14 in normal testing situations and therefore will not yield an age. 2) The dates found were all less than 50,000 years anyway, refuting your knee-jerk unthoughtout conclusions. I suggest you check out the relatively recent dating of coal, diamonds, wood and dinosaur bones, none of which were supposed to have any C14, all of which used mass spectrometers and all of which yielded C14 for dates less than 50,000 years.Your were right in your subtitle "Uneffing believable" but wrong in who it applied to.PhileoRob

Just as I predicted!You dont know any the evidences cited, dinobones, coal, diamonds and wood, each independently dated in recognized labs using proper methods used for evo dating, but you automatically assume the dates are wrong and that in each case you are completely ignorant of that the dates yielded are because of anomalies.For you to have any credibility you would have to look up the examples cited and demonstrate the flaws but you didnt.You are a perfect example of the biases. No research just your own assumptions. When scientific evidence is presented contradicting your assumptions you resort to the ad/hoc and ad/hominem.I'm glad you responded...you prove my point beautifullyThanks!PhileoRob

Another response according to my predictions. I've read every post here from OP to yours.You and other Evo's cannot grasp your own biased methodology. I'm fully educated on C14 and your summary was useless.All you did was cite possiblities for anomalies. Possibility does not equal reality in the cases cited. If what you are saying were true then C14 is invalidated as a dating method period but it is not--obviously.You need to specifically demonstrate, even from the original post which give the cite for the dinosaur bones dated approx 37,000 years old, why the datings in the cases cited are anamolous. You cant. You just assume they are because they disagree with your presuppositions. Stating a remote possiblity and assuming it is the case is arrogant, lazy and abrogates the scientific method and basic laws logic and responsible argumentation.

Let me ask a serious question. How many radiocarbon dates have you done? This can be either the actually laboratory processing, or submission or samples.I am close to 600 samples, so I feel I know something about the process.And you?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Check it out where? References, please?

Wow it takes nerve to quote someone and actually edit their quote!Randmans OP gave the source"(Science Vol 144, pg 999)" Yet you quoted him asquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man (homo rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000). This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You edited his quote and changed the page to 1000!You cant do that...your post was about misrepresentation and you go and dishonestly edit the quote to something else.Plus you miss the point entirely. Recent C14 mass spectrometer tests from recognized labs of organic sources that are assumed to be millions of years old and have no C14 are consistently measing in tens of thousands of years. And I await your excuses without specific application as to why these reading are anomalous. Randmans original post cited organic sources of datings and all anyone has done is ignore the specific organic cases and actual tests and go into the theoretical about anomalies and inorganic application.PhileoRobEdited by ReformedRob, : typo

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Are you setting yourself up as proper authority?That's important in proper argumentation. Are you now going to refuse to use proper refutation in logic and argumentation and just state I am wrong because you are an authority?It doesnt matter how many samples you have processed yourself...that just means you should have the knowledge to refute me soundly if I am wrong.I was waiting for someone to ask for the references WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I intentionally left them out to prove my point of predicted responses and ad/hoc and ad/hominem attacks.I'll include them in my next post to you...I'm waiting to see your rsponse and who else I've responded to will make the same scientific, logic and argumentation ethodological mistakes you did. Or you could just look them up yourself. If you're such an expert you should already be aware of them anway.PhileoRobEdited by ReformedRob, : accidentally put part of reponse to Cry here that wasnt for Coyote

Finally!Someone whose initial question is honest...did not attack with the ad/hoc, adhominem.I'll go get the cites...I'm waiting for other's I've responded to go on the attack. You're the only one so far who asked for the references which is the only correct response. I intentionally left them out to demonstrate a point that has proven correct so far. Everyone else who has responded has attacked me personally assuming I know nothing of C14 dating (I majored in Archeology at the University of Utah until medical issues prevented my graduation). This demonstrates the usual bias in evo methodology. Congrats on not doing thatPhileoRob