Im sorry. im new in here. Some of their points is that their results agree with each other. They specifically criticize carbon dating at the begining giving the results of dating living animals. They are not published in any journal but they claim censorship. Thir work was presented at a convention, but their work has been deleted. I dont trust this people. Some of them are ver well known. Hugh Miller and Carl Baugh are part of this. They sent their samples to Geochron and other facilities to test them. The paper is in the website. So if you are interested in it, read it.
On a different topic, I would like if anyone has already debated about the Lazarus Bacteria. I would like a link.
I agree they are not very trust worthy, Im not on their side. Im just looking for a rebutal. Thats it.
If that is the case, then I think you should proceed here. I've done it before with creationist tracts. What I did was to start at the beginning, quote the tract point-by-point and address each point.
So then, present the first paragraph or section, break it down into the individual claims that it makes, including its presentation of what carbon-dating is, what it's based on, how it works, how it's used, etc, and open it up for discussion. From that discussion, write your rebuttal to that first paragraph/section and then do the same for the next. With this methodical approach, you make sure that you address the entire article.
And if the article uses any references, present those references. Do not require us to go to the article; that was the "we do not debate bare links" problem with your opening Message 1. Also, presenting it piece by piece will make your presenting of the article more manageable.
And be sure to quote the article rather than leave us guessing whether what you're writing is from the article or your own words. You do this with the quote tags, which are different from the qs tags that we use to quote each other. For example, you would quote the article's very first paragraph thus:
quote:Radiocarbon (RC) or (C-14) dating of linen, cotton, bones, fossils, wood, sea shells, seeds, coal, diamond (anything with carbon) is one of the most common and well understood of the various scientific dating methods.
Compare how that looks with my qs'ing you at the top of this message. Then click on the Peek button of this message to see how I had created those two different style of quotes. Then use that technique.
Carbon 14 dating of bone is one of the most difficult tasks for carbon dating and requires the most care of any carbonaceous material. This is mainly due to the nature of bone which is a very porous material. Certain parts of bone look like a sponge under microscopic examination. Many dinosaur bones are hard as rock because the original material has been replaced with silicon materials such as quartz. We have found un-mineralized dinosaur bones. We can then scrape the outer surface off to get rid of surface contamination and date the inner remaining material. Depending on other factors one can choose to date just the purified bioapatite, total organics or collagen. One can also date all three components as was done by us (see chart below).
The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-Rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal SCIENCE. This is an outstanding find because collagen being a soft tissue present in most animals is supposed to decay in a few thousand years. Collagen is the main protein found in connective tissue of animals. It can make up as much as 1 to 6 percent of muscle mass. Recently Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered in Glendive Montana and our group received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for Carbon 14 testing. Both bones were tested by a licensed lab for presence of collagen. Both bones did in fact contain some collagen! The best process ( Accelerator Mass Spectrometry ) was used. Total organic carbon and dinosaur bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for ice age megafauna such as Siberian mammoths, saber tooth tigers of the Los Angeles LaBrea Tarpits, sloth dung and giant bison. We generally go with AMS dating because of its inherent superior accuracy but use the conventional method when large samples are available to completely rule out contamination. This is recommended by the professional carbon dating laboratory specialists.
The following should be noted. Our group has radiocarbon dated mammoth and mastodon bones in the range of 23,560 to 36,000 years BP, and none of them contained any collagen. Yet some dinosaur bones contain collagen. We believe the absence of collagen depends on burial environment. Bones buried in sand with water generally have only bio-apatite remaining which is still datable. Dry or cold environments and or regions of individual bones free of cracks and bones buried in clay stand a better chance of containing collagen.
Dr. Libby the discoverer of Radiocarbon dating and Nobel Prize winner showed that purified collagen could not give erroneous ages. Dr Stafford's research demonstrated in 1990 that conventional methods of purifying collagen were within 5% of the most excruciatingly exact extraction techniques. It is not possible to claim that the laboratories made mistakes in their analysis and that there really was no collagen. General scientific thought says dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. We have evidence to the contrary from several sources. Radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones, accounts from ancient histories, depictions on rocks, mozaics, and temple walls; and human footprints with dinosaurs strongly show that dinosaurs were around in historical times. More on these subjects are included in our other web pages. Dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska have been tested by our group for the presence of Carbon 14 and the following table shows some of the results of our findings over the years.
cro (Acrocanthosaurus) is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1984 near Glen Rose TX by C. Baugh and G. Detwiler; in 108 MA Cretaceous sandstone identified by Dr. W. Langston of Un. of TX at Austin. Allosaurus is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1989 by J. Hall, A Murray team and under a Brontosaurus skeleton in the Wildwood section on a ranch west of Grand Junction CO in 150 Ma Late Jurassic sandstone of the Morrison formation - identified by using Allosaurus bone handbook submitted by local museum curator. Hadrosaur #1, a duck billed dinosaur bone fragments excavated in 1994 along Colville River by G. Detwiler, J. Whitmore team in the famous Liscomb, bone bed of Alaskan North Slope validated by Dr. J. Whitmore. Hadrosaur #2, a duck billed dinosaur lone femur bone excavated in 2004 in clay in the NW ¼, NE ¼ of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana by O. Kline team of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum identified by paleontology descriptions and sawed open by O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for testing for C-14 content. Triceratops #1, a ceratopsid dinosaur lone femur bone excavated in 2004 in Cretaceous clay at 47º 6 18 by 104º 39 22 Montana by O. Kline team of the Glendive MT Dinosaur & Fossil Museum identified by paleontology descriptions and sawed open by O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for testing for C-14 content. Triceratops #2, a very large ceratopsid-type dinosaur excavated in 2007 in Cretaceous clay at is 47' 02" 44N and 104' 32" 49W by O. Kline team of Glendive Dinosaur & Fossil Museum identified by paleontology descriptions but may be a new species; outer bone fragments of femur tested for C-14. Hadrosaur #3, scrapings from a duck billed dinosaur large bone, excavated by Joe Taylor of Mt Blanco Fossil Museum, Crosbyton TX in Colorado in Cretaceous strata identified by Joe Taylor. Apatosaur, scrapings from a rib still imbedded in the clay soil of a ranch in CO, partially excavated in 2007 and 2009 in 150 Ma late Jurassic strata by C. Baugh and B. Dunkel - identified by C. Baugh.
Lab ID: All specimens from USA unless otherwise noted. GX is Geochron Labs Cambrdge MA, USA; AA is University of Arizona Tuscon AZ, USA; UG is University of Georgia, Athens GA, USA; KIA is Christian Albrechts Universität, Kiel Germany; AMS is Accelerated Mass Spectrometer; Beta is the conventional method of counting Beta decay particles; Bio is carbonate fraction of bioapatite. Bow is bulk organic fraction of whole bone; Col is collagen fraction; w or ext is charred, exterior or whole bone fragments; Hum is humic acids. (c)
Weight of samples: Sample size sent to RC lab, 170 g as required by Geochron in 1990 for GX-15155, conventional beta Sample size sent to RC lab, excess CO2 from GX-15155 encapsulated in glass and sent to NZ lab, AMS Sample size sent to RC lab, 50 mg as scrapings from different Acro bone for AA-5786, AMS Sample size sent to RC lab, 6.4 g from femur for UGAMS-7509a & b, AMS Sample size sent to RC lab, 30 g for UGAMS-02947, AMS Sample size sent to RC lab, 5 g for KIA-5523, AMS Sample size sent to RC lab, 8.4 g for GX-32372-Internal bone material, AMS Sample size sent to RC lab, 146 g for GX-32647-Outer bone material, conventional beta Sample size sent to RC lab, 2.3 g for GX-31950-Internal bone material, AMS Sample size sent to RC lab, 160 g for GX-32678-AMS & GX-32739-Outer bone, Conventional beta
Contam is Contaminant in collagen fraction; it could be humic acids or an unknown but it was removed by acid - base - acid pretreatment and was only 1.3% of collagen sample in UGAMS-01918. In GX-31950 the contaminant overwhelmed the collagen as the sample was too small which is a good reason for extracting and dating other fractions and submitting large samples. This femur bone was found along a dry wash.
The website you are linking to has a lot of errors. Here I analyze only one as an example. That site links to this abstract as "evidence" for the YEC belief:
MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL
Presented: Fifth International Conference on Creationism August 4-8, 2003 Copyright 2003 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights Reserved
JOHN BAUMGARDNER, PH.D. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABRATORY* D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH* ANDREW A. SNELLING, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH* STEVEN A. AUSTIN, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
Given 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.
In support of their young earth religious belief, your website links to this abstract.
And it's finding is that "all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon)."
From that it concludes "all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago."
How about another conclusion?
How about the possibility that there is an inherent lower level of C14 that will show up just in the instruments alone, with no sample! That is what the Taylor and Southon's study of diamonds showed. Diamonds have no C14, in spite of what the lead paragraph of your website claims, so they are an ideal material to use to detect residual amounts of C14 that can be attributed to the instruments themselves. These are background signals that can subsequently be subtracted from readings on real samples.
This is just another way that scientists are trying to make the C14 method as accurate as possible. (The exact opposite of young earth creationists.)
But this tiny amount of residual C14 inherent in the instruments themselves has been enough to let creationists run wild with their young earth "evidence."
See why we don't trust anything creationist claim about C14 dating? They lie! They have to lie because the C14 method directly contradicts their beliefs.
I can provide more examples if you want (if you dare).
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
Diamonds have no C14, in spite of what the lead paragraph of your website claims ...
Can this be demonstrated directly? If, for example, the diamond emitted no electrons, then I suppose that would demonstrate it completely. But I don't suppose diamonds are bereft of all radioactive isotopes capable of undergoing beta minus decay. But perhaps it is still possible to rule out 14C as a source of the radiation by analysis of the emissions; I think this is probably the case, but I don't quite know enough about it.
Please do it systematically, point by point or paragraph by paragraph, otherwise it just looks like a Gish Gallop. Start with the first paragraph. I'm here to learn from the experts.
quote:Carbon 14 dating of bone is one of the most difficult tasks for carbon dating and requires the most care of any carbonaceous material. This is mainly due to the nature of bone which is a very porous material. Certain parts of bone look like a sponge under microscopic examination. Many dinosaur bones are hard as rock because the original material has been replaced with silicon materials such as quartz. We have found un-mineralized dinosaur bones. We can then scrape the outer surface off to get rid of surface contamination and date the inner remaining material. Depending on other factors one can choose to date just the purified bioapatite, total organics or collagen. One can also date all three components as was done by us (see chart below).
They, themselves claim to have found 'un-mineralized dinosaur bones'.
Really? Where did they publish their findings? Any references for this or are they just making things up as they go?
They could become famous if they did; look at what happened to Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team. They didn't even find "un-mineralized" dinosaur fossils, those fossils they found were mineralized.
So, if your source can provide the verifiable evidence for their find, we could go on. Else we can just ignore it as another huge untruth told by clowns with an agenda.
If you click on 'Members' under the Essential links at the top of the page, then you can search for any member. The search result will include a link that allows you to send a private message to the poster.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass