Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

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

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.

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

You never responded to my critique of your misstating RATE's data. You misclaimed their own evidences demonstrated constant decay which they then disowned for their own conclusions that there is rapid decay when the book they just published is a case using 4 evidences of rapidly increased decay and instead of citing RATE you miscited a critique of RATE.Also you contradict yourself in your zeal to refute mein an earlier post you state"Fossils are mineralized. Except for rare occasions they have no carbon."Then in a response to my post you make excuses as to why the fossils I state have C14 in them...by your own quote that shouldnt be unless youy want to try to prove every case I refer to is one of your "rare occasions"? You dont even know what the cases are and havent asked for the references.You dont strike me as academically honest, you've proven my point I predicted in my original post about bias, and your attempt to set yourself up as an authority is another weak position...even if you are an authority how you went about it was in poor taste at the least.

---

"...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"

Your question is irrelevant. I dont need to have a PhD in math to correctly assert 2+2 is four. And a real authority will easily be able to correctly engage the argument and refute me instead of trying the ad/hoc, ad/hominem. You're proving the prediction in my OP. Everything but correct refutation.And to answer your question I majored in Anthropology at the University of Utah and if you do know anything about dating you'll be familiar with the reference to Dr. Brown, once recognized as a world authority on radiometric dating who spent some time at the U of U.

I find it hilarious that you employ classic logical fallacies in place of true argumentation talking about a scientific topic when your signature reads:"Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge."To date neither have you.

---

"...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"

You havent presented any scientific reasoning or argumentation. All you have done is attack me personally. Present a proper argument and we'll debate.You should have asked for my references for the actual mass spectrometer C14 tests which Cora did earlier. Wood found in strata assumed to be more than 200 million years old dated 37,000 years old. Dinobones dated 27,000 years old and I assume you know about the coal and diamonds being such an expert.Silence denotes acquiescence so if you fail to respond to my arguments, as you have so far, then my arguments stand and a reasonable judge would concede the debate to me

---

"...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"

The problem with your supposition is that you indict the labs who conduct the tests.Your own statement said there will be no C14 found in fossils except in rare circumstances. Now we are to believe that the opposite is true on every case where creationist scientists took organic matter to a lab and they tested young?Come on...that defies credibility. And the labs write the possibilites of your rare circumstances but I guess you know that since you do the tests. And in each case...you still havent asked for them...your original quote was correct...no C14 should have been present, they used mass spectrometers and the chance of 'rare occasions' was exceedingly remote.

---

"...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"

YOU COWARD!You come to a creo v evo website, encounter a creo then state:Coyote wrote: "I have better things this evening to do than argue with a young earth fundamentalist."then w/o presenting one scientific argument or even one valid argument of any type state:Coyote wrote: "I can see that there is no way to convince you with the findings of science, so I will no longer even bother to try."All you did as attack me with the ad hoc/ad hominem.This is typical. I'm glad this happened. Everything I have learned to expect from a pseudo-intellectual evo who implied expertise in C14 dating who couldnt present one valid response or one scientific argument. PERFECT REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE OF EVO DEBATING!You've been refuted.

---

"...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"

I did answer your question. You probably havent had time to read it. And to further answer you I dont have to be 'the' expert in an area to understand and to debate correctly.And no...this isnt the diamond study I was referring to! And again...you make a silly argument "I know one of the authors of this study" Yeah so? This isnt the argument about diamonds. It would help if you did know the studies and arguents about the diamonds instead of presenting one quote and setting up a straw-man.And what about the fossilized wood found in Hawkesbury Sandstone from Sydney Australia that Geochron Labs in Boston dated using ams to 33,720 430 years BP yet it was found in strata from the Triassic period supposedly 225 millions years old? I looked for the refutations of that one and only one attempt was made on 'originsanswers' saying it 'probably wasnt wood' which they have no way of knowing since they dont have any of the samples and they also tried to claim the results were anomalous, w/o evidence again and is a classic biased response.And how about the dino bones cited in the original post? Everyone negligently ignored it using the typical evo biases stating you cant C14 date fossils(which is in and of itself circular reasoning) because there wont be any C14 because the fossils are millions of years old. But when it's demonstrated the evo assumption is wrong and there is C14 showing a date less than 50000 BP then w/o responsible investigation or evidence it's assumed the readings are anomalous.Here is the info on the dino bones C14 testing, it's easier just to cut and past the info:"Table 3 lists these dates and for those of four other samples from four separate excavations of other dinosaurs; three came from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh PA. As you will note the dates ranged from about 9,890 to 36,500 radiocarbon years (Beta system) before the present (B.P.).The expensive accelerated mass spectrometer (AMS) gave the most reproducible dates namely 23,760 +/-270 B.P. at the prestigious University of Arizona National Academy of Science facilities and 25,750 +/-280 at an overseas AMS Lab; the sample at the former was surface scrapings with a carbon content of 3.5% and the latter was a gaseous sample from the crushing of about 180 grams of bone fragments.Other fragments were dated by a third laboratory using the beta counter; dates of 32,400 and 36,500 were obtained. These along with 39,500 B.P. for dinosaur coprolyte found buried with Acrocanthosaurus were some 7,000 or so years older than the dates obtained with the highly respected AMS. It is important to note that the 32,400 B.P. date was obtained on the same sample that was dated overseas on the more sensitive AMS system which gave a date of 25,750 +/-280 years B.P. A sample of the same carbon dioxide gas was used in both systems with the 7,000 years younger date being obtained on the AMS.Because the AMS appears to be the choice of radiocarbon dating experts today; and, because the AMS is assigned very low +/-deviations we tend to believe the lower dates as true values for the radiocarbon dating process. But, of course, not the true dates. The carbon dating assumptions are thought to give radiocarbon dates that are still too high based on the discoveries of Dr. Libby (5), and interpretations of Whitelaw (6) and Aardsma (11) and others. The true dates are still elusive. However, reducing the dinosaur age by 1,000 times is no small discovery."Different labs, different bones, different sources, same testing used by evos, correct result...young age.Deal with itPhileoRob

The sources Randman gave were actually accurate. If you had bothered to check them for yourself instead of assuming your assumptions are correct and mocking anyone who disagrees with you. In one, multiple samples of dino bones from several museums and pvt collections were C14 dated yielding dates of tens of thousands of years not millions. C14 was present shouldnt have been.As well per honesty, check the post responding to Randman about misrepresentations. He quotes Randman and changes the quote! He changed the page number cited by Randman from 999 to 1000! That's blantant dishonesty.You Evo's always employ the same false argumentation and reason in a circle. Your premise is always "My assumptions are right" And then you reason from there: Therefore anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and when they cite scientific evidence they are either stupid and misunderstand or are misrepresenting it and therefore are stupid or lying and dishonest.Read my responses to Coyote about the multiple evidences from multiple C14 labs using ams (regarded as the best) testing organic sources, assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old, yielding dates less than 50,000 BP.And dont even respond about possible anomalies etc...unless you have evidence or responsible argumentation that in the cases cited this is actually the case then you have nothing credible to say.

---

"...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"