Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

Deuterium(hydrogen isotope)is formed when a neutron fuses to the proton within the nucleus.resource articleAtomic Weight by Ron Kurtus - Physics Lessons: School for ChampionsNuclear fusion atoms
Atoms with atomic numbers lower than Iron typically have atomic weights that are lower than their true atomic weights. The reason is that these nucleii are capable of fusion or joining together and also give off energy. The most obvious of these is Hydrogen that is used in nuclear fusion reactions, such as the Hydrogen Bomb.In the H-bomb the isotope of Hydrogen (Deuterium), which consists of a nucleus containing one proton and one neutron, combines to form a nucleus of Helium. The atomic weight of two atoms of Deuterium is 4.027106 and the atomic weight of Helium is 4.002602. The extra 0.0245 of atomic weight is turned into energy for the explosion.

Not a single word of that is a relevant response.

Sorry if it seems juvinile of me to ask this question, I am quite new here, but what is the proper method for dating fossils?

---

- "Only two things in life are infinate, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Reading through a page and a half, I feel compelled to point out that although a few here have tried a substantive response, a good portion, such as PaulK's posts, are the usual evo idiocy so typical, attacking the people and not the argument, and the constant trying to take the topic off-topic to address the ToE as a whole, and so I want to make a quick comment there.First, the hysteria of some of your comments just makes someone that has for over 20 years watched and studied this debate, just suggest to me the creationists are probably right. I remember meeting this same hysteria back in the 80s when I suggested that Haeckel's work was forged and his conclusions phoney. The evos I would meet would react with similar emotionalism, and it wasn't really into after 1997 that we began to see some evos admit to the facts that they were wrong.Secondly, I said in my opening post that I don't know much about carbon-dating, and those of you that have bothered to read my posts know I have never questioned that the earth was old. I do think there is some evidence of dinosaurs remaining coexisting with humans, but that doesn't really mean I think the earth is young. it's not an issue I have delved into.Third, the fossil record and living biota are, imo, all the evidence you need to fully discount current, mainstream evolutionist models. Maybe someone's ideas like JAD's prescribed theory have merit as he at least tried to honestly deal with the facts.With that being said, all I wanted was the stock evo answers. Unfortunately, thus far there is little substantiation for those answers and a great deal of mudslinging and diverting to a side topic within the OP, on cold fusion. I recognize the YECers have a theory on tweaking carbon-dating, and thus far judging by the paltry responses, I tend to think they may be correct, but honestly, whether the dinosaur bones are dated to 35K years or 5K years, either dating is somewhat devastating, if accurate, for evolutionist dating schemes, and so let's try to keep the discussion to that.Once again, realize dating methods is not an area I have been interested in, nor studied a lot of, but it sure seems to me you guys jump on every dating method that you prefer, and reject dating methods you don't like. My experience with watching how evos handle data suggests this is not an objective process within the evolutionist community, but this sort of selective acceptance of data is par for the course for you guys.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Pretty close to right. Sedimentary layers cqan sometimes be dated directly, by dating something which formed when the layer lithified. Improvements in insturmental sensitivity and consequent reductions in required sample size help this a lot. (SHRIMP systems regularly sample a disc 10 micrometers diameter and 1 micrometer thick: , from Geochronology: SHRIMP laboratory.) Some materials that can be dated include the aptly named xenotime which forms on zircons at lithification (e.g. SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks, K-Ar dating of glauconite, and fission track dating in apatite.

In fact, rm, PaulK's post 4 (Message 4 was the most pertenant in the thread.Those who made the statments you posting in the OP were, by this time, deliberatly lying. PaulK summed that up pretty well.All the other posts simply supported that with more details.

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.

Randman, do you think it is valid to carbon date something that is not organic?What would you think of someone who did that and started screaming that carbon dating is false because it produced some crazy date?

---

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

I see absolutely nothing substantive in that post. I have learned it's a waste of time showing PaulK where he is wrong so I ignored the post. If you want to do the research, you can see the errors soon enough for yourself.

So bones are inorganic? BlackSheepBistro.com is for sale | HugeDomainsEdited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I never said that they were not. I was talking about other things that are inorganic. Some well preserved samples of dinosaur remains have been found that are not fossilized. They are not fossils. I am not versed enough in the relevant sciences to determine if carbon traces from such samples are canidates for carbon dating.What I asked you though, is simply do you think it is valid to carbon date something that is not organic? I would HOPE that your answer to this question is no.What would you think of someone who did that and started screaming that carbon dating is false because it produced some crazy date?What if I could show you a number of instances where Creationists were caught carbon dating objects that were inorganic?

---

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

You do realize they were dating fossils of bones that contain carbonization. I assumed your question related to the thread, but perhaps not.

The simple fact is that the source you quoted misrepresented their sources as I documented. Pointing out such misrepresentations is a substantive criticism and not a personal attack.The issue of cold fusion was not raised by evolutionists - and it is a complete red herring. Nobody has shown that it has any relevance to the actual topic, for the simple reason that it does not.And finally I note that you raise no substantive points at all - certainly no answer to the points that have been raised against the OPAny truly neutral reader can see that the creationists have, yet again, been caught misrepresenting the facts - and that you have no answer beyond insult and denial.

Get their numberRing themAsk them out

quote:

---

Sorry if it seems juvinile of me to ask this question, I am quite new here, but what is the proper method for dating fossils?

---

There are lots of methods for dating fossils.A good introduction can be found here.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : took three edits to fix the bloody link!