Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
133 online now:
caffeine, Heathen, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 128 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,028 Year: 2,776/23,288 Month: 967/1,809 Week: 86/313 Day: 3/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2927 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 32 of 194 (556634)
04-20-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dman
04-20-2010 3:19 PM


Pretty easy even for me.
So far as I can tell, you can stop reading after the second sentence.

quote:
Fossil ammonites from lower Cretaceous mudstones in northern California, which are supposedly 112–120 million years old and biostratigraphic index fossils, were sampled along with fossil wood buried with them. Fragments of two fossil ammonite shells and four pieces of fossil wood yielded easily measurable radiocarbon (14C) equivalent to apparent 14C ages of between 36,400±350 and 48,710±930 years for the ammonites, and between 32,780±230 and 42,390±510 years for the wood.

Radiocarbon (C14) dating is accurate for items as old as 58,000 to 62,000 years but not older. Works great for dating human artifacts. Not so much for items hundreds of millions of years old. That's like trying to measure the width of a hair with a yardstick and then complaining that you don't come up with an accurate number.

Keep trying.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dman, posted 04-20-2010 3:19 PM Dman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dman, posted 04-20-2010 3:47 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2927 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 34 of 194 (556641)
04-20-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dman
04-20-2010 3:47 PM


Re: Pretty easy even for me.
I should have noted this, but if they're claiming that the wood that they were sampling was also fossilized then they're still off base. So far as I know, no-one uses C14 to date fossils, for the reason I stated in my previous post. I suppose that I'll actually have to read further in the article to see how they explain the presence of this wood in a much older layer. What they were doing seemed obviously wrong from the look of it, but I've also been wrong before.

Si erro, mone me.

ABE: Nope, I was right; they're full of unfiltered excrement. Upon re-reading the abstract, I can see that their claim is indeed that their 112 myo fossil samples are actually only about 40,000 years old, based on C14 dating. Of course, 40,000 years is still an order of magnitude greater than what they want, so they have to call on some magical fudge factor to be consistent with their Flood theory.

I remain unconvinced.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dman, posted 04-20-2010 3:47 PM Dman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dman, posted 04-20-2010 4:13 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020