Carbon dating bones

Dating > Carbon dating bones

Click here: ※ Carbon dating bones ※ ♥ Carbon dating bones

Some very unusual evidence is thatliving snails' shells showed that they had died 27,000 years ago. In Chapman, Robert; Alison, Wylie. For many documented examples, see the DVD of Expelled: the Movie, and Dr Jerry Bergmann's book Slaughter of the Innocents, both available at.

Forinstance, bones of a sabre-toothed tiger, theorized to be between 100,000 andone million years old, gave a Carbon date of 28,000 years. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure. Certain parts of bone look between a sponge under the microscope. Bones that are completely charred inside and out look like a chunk of charcoal. There are other methods of dating. Any rootlets present will be removed when replenishing the acid solutions. So, a carbon atom might have six neutrons, or seven, or north eight—but it would always have six protons. In the carbon dating bones of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results. A few of them follow. Detwiler; in 108 MA Cretaceous sandstone - identified by Dr.

Naturally occurring radioactive isotopes can also form the basis of dating methods, as with , , and. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy nonequilibrium state , and he attributed it to experimental error.

AMS Dating Bones, Antler and Teeth - Typical values of δ 13C have been found by experiment for many plants, as well as for different parts of animals such as bone , but when dating a given sample it is better to determine the δ 13C value for that sample directly than to rely on the published values. Consequently, he does not accept a literal understanding of Genesis, even though he strongly believes in God and even the infallibility of the Bible.

But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them. This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union AGU and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society AOGS. It appears that the researchers approached the matter with considerable professionalism, including taking great pains to eliminate contamination with modern carbon as a source of the 14C signal in the bones. The lead presenter was Dr Thomas Seiler, a German physicist whose PhD is from the Technical University of Munich. The researchers seem to be associated with Catholic creationist groups, which have reported the conference earlier and more vocally than evangelical creationists. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. But going to the , the talk has clearly been removed. Go to Wednesday, room Leo 2, double-click on BGO2, which is the session that had the presentation. The numbers go from 4 to 6, omitting 5, which was the one on 14C in dino bones. The public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth. They say that the media should be encouraging scientists to do this also, presenting the findings openly and honestly at similar conferences. This would certainly be in the interests of scientific truth—especially following the repeated findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and now even seemingly irrefutable DNA in dinosaur specimens. The public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth. Of course the people you know will generally not get to hear this powerful information from regular sources. We have been repeatedly surprised when on ministry tours how few people even know about the soft-tissue finds by secular scientists. This is an exciting time to be a creationist, both getting this sort of information, and being able to pass it on. Please, keep helping us defend and proclaim the real history of the Bible, on which the credibility of the Gospel itself depends. Blood and soft tissue in T. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood, which removed virtually all living carbon from the biosphere through burial. Wieland seems only able to criticize my typing. He has nothing else to offer. Having submitted abstracts, reviewed abstracts, and having served on the committees that decide what papers get into a symposia something I doubt Dr. Wieland has done this , I speak for experience. The peer review of papers submitted to symposia is not as stringent as that for papers published in journals. Most papers are not accepted, because there is a limit to the number of slots available. Typically symposia have a smaller number of oral presentation slots. There are also poster session slots. Again, the criteria is usually for newer, and sometimes more controversial presentations. He is free to write a paper and submit that to a journal. There is no guarantee of publication, but if his paper does shed light on contamination issues, then it may get published. By rescinding the abstract, the AOGS has made the unscientific decision that C-14 cannot exist in dinosaur bones simply because of their presumed age, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Yet the widely documented evidence of preserved biomolecules in dinosaur bones and other presumably ancient fossils strongly suggests that C-14 should be present as well. There are plenty of dinosaur bones out there that could be tested for C-14—one would hope that other researchers will take up the challenge and perform similar analyses to these researchers. That is the scientific way to confirm error, as opposed to blatant censorship of data simply because it appears to contradict the established paradigm. CONTINUED: Regarding peer reviewed abstracts at conferences vs. Regarding why there were no questions on the YouTube presentation — the hotel conference projectionist stopped taping without our knowledge. There was one question or rather a statement which was then responded to by Dr. A geology professor from Germany seemed to have some doubts about the data and suggested it was most unusual. The next day we met him and a cohort from Canada and they expressed their doubts about the validity of the data as a result of our poster session with all the data on it. We think they complained to the two chairmen. Editor, Roberto de Mattei, Edizioni, Cantagalli s. Evolution and the Sciences: A Critical Examination. English Gerhard Hess Verlag, 88427 Bad Schussenried, Germany. First off I'd like to make a few additions to my previous post as there was a limit on the number of characters. Now days, one needs a degree. Horner encouraged further research. Joe Taylor is director of his own Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton TX. His team encouraged me and our Paleo Group to continue our C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils. Such data needs to be cross checked by main stream science and not swept under the rug. Thus we have repeatedly urged them to C-14 date the fossils in letters to Jack Horner and University paleontologists and in six conference abstracts. I would like to add to Joe Taylor's report of our cooperative research in excavation, collecting of dinosaur and other fossil specimens for testing for C-14 content. Joe is a field paleontologist and specialist in reconstruction, molding and casting of fossils from the Le Brae Tarpits of LA to director of his own museum in Texas - Mt Blanco Fossil Museum. I am a consulting field and lab chemist with several decades of lab and field research. I learned the basics during 18 years with Battelle Mem. I had given a 12 minute PP presentation in Feb. When a conference abstract or paper does manage to slip through main stream science filters, damage control sets in as was done by the AOGS in Singapore. The abstract was apparently not reviewed properly and was accepted in error. For this reason we have exercised our authority as program chairs and rescinded the abstract. The abstract will no longer appear on the AOGS web site. The primary areas for the advancement of science studies of C-14 content in dinosaur and other fossils would be Alberta, Canada, Gobi Desert and Zhucheng, China as suggested in our abstract. The Universes doesn't REALLY teach us anything!!! Hum, it was a lesson on humility!!! What do they say about when someone points to the Moon and some people only see the finger??? Like I said, It's impossible to reason with your real and only argument... No Portuguese Paleontologist uses Radiocarbon dating when studying Dinosaurs fossils. And you say that you do Science??? And like me, many others!!! Hum, you do know that one of the terms that we agree when attending this type of meetings is that the organizers can cancel or refuse our presentation, dont you??? It's not the same thing as a published article in a peer review magazine!!!!! What did you call It? I personnaly view this as religious review process... One is loathed to have to point out the obvious, but to say that the method won't work is the logical fallacy known as begging the question; it assumes something in order to prove something. What is the reason why the method 'won't work' on dino fossils? Because the fossils are millions of years old. But the whole point here is that if the fossils were that old, there is not supposed to be a C14 signal. So there are only two likely possibilities now one knows there is one: 1 They are not that old or 2 There is contamination with modern carbon. Thus the report of C14, once it does the appropriate work to deal with the contamination question, e. Let's see what future work shows; to rigorously apply the method to many dino samples and show with appropriate scientific rigour that it is contamination would be fair game, but to just say 'the method won't work' because of one's presuppositions is, to any thinking person, well, pathetic, frankly. I am curious if the C14 could be present in the Dino bones from microorganisms, which have come in contact with the bone sometime after dinosaur died. Also, salamanders have algae that grows inside their cells. So, I would think it would be possible that dinosaurs could have similar microorganisms that lived inside their cells, which continued to live on after the actual dinosaur died, and then showed up in C14 dating. Please let me know your thoughts. Michael, all the comments on this thread and in the article and footnotes about potential 'contamination' refer primarily to micro-organisms, the main potential for such contamination This point was made concerning the C14 dating of diamonds, that the gaps in the lattice do not allow penetration by such creatures. Hence the Delta 13C calculation, for instance, because reputable labs are aware of the contamination issue. Re microorganisms living on after the dinos died, remember they were fossilized. How long could the organisms keep on living after they were cut off from everything except the finite nutrients in the dinosaur? I think that evolutionists would not likely want to accept that explanation, since it makes the vast timespans even harder to swallow than discovering mere DNA. Wieland has made the comment regarding the work of Dr. Sellers suggesting to the effect that Dr. For those who are unaware of how these things actually work, papers presented at proceedings have been subjected to very little peer review. The author submits an abstract for the presentation, which is usually a fairly terse document. Peer review in this case is nowhere nearly as comprehensive than that for papers published in a bonafide technical journal. We are talking a quick read through and a decision that this is interesting enough for inclusion. We are not talking about exhaustive peer review. Furthermore what is actually presented orally at a meeting may be quite different from the abstract. Publicatiosn of a paper in the proceedings may be followup paper, but usually these are extended abstracts, again with very little in the way of peer review. Authors with sufficiently interesting material are often encouraged to submit a more formal paper to an associated technical journal. As to the relevance of Dr. Sellers' work to the actual age determination of dinosaurs, his method is simply the wrong tool for the job. Fair comment as far as it goes, although I should have commented earlier to your first comment that it was Seiler Sellers is the name of a late comedy actor I used to enjoy and he was the presenter, not one of the researchers involved. But the point was less to do with peer review during the process of paper acceptance, than with the peer review that takes place due to peer interaction and criticism where needed following such a presentation, which is now cut off. Note that for all I know for certain, the work may have been of poor quality, or otherwise. But the censorship means that we will never know. Fortunately, further C14 dating of dino specimens with every base covered re alleged contamination with modern carbon is in the wings and we will see what emerges over the next few years. Prediction: Just as with oil and coal, there will be a C14 signal, because they simply aren't that old. And you say that you do Science??? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved? In this I agree with Michael Shermer of the American Skeptics, that evidence never speaks for itself. It is always interpreted. And nowhere is this more acutely obvious than in the study of the unobservable, unrepeatable past, i. But I also can't help notice how a discussion about whether dino bones are old or not, based on evidence, suddenly swings to a sermon about worldviews--which is what it's all about anyway. The suppression story looks like a beat up. The miniscule audience heard the talk go ahead without interruption. The YouTube is available. And did anyone from CMI contact the conference organisers for their explanation of the alleged deletion? Why the absence of such a basic requirement of honest reporting? Meanwhile, the underlying issue is this. On countless occasions, experts have dated dinosaur fossils at 60 million years or more. Many of those opinions were arrived at after using more than one dating method. None arose from the use of 14C which has a usable range of up to 50,000 years. So whatever these gents might be saying about 14C, they are not touching the conventional wisdom about dinosaur antiquity. The possibilities include that they got their method wrong and produced false results. Or they have dated various objects at less than 50,000 years. This is like trying to dispute telescopic observations of the moon, by pointing a microscope at it. Martin Actually, most dinosaur fossils themselves are not dateable by any of the radiometric methods normally used to obtain 'millions of years', since they mostly don't contain radioactive isotopes. K-Ar dates are given, this comes from dating nearby volcanic outflows or ashfalls. Of course, the 'conventional wisdom' about millions of years is so crucial to the naturalistic worldview that it is no surprise that the reactions are to protect it at all costs. Doing so with auxiliary hypotheses a la Lakatos is of course normal, but in this case it is getting increasingly difficult with the following being found in dino fossils: Soft tissue, including flexible, transparent branching blood vessels; C-14 Proteins that shouldn't be there anymore, based on known rates of their decay under perfect conditions for preservation, and most 'damning' of all for longagers, the complex and fragile molecule, DNA. Isn't it time to start to question the paradigm, rather than blindly following the herd in defending it? But then, that would be rational and scientific, and there's a lot more than that at stake, it seems... The various objections made against the article shows that prejudice is rife and the facts are ignored. Remember we are talking about a scientific study not religion. Strange those non-believers argue against real science using hypothetical and nonsensical arguments. It's as though the tables have turned and the atheists or non-creationists are using faith based arguments while the creationists are using factual science based arguments. This shouldn't be a surprise since the creationist point of view is the correct one according to the scientific evidence as well as the book of truth; the Bible. Wieland, I am aware that you are only reporting news here. I would point out to your readers that Dr. Wieland has zero expertise in any field of earth science, let alone geochronlogy, so any comments that he may make regarding the competence of the research performed are the opinions of a biased and uneducated amateur. Sellers the actual researcher should be encouraged to publish his results and his data. It would be interesting to see what peer review would have to say about his work. His work might show something interesting regarding contamination issues, assuming that it is competent. The work does not however have any relevance whatsoever to the actual age of the specimens or the efficacy of radiometric dating. To imply otherwise is dishonest, Dr. I would have thought that the presentation at such a forum was in effect a submission for publication, in this case publication by oral presentation, followed by publication in the proceedings of the conference. Of course, that has now been cut off at the pass. Re your last comment, to say it has no relevance to the actual age is very hard to understand, to put it very gently; neither you nor I have to be a specialist in the field to acknowledge that it is either the result of contamination or it is very relevant to the age of the specimen. In fact, the whole reason why everyone is so keen to insist that this and all the other C14 ages that 'shouldn't be there' on specimens allegedly millions of years old are the result of contamination is precisely because everyone recognizes how very relevant it is to the age of the specimen, which is why it is so disturbing and otherwise inexplicable to a long-ager. And of course it is why the presenters in this case went to so much trouble to cover those bases, so that even specialists in geochronology would be able to see the very strong case that contamination was highly unlikely for one thing, the delta 13C corrections which all competent labs undertake as a matter of routine. As far as your accusations of 'dishonesty' are concerned, I'm more than happy for the onlookers to this exchange to be the judge. Pardon me, but I can't help saying, 'Huh'? Even the most cursory read of this article would surely have told you that 'Dr Wieland' note spelling was not involved in the tests or even the gathering or treatment of the samples. And such discordant results as we report in our literature are only ever done by standard, recognized radiochronology laboratories--precisely so that they can't be caricatured like this due to the extreme philosophical prejudice. Note its demonstration here; by definition, if the dates are not what we expect in our worldview, then the steps have failed, period, regardless of what they are. Time to educate yourself about what some of these steps involve, I suggest. The search engine on our site will reveal much discussion and many examples of such discordant by long-age standards dates--for C14, they are the rule, not the exception. Countless instances of oil and gas and even diamonds all show C14 when they 'should not'. For many documented examples, see the DVD of Expelled: the Movie, and Dr Jerry Bergmann's book Slaughter of the Innocents, both available at. From my understanding, this research may have far greater implications for Biblical creationists than the finding of soft tissue on dinosaur bones. If all dinosaur bones contain radio carbon, then this indicates that all dinosaur bones are young and that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago. The research team sampled dinosaur bones from eight specimens, perhaps further research needs to be undertaken to confirm this crucial research. I agree it is very significant, but so is the fact that just about everything one tests that is supposed to be millions of years old has C14 in it. This has been the case for many years, and still they fall back on 'contamination'. See earlier comments and responses re contamination, corrections, diamonds and more. I suggest that now that there is not only soft tissue, but identifiable protein, C14 and DNA, the case becomes overwhelming. And yes, let's have more and more tested, which is started to happen. Fifteen years ago, I began sending bones of various dinosaurs, trees, mammoth, mastodons, Gobi rhinos, Gobi dinosaurs and more to Hugh Miller. He was having them tested for C-14 in four major labs. Hugh and I went to the 2011 AGU meet to protest our paper not being accepted on these results. We talked to hundreds of members outside and invited all to our suite. The president of AGU came and we gave him the story. He didn't know what to say. Another PhD student said that if she told her boss, a major evolutionist, that she thought there was any credibility to these dates, that she would be fired. The whole point of the presentation was that excruciating steps were taken to avoid the possibility that this was contamination with modern carbon for a fossil to have a contamination say 10 million years after it were deposited would be irrelevant, because the point is that all such carbon14 would vanish in the next 100k years, for the same reasons as it is not supposed to be in the original. Labs take huge care in cleaning specimens, but also do and publish special corrections known as the δ 13C PDB correction. See footnote 15 in So, basically this age is the background estimate age that is due to contamination that is not eliminated. They aren't really dating the dinosaur bones, but only the contamination. In this case, they might be able to wash off contamination due to contact with modern carbon, but any younger carbon that is chemically bonded would more difficult. To claim this is as evidence for a young earth is nonsensical. You are clearly unaware of the way modern labs overcome this, using the Delta 13 C PBD correction. See earlier comments in this thread, also the chapter on radiocarbon in the Creation Answers Book. Further, how about diamonds, supposedly billons of years old and never part of the biosphere, consistently showing C14? Diamond is so hard because the atoms in the crystal lattice are so tightly packed together that no bacteria can 'squeeze in', for example. Contamination in such circumstances as an excuse is truly 'nonsensical'. See I watched his video presentation on youtube and it was boring, but the results were interesting! He said the motivation for their research on dinosaur bones was these recent unexpected finds: +C14 has been reported from Mesozoic, Paleozoid carbonaceous earth materials. Each year he makes a trip there for his ongoing research, and he has no doubt that he has discovered much more time through stipulation in his findings that the Biblical account will allow. He believes peer review settles the question. Consequently, he does not accept a literal understanding of Genesis, even though he strongly believes in God and even the infallibility of the Bible. I realize that his career almost certainly depends on his views on this subject, and I cannot discount that this may put extreme pressure on him to avoid any evidence which would force him between a rock and hard place of having to be either intentionally dishonest or unemployed. D in Geology like he is, and knowing this, I avoid entering into a discussion with him on a level at which I would be unable. I have no doubt, however, in the truth of the Bible, and I want to help my brother in any way that I can. Do you have any recommendations to help get through to someone in such a situation? I notice how you say 'what he has observed'. Here is the thing; no-one observes long ages or short ages per se in the data. Data are silent; facts are neutral. It is their interpretation that is the issue. So many times we have heard from people, including geologists, that when the 'penny has dropped', they suddenly realize that the evidence is there though both paradigms will always have unanswered problems and challenges, that's normal in a complex world with incomplete information. If he is loath to read such a tome, suggest to him that 15 Reasons Why Genesis is History can be read in an evening, and add the article. Then if you see some chinks in the armour, ask him to really seriously consider how open he is to the evidence, and how well he really understands the case for Flood geology and how many allegedly insuperable objections have been answered with further research. Indeed, and to us. I think one can expect that any developments we know of will appear on this site, most likely at this paper and with an appropriate email newsletter reference. However, I am even more excited at the anticipated C14 dating of a chunk of soft tissue from a Triceratops which chunk is in the possession of our friends in the Creation Research Society, and to my knowledge it is going to be carefully analyzed for 1 Protein 2 DNA 3 C14 Our prediction would be that it is highly likely that all three will be present. Yes, definitely - as the article explains in footnote 1, the variance is actually what would be expected. If someone came with a chunk of wood claiming to be from the Ark, and it carbon dated to 4,500 years say, rather than getting excited, one would be wiser to get suspicious. The anticipated C14 age from a specimen from the flood would be expected to be tens of thousands of years. The detailed explanation is in the radiocarbon chapter of The Creation Answers Book, see front page for free downloads chapter by chapter, or wiser still, get your own copy of the whole book from our online store. They just make up some excuse, contamination or fraud etc. Why do they think creationists encourage them to do their own radio carbon research on dinosaur bones? Is it surprising that they believe naturalistic explanations always fit best... The future will reveal them as fools. Andrei T is right. What's to be afraid of? Sorry, you still do not convince! Whereas when an evolutionist presents data which supports their worldview, which for most of them has most creationists I know would a priori assume that they are not lying or fudging, but would seek to engage with the data at face value. BTW, I would hope that such a brief report would indeed be insufficient to convince, so please search our site for much, much more. Did you ever think that perhaps they removed it with the foresight that creationists would immediately jump to conclusions, and use itas ammunition against old-earthers? The only problem that I can see with this act is now it is being used as propaganda. Lol and when did you guys begin to trust the results that Carbon-14 dating yields anyway? The results are not even within the biblical timeframe so why are you people complaining? A harsh accustion of fraud and censorship coming from people that strictly moderate comments. Please stop acting as if there is a conspiracy.