More Problems with Carbon and Old-Earth Assumptions – Proslogion
Aug 16, Here is how carbon dating works and the assumptions it is based upon. 5 half- lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which people with the life-changing message of the Gospel has driven him to speak. Oct 3, In it, he reports on the carbon dating of dinosaur bones, other . I agree that an old earth can be consistent with the Bible, but so can a young. Evolutionists have long used the carbon, or radiocarbon, dating technique that the radiocarbon method has soundly refuted the Bible's historical accuracy.
The objects he held in his hand were distinctively different than any other known Indian culture. When a few ceramic fragments were found there, Julsrud hired diggers to excavate. This discovery brought world wide attention from archaeologists who at first mistakenly defined them as Tarascan, but later they were correctly identified as a whole New Indian culture - the Chupicuaro. Julsrud at age sixty-nine was on the brink of making a discovery that may prove to be the greatest archaeological discovery ever made.
He hired a Mexican farmer, Odilon Tinajero, to dig in the area where the ceramic figurines were found and bring him any other similar objects.
Soon Tinajero had a wheelbarrow full of ceramic pottery that had been excavated on El Toro Mountain. Charles Hapgood notes that "Julsrud was a shrewd businessman and he now made a deal with Tinajero that is very important for our story.
He told Tinajero that he would pay him one peso worth about 12 cents for each complete piece he brought in. Among the thousands of artifacts excavated were items that turned Julsrud's mansion into "the museum that scared scientists.
The objects were made of clay and stone, varying in size from a few inches long to statues three feet high, and dinosaur objects four to five feet long. In the collection, that now numbered over 20, objects, not one could be found to be a duplicate of another.
Each of the clay pieces had been individually made, without molds, skillfully sculptured, and carefully decorated. Several hundred of the figurines were scientifically identified as representing many species of dinosaurs, including duck billed Trachodon, Gorgosaurus, horned Monoclonius, Ornitholestes, Titanosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus Paleococincus, Diplodocus, Podokosaurus, Struthiomimos, Plesiosaur, Maiasaura, Rhamphorynchus, Iguanodon, Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, Dimetrodon, Ichtyornis, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Rhynococephalia and other unknown or as yet unidentified dinosaur species.
These remarkable dinosaur figurines threaten orthodox concepts and time scales in many fields of study. Sanderson was amazed in to find that there was an accurate representation of the American dinosaur Brachiosaurus, which was almost totally unknown to the general public at that time. Sanderson wrote about the figurine in the Julsrud collection. It is about a foot tall. The point is it is an absolutely perfect representation of Brachiosaurus, known only from East Africa and North America.
There are a number of outlines of the skeletons in the standard literature but only one fleshed out reconstruction that I have ever seen. This is exactly like it.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
InArthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr. The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2, B. In a letter dated September 13,addressed to Mr. Young, Dr Rainey said: Now after we have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the dependability of the thermoluminescent method. I should also point out, that we were so concerned about the extraordinarily ancient dates of these figures, that Mark Han in our lab made an average of 18 runs on each one of the four samples.
Hence, there is a very substantial bit of research in these particular pieces All in all the lab stands on these dates for the Julsrud material, whatever that means in terms of archeological dating in Mexico, or in terms of 'fakes verse's authentic' pieces.
They asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old. A thermoluminescent technician admitted that no other ceramics existed, in his experience, that produced regenerated light signals, and no other thermoluminescent dating of ceramics had ever been done by utilization of a regenerated light signal. In short, the excuse was a hocus pocus, laboratory trick to avoid the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs and man lived together.
John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating | NCSE
Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud-type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro, and inin Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Bortulot determined the pieces' upper limit age to be 2, years old, thus, invalidating the Masca report which claimed the objects were made thirty to one hundred years ago.
John Tierney took a half dozen samples of Julsrud ceramics of different clay composition to a team of experts at Ohio State University. They consisted of Dr. Caley among the world's most respected archaeological chemistsand Dr. Ehlers mineralogist in the geology department at Ohio State University. The team reported that they could not believe the artifacts were made in modern times, nor could they believe they were made by some amateur who tried to perpetuate a fraud.
Upon my notifying them that they had authenticated Julsrud artifacts, they lapsed into a profound and apparently permanent silence.
Video released the program "Jurassic Art", which contained an Acambaro segment that was originally supposed to have been part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man.
Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples of Julsrud-type ceramics a human figure and a dinosaur figure to an independent Carbon laboratory. Startling results came back. Steede tap danced around the implications, embarrassingly embracing the human figurine as credible, while waltzing past the dinosaur figurine, claiming the laboratory test must not have given a true reading.
In reality, the dinosaur figurine created too much tension for orthodox science and Steede had to find an out. The solution was simple. He discarded the dinosaur date. The Japanese company Nissi sponsored a television crew to go to Acambaro and produce a program for Japanese T.
The program entitled "Did the Ancients See Dinosaurs? There is a stunning moment in the program as the Japanese narrator is looking over an animal figurine, and he holds it up next to his Japanese book on dinosaurs. Amazingly, the Julsrud dinosaur figurine matches the color drawing of an Amargasaurus cazaui in the Japanese dinosaur book. The narrator quickly picks up another dinosaur figure and thumbs through the dinosaur book.
This figure is very similar to the Saurolophus osborni as drawn in the Japanese dinosaur book. The narrator ponders the perplexing problem that ancient people about 4, years ago must have seen dinosaurs because they could not have known what they looked like by merely seeing their skeletons in the ground. The narrator points out that when modern man, such as Sir Richard Owen, found dinosaur skeletons, the first life-sized models of Megalosaurus, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus made from them were ridiculously inaccurate.
Individual censorship on YouTube - "NaturaLegion" A YouTube video by an arrogant evolutionist calling himself "NaturaLegion" ridicules the work of the Paleochronology group, including this webpage. I posted comments that he at first answered and then removed when he saw they demolished his position. They are reproduced below.
The video is at https: My email is on the webpage, and he could have inquired any time but chose not to. No shellac or other preservative was on any of them. We have successfully used this technique to prepare and date samples of bone and of tooth enamel and dentin, with varying degrees of preservation condition, and from time intervals ranging from a few hundred Carbon years to greater than 40, Carbon years.
Cherkinsky and Christine Chataigner again explain this method in Radiocarbon journal,Vol 52, Nr. Collagen tends to undergo microbiological decomposition, hydrolysis, dissolution, and denaturizing over archaeological and geological timescales, so that only in exceptional conditions, such as burial in permafrost, is collagen found to survive without significant changes into Pleistocene. Survival is usually far shorter for the bones buried in warmer regions. In practice, pretreatment works quite well to remove skin cells and other contaminants encountered during excavation, transport, and handling.
Be sure and subscribe to all the rest! Where mainstream paleontologists disagree with creationists is in the best explanation for the discovery: Just let me know if you would like to learn what data is actually out there in the research literature, instead of just reading whatever creationist organizations and websites tell you about it.
They did claim to have found--and carbon-dated--collagen, no? If their claims of discovering and carbon-dating dinosaur collagen are not relevant to their conclusions, why bring it up?
As for the bioapatite In response to your references to an Alexander Cherkinsky article, separating diagenetic from bioapatite carbonates is only part of the problem. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs.
In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers.
Ina dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs.
But then came the incident with the red spots. InSchweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a million-year-old T. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color.
If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization. Schweitzer tends to be self-deprecating, claiming to be hopeless at computers, lab work and talking to strangers.
And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve. Schweitzer takes risks, says Karen Chin, a University of Colorado paleontologist. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. Over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face.
They called it B. Inthey encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. It turned out Bob had been misnamed. On the hollow inside surface of the femur, Schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them.
Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from - page 24 - the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.
A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C, enough to give them C ages in the tens of thousands of years.
How do you explain this? Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium K decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation.
However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out: Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.
K decay also forms plenty of beta radiation.
Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
Creationists such as Cook claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying.
If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate - page 25 - as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C in it at all.
If they are right, this means all C ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. Yes, Cook is right that C is forming today faster than it's decaying.
- Accessibility Navigation
- 45 Comments
- Search form
However, the amount of C has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to BC, one can check out the C dates against the tree-ring-count dates.
Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date.
Carbon Dating Flaws – Doesn’t Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible?
It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations. When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains.
For example, pieces of wood that date at about BC by tree-ring counts date at only BC by regular C dating and BC by Cook's creationist revision of C dating as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
So, despite creationist claims, C before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C dating errs on the side of making objects from before BC look too young, not too old. But don't trees sometimes produce more than one growth ring per year? Wouldn't that spoil the tree-ring count? If anything, the tree-ring sequence suffers far more from missing rings than from double rings.
This means that the tree-ring dates would be slightly too young, not too old. Of course, some species of tree tend to produce two or more growth rings per year. But other species produce scarcely any extra rings. Most of the tree-ring sequence is based on the bristlecone pine. This tree rarely produces even a trace of an extra ring; on the contrary, a typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing.