Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Dinosaur bones carbon dated to 40,000 years ago.

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    1,657
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    5,766
    Rep Power
    70

    Dinosaur bones carbon dated to 40,000 years ago.

    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    More proof of evolutionists' conspiracy against the truth. The bones were reliably dated! Now the report is censored.

    I heard this on the radio this afternoon by some creationist spouting preacher. I had to look it up.

    SLD

  2. Top | #2
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,155
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,632
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    More proof of evolutionists' conspiracy against the truth. The bones were reliably dated! Now the report is censored.

    SLD
    40-50k years is about the limit of what C14 dating can achieve. Basically, if you try to get a C14 date from anything older than about 40,000 years old, you will likely get the same result - amounts of C14 at the absolute detection limit of your equipment, which an idiot or charlatan (or an unsuspecting lab technician who has been lied to about the origin of the sample) could interpret as implying a 40,000 year date for the sample.

    If you want to use radiometric dating on samples older than 40k years, you need to choose a nuclide with a longer half life. Short lived nuclides such as C14 can give much better accuracy than long lived nuclides in recent samples, but it is useless for really old samples.

    And anyway, dinosaurs cannot possibly have been around 40,000 years ago if the earth is only ~6,000 years old. So surely both the YECs and the real scientists must agree that these dates are wrong (even if the YEC gets to that right answer via a wrong methodology).

  3. Top | #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Back in the Kingdom
    Posts
    177
    Archived
    730
    Total Posts
    907
    Rep Power
    52
    Potholer54
    Carbondating dinosaur bones
    go to 5.58

    quote
    Hey, we cant carbon-date that you idiot, there is no f@cking carbon in it !
    unquote

    One of potholers best

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY

  4. Top | #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    On my Computer
    Posts
    22
    Archived
    10
    Total Posts
    32
    Rep Power
    39
    Wait a minute. Carbon dating is highly reliable? Yesterday they were claiming carbon dating was nothing but a big fat lie.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,507
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,007
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by FwL View Post
    Wait a minute. Carbon dating is highly reliable? Yesterday they were claiming carbon dating was nothing but a big fat lie.
    That is the advantage of creationist science. You only have to deal with one claim at a time, or one supporting factoid. Consustency comes from always reaching the same conclusion, not adding to the body of knowledge...

  6. Top | #6
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,123
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycad View Post
    Potholer54
    Carbondating dinosaur bones
    go to 5.58

    quote
    Hey, we cant carbon-date that you idiot, there is no f@cking carbon in it !
    unquote

    One of potholers best

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY
    That's... actually not necessarily correct. We have occasionally found dinosaur bones with residual carbon in them, as in the 2007 case that allowed us to extract an entire protein: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ilestone-paper The feat has been replicated a handful of additional times.

    In that case, it's thought that hematite (ie iron lode) fragments helped create an uncommonly good preservation environment.

    But C14 decay won't help you in dating it, for the reasons discussed above.

  7. Top | #7
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,155
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,632
    Rep Power
    81
    Physics StackExchange has an entry specifically regarding the OP question, at: https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-materials-dat

    In short, the fossils in question were preserved with shellac, and the dates reported are the (diluted*) dates of the shellac, not of the 'bones' - which had been entirely replaced by inorganic minerals over the millions of years since the death of the animal to whom they belonged.




















    As the proportion of C14 in the sample is calculated based on the mass of the carbon in the entire sample, a small contamination with another organic compound will give an erroneously early date for the contaminant. This is not much of a problem in relatively young samples, but in older ones, the date inferred from the contaminant will dominate, and will be wildly wrong. A sample containing mineral carbonates with zero C14 due to their age, contaminated with a trace of recent organic carbon, could appear to be almost any age, and the less contamination is present, the older it will look, up to the 40-50k year maximum age threshold for the technique.

  8. Top | #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Back in the Kingdom
    Posts
    177
    Archived
    730
    Total Posts
    907
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    That's... actually not necessarily correct. We have occasionally found dinosaur bones with residual carbon in them, as in the 2007 case that allowed us to extract an entire protein: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ilestone-paper The feat has been replicated a handful of additional times.

    In that case, it's thought that hematite (ie iron lode) fragments helped create an uncommonly good preservation environment.

    But C14 decay won't help you in dating it, for the reasons discussed above.

    Thanks Politesse
    Very interesting link.

    However, its 1 paper 2009 (the second one offers even weaker evidence)
    And according to the link : just how collagen sequences survived 10s of millions of year is not clear.
    Any more recent links ?

    But yes its obvious that dinosaur collagen can not be carbon-dated and I have no clue if the correct radiodating method for that time span (Samarium–neodymium dating method ?) would work on recovered collagen sequence. Cant imagine collagen containing relevant quantities of Samarium or Neodymium

    Maybe worth adding your remark in potholer54 comments he ?

    Ne pas écouter est non seulement un manque de politesse, mais encore une marque de mépris
    Balzac

    :-)

  9. Top | #9
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,123
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    That's... actually not necessarily correct. We have occasionally found dinosaur bones with residual carbon in them, as in the 2007 case that allowed us to extract an entire protein: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ilestone-paper The feat has been replicated a handful of additional times.

    In that case, it's thought that hematite (ie iron lode) fragments helped create an uncommonly good preservation environment.

    But C14 decay won't help you in dating it, for the reasons discussed above.

    Thanks Politesse
    Very interesting link.

    However, its 1 paper 2009 (the second one offers even weaker evidence)
    And according to the link : just how collagen sequences survived 10s of millions of year is not clear.
    Any more recent links ?

    But yes its obvious that dinosaur collagen can not be carbon-dated and I have no clue if the correct radiodating method for that time span (Samarium–neodymium dating method ?) would work on recovered collagen sequence. Cant imagine collagen containing relevant quantities of Samarium or Neodymium

    Maybe worth adding your remark in potholer54 comments he ?

    Ne pas écouter est non seulement un manque de politesse, mais encore une marque de mépris
    Balzac

    :-)
    Well, I am not aware of any radiometric strategies that would be helpful with such a sample at such a range. You're honestly more likely to get a date from the cortex than the trace collagens. Though, they are always innovating.

    The video you posted is quite amusing; not errorless, but I feel like a critique would be nitpicking. It is certainly true that Hovind's attack on radiocarbon is ideologically motivated and ignores that even Hovind must have encountered many times. We have been through many generations of testing, refining, and evaluating the useful context and range for this technique. I have always thought it odd how Creationists obsess over C14 in particular, as though it were central to the argument for an old earth or evolutionary theory, which it really isn't.

  10. Top | #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Back in the Kingdom
    Posts
    177
    Archived
    730
    Total Posts
    907
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    snip
    I have always thought it odd how Creationists obsess over C14 in particular, as though it were central to the argument for an old earth or evolutionary theory, which it really isn't.
    If you believe earth is 7000 YO, then C14 dating is indeed central.



    Meanwhile : there is no fucking carbon in it ! :-)
    Thanks potholer, I love your vids



Similar Threads

  1. Possible Dinosaur Extinction Events Fossils Found
    By Jimmy Higgins in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2019, 05:03 AM
  2. God Threatens Humans With Dinosaur Return
    By davesteve in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-26-2017, 02:19 AM
  3. Getting past the dated sound of music to enjoy it.
    By repoman in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-01-2014, 05:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •