C14 dating of dinosaur bones
Apologetics Press - Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating
in a similar manner, the more evidence of young ages for dinosaur fossils, the more compelling the evidence (in total) becomes. that included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. 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. if the accepted ages of millions of years for dinosaurs were to be found to be in error, this would be a problem to evolution. to get the scientists to consider their sample, the researchers once again pretended to be interested in the dating for general chemical analysis purposes, misrepresenting their research. both the carbon-14 dating results and the discovery of soft tissue in incompletely fossilized dinosaur bones share the common theme of being indicators of much younger ages for dinosaurs than evolution claims. is clear that the sample provided by miller did not under go any 'sample decontamination procedures' at all, and it is therefore strongly questionable to which extent it can be used to obtain a good estimate of the age of the 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. what research is being done to correct such an obvious dating flaw? pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. 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. 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. the numbers go from 4 to 6, omitting 5, which was the one on 14c in dino bones. 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. many of those opinions were arrived at after using more than one dating method. the main point of the debate seems to be the following:Over the past decades, several research groups of self-proclaimed creationist scientists have claimed discoveries of dinosaur bones that they have managed to date, using radiocarbon dating methods, at some age which is a lot below the 'usual' i.
Sagmeister and walsh 40 days of dating
is one other pertinent point to be made about carbon-14 dating, however. she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. research team from the crsef, or creation research, science education foundation, led by hugh miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old. acrocanthosaurus (carnivorous dinosaur) specimen was excavated in 1984 near glen rose, texas and was tested in 2010 by the university of georgia. they then sent it to a laboratory run by the university of arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. hell creek formation dinosaur, found in 2004, a triceratops, was dated by the university of georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry in 2009 as 24,340 ± 70 years old. the basic ideas of bracketing and radiometric dating, researchers have determined the age of rock layers all over the world. 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. most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. effects of radioactive decay in carbon dating2why didn't accelerator mass spectrometry greatly improve the accuracy of carbon dating? if dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of c-14 left in them. inside the dinosaur vessels are things schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.’ve been waiting for this, more radio carbon dating of dinosaur bones & i understand there’s more on the way. bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives., 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).
Free irish internet dating sites