• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Dinosaur bones carbon dated to 40,000 years ago.

SLD said:
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

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

SLD
Click to expand...

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).
 
Wait a minute. Carbon dating is highly reliable? Yesterday they were claiming carbon dating was nothing but a big fat lie.
 
FwL said:
Wait a minute. Carbon dating is highly reliable? Yesterday they were claiming carbon dating was nothing but a big fat lie.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Cycad said:
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
Click to expand...

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/201...ion-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-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.
 
Physics StackExchange has an entry specifically regarding the OP question, at: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-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.
 
Politesse said:
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/201...ion-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-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.
Click to expand...


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
:)
 
Cycad said:
Politesse said:
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/201...ion-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-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.
Click to expand...


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
:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Politesse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


 
Cycad said:
Politesse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

If you believe the Earth is 7,000 YO, then a date of 40,000 YO explodes your hypothesis just as thoroughly as a date of 80,000,000 YO does.
 
True. But we knew the earth was much older than 7,000 years old for more than a century before radiocarbon dating came along.
 
Politesse said:
True. But we knew the earth was much older than 7,000 years old for more than a century before radiocarbon dating came along.
Click to expand...

The YECs didn't. And still don't.

Of course there are dozens of dating techniques that owe nothing to radioactivity; And oddly, they all agree with each other (within their respective margins of error) that the Earth is about 4.6 eons old.

But adding up the dates and times in a collection of old stories gives an age that's off by a six orders of magnitude - so all those other methods must be wrong :D
 
I just manually measured the length of the equator... it is about 12 inches long... according to my ruler.
 
Gun Nut said:
I just manually measured the length of the equator... it is about 12 inches long... according to my ruler.
Click to expand...

That could be an extremely accurate measurement depending on how you define your inch. However, your inch wouldn't be very useful except maybe for describing the size of oceans, continents. or the distance to the moon.
 
skepticalbip said:
Gun Nut said:
I just manually measured the length of the equator... it is about 12 inches long... according to my ruler.
Click to expand...

That could be an extremely accurate measurement depending on how you define your inch. However, your inch wouldn't be very useful except maybe for describing the size of oceans, continents. or the distance to the moon.
Click to expand...

that's what "she" said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
bilby said:
If you believe the Earth is 7,000 YO, then a date of 40,000 YO explodes your hypothesis just as thoroughly as a date of 80,000,000 YO does.
Click to expand...
But if you can prove a scientists estimate of 80 million for one specific fossil is off by a factor of 2000, then you can pretend that everything you dislike can be dismissed, because big numbers are silly.
 
Gun Nut said:
I just manually measured the length of the equator... it is about 12 inches long... according to my ruler.
Click to expand...

And you forgot to tell us what scale an inch represents in the real world. Was that deliberate, or were you trying to be contrary to make a point? And if so, what point would that be? Are you trying to say that humans do not have the ability to measure the length of the equator, or something else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom