Dating dinosaur bones

20 Sep

She tries to explain the C14 away, but I don't buy her explanation.In any case, the creationists aren't scamming UGA, they are only representing what is already quietly acknowledge as evidenced by the pro-Darwin website in the link.

dating dinosaur bones-24dating dinosaur bones-17

Perhaps you should follow your own advice instead of posting confused science that insinuates C14 dating is something akin to using Geiger Counters instead of Accelerator Mass Spectrometers.A C14 date of 50,000 years corresponds to about 0.24% of the original carbon 14.This is calculated by taking 50,000 years and dividing by the half-life of C14 of 5,730 years and then taking the result and exponentiation 1/2 by that number:(1/2) ~ 0.24%This may seem like a trivially small amount of contaminant but consider a 2.6 gallon sample of solid marble, or about 10 liters.They don't know any of that, they just come away from this bit of new with "all scientists are lying, it's all a bit conspiracy, and these good godfearing people have brought this to light."This is why education is a good thing...The NCSE is not telling it like it really is, like a lot of their stuff it is sloppy science.If you don't know the difference in what the devices actually measure, you should refrain from telling others: There is some influence on decay rates depending on the substance, but I'm not aware of something influencing C14 decays.There is a chance C14 was in less abundance in the atmosphere at sometime, if so, the 50,000 year dates could be recalibrated to say 5,000 year dates. The 5,000 year date is very speculative, so I'm not going to defend it right now.Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago.Since the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, any that was present in the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products.Sounds like UGA recieved some "samples" which were not identified as anything. UGA has no idea what the samples were, or where they came from, they didnt conclude anything other than the date of the samples they were given, which could be anything. Then they find themselves in the middle of a creationist conspiracy theory which threatens their credibility, thus they refuse to do further dating work for that person/organization.