Researchers recently presented at a geophysics conference in Singapore radiocarbon dating results of dinosaur bones ranging from to. But what happens if you date them using carbon dating, which is Scientists who are Christians who adhere to a six-day creation would. Evolutionists have long used the carbon, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians. A straightforward reading of.
If this is not correct, it could mean the dating method is flawed because the assumptions are wrong, and all dates gathered using the method are suspect. It could also mean the bone specimens were contaminated which is highly unlikely. In this particular case, the dinosaurs were dated to between 10, and 25, years old. But since the age predicted by the method is wrong i.
But the differences arise because of the underlying presuppositions about the past of the two groups. The museum curator from whose museum the dinosaur bone samples were taken was outraged.
Carbon dating dinosaur bones
Otherwise your results are wrong. An objective scientist would explore the discrepancies produced by the dating methods. If dinosaur bones are not 65 million years old, then this poses serious problems to the entire modern science guild who has built its house upon the sandy shores of evolution theory.
- Search form
- What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness
- Accessibility Navigation
Grant money is at stake. Jobs and careers are at stake. Their conclusions differ because their bounding conditions and assumptions about the past differ. They are hostile, as the quotes above demonstrate.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
Their personal god may be Mammon, or job security. They have vested interests in one or both of those things. In fact, the creationist posed as chemists in order to secure a number of fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from a museum of natural history, misrepresenting their own research in the process of doing so.
When the museum provided the bone fragments, they emphasized that they had been heavily contaminated with "shellac" and other chemical preservatives. Miller and his group accepted the samples and reassured the museum that such containments would not be problematic for the analysis at hand.
They then sent it to a laboratory run by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. 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. Let's take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research.
It is understandable that Miller et al. Thus, it appears that Miller et al. This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.
What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness After the samples were submitted by the laboratory, Miller et al. Miller let assured the professor that the analysis was still of interest to the group. The issue of contaminations is quite a serious one, as can be seen in this paper by Hedges and Gowlett sorry, paywalled!!! 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.
Pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. Before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells.
In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna. To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: In the summer ofshe asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.
As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.
In the course of testing a B. One Friday night in JanuaryWittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. She used forceps to flatten it.
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating | NCSE
I was like, stop it! Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen.
For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day. In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens.
Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs.
Close up, the blood vessels from that T. Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue.Carbon-14, DNA & Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bone: Evidence for a Young Earth