Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then Oak Ridge National Laboratory should be struck off as a reputable research establishment if they use C14 to date dinosaur bones since C14 is only used to date organic material that is less that 50,000 years old.
No, it is probably a lie...There is no way this reputable laboratory would make an error like that...
Then Oak Ridge National Laboratory should be struck off as a reputable research establishment if they use C14 to date dinosaur bones since C14 is only used to date organic material that is less that 50,000 years old.
Well that's the point. Unfossilized Dinosaur bones tested by carbon 14 often give dates that are not millions of years old but thousands of years old. Yet those dates are always rejected because it is (ASSUMED,) that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old. When evidence reveals such is not the case, that evidence is rejected for what is assumed to be. Ancient art shows that early man saw dinosaurs. Yet that art work is reject as well, only because of what science assumes to be. Believers in the Bible tell us, that the Book of Job speaks of dinosaurs. Yet those accounts are rejected as well, only because of what science assumes to be. Soft tissue at first was rejected to be present in dinosaur bones, only because of what science assumed to be. Ect, Ect, Ect.
No, it is probably a lie...There is no way this reputable laboratory would make an error like that...
My thoughts exactly. Perhaps brother Campbell would furnish us with more detail regarding the condemnation from other research establishments that such a monumental ****-up at Oakridge would have generated in the scientific community. What say you Campbell?
I looked in vain....The only places I could find the statement that Oak Ridge used carbon dating on dinos was on creationist / young earth sites...Word for word one the same as the other....It has gone viral, as their lies often do.
Well that's the point. Unfossilized Dinosaur bones tested by carbon 14 often give dates that are not millions of years old but thousands of years old.
No old chap! The actual point is that no reputable research laboratory would use C14 if they were long for dates in millions of years. It just isn't done.
I may be the only one here able to see the progression of science here,coming from an evangelical background.50 years ago dino bones and fossils were denied.They were considered a ploy of Satan created by him to confuse and mislead believers.Now you have fundies accepting dino bones but moving on to arguing about dating them.Campbell is merely another step in the progression.In 30 years they will .most of them, accept the billions of years dating of the universe,and the main argument then will be ID vs. evolution.Campbell is nothing but a picket fence trying to slow down an avalanche.
With the exception of things less than 50,000 years old, carbon dating isn't used anymore. Fossils etc. are dated with potassium argon which is much more accurate and is able to date things that are millions upon millions of millions of years old. The creationist argument for carbon dating is rather moot and just shows an ignorance of the methods science really uses.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 04-14-2010 at 10:02 AM..
The recent soft tissue find in dinosaur bones only reveals how much science has been in error. For not so long ago, science was telling us that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones. Because soft tissue could last no longer then 100,000 years. Now they want us to believe that soft tissue with stretchable blood vessels can last 80 million years. Oh well, what's 80 million years one way or the other. LOL
Science simply assumes the dinosaur bones to be millions of years old.
You can't really have a bone in 65 million year old dirt without itself being 65 million years old,
and find this repeatedly.
Quote:
Carbon-14 has been used to test the age of mammoth bones. And dates have come back showing them to be thousands of years old. Yet when they have tested dinosaur bones useing Carbon-14, and they to show dates of thousands of years. They reject those dates, because they put their faith in unfounded assumptions that cannot be proven. And that is what you call solid science?
With the exception of things less than 50,000 years old, carbon dating isn't used anymore. Fossils etc. are dated with potassium argon which is much more accurate and is able to date things that are millions upon millions of millions of years old. The creationist argument for carbon dating is rather moot and just shows an ignorance of the methods science really uses.
C14 dating is the only one creationists seem to have heard of--and probably heard has given strange dates (specifically for living things). They all jump on it like it represents radiometric dating at large. Ignorance of scientific method indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
