Replies

"How does a dating technique that only goes back about 50,000 years show that fossils that have been dated by reliable techniques to millions of years old show that fossils could not be millions of years old? "

Because of the excess Carbon 14. If those fossils were millions of years old, the Carbon 14, would have been depleted. The measurement technique has been improved so that it's now reliable to about 90,000 years (but still subject to the assumptions about starting ratios).

If a fossil was 1,000,000 years old, it should have 0.5^175 = 0% of the modern ratio of carbon 14. But instead all fossils have at least 1/1000 of the modern value. Meaning either they can't be that old, or they have been somehow contaminated.

There are those that speculate that all fossils must have been contaminated somehow, but if that's so, it just cast doubts on most of the other radiometric techniques.

There are those that speculate that all fossils must have been contaminated somehow, but if that's so, it just cast doubts on most of the other radiometric techniques.

No, it doesn't, because that amount of contamination makes an insignificant difference in the results within the normal range of measurement.

But instead all fossils have at least 1/1000 of the modern value.

Did you make that up? I can't even find it on your creationists' websites?

Or is access to that info limited to those that send in their $79.95?

ROFLMAO Most fossils have no carbon whatsoever. "Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I don't see how "excess" carbon is pertinent to dating fossils that are millions of years old, when it is the rock around the fossil that is dated, not the fossil itself.

"With a half-life of only 5730 years, carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with dating the geological ages! Whether by sloppiness or gross ignorance, Dr. Hovind is confusing the carbon-14 "clock" with other radiometric "clocks.""

"The only thing in the geologic record which has anything to do with calibrating carbon-14 dating is the coal from the Carboniferous Period. Being ancient, the C-14 content has long since decayed away and that makes it useful in "zeroing" laboratory instruments. It's just one of the tricks that have been used to make the work a little more precise." The above is from a different article, but it seems to address the claims you are making.

"If you get your information from a creationist source, you'd better triple-check it! Errors get handed down in the creationist literature like the family jewels!"

Another article contained the above warning. I think you should heed it.