Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic
"... say that seemingly without realizing that the advent of these methods pre-dates the claimed occurrance of the flood. There is no comparative data in existence upon which to base that assesment. ..." actually there is , we can compare known dates of objects to the radio carbon dates...that is how we know they are NOT accurate!!!

In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374). Dahmer, Lionel, D. Kouznetsov, et al. (1990), “Report on Chemical Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Christopher L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship).

328 posted on 06/26/2013 3:46:05 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies ]


To: kimtom
In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis.

C-14 is atmospheric, and carried by any living organism, including microbes or residue left by handling the sample. Once unearthed a sample is immedialty succeptible to contamination. Any sample more that about 100,000 years old will not have any mearsurable C14 left in it, and you will instead be measuring the C14 that has contaminated the sample since it was exposed. For these reasons C14 dating is potentially unreliable. This is well known and documented.

When you tell people about Hugh Millers experiment, do you also tell them this?

332 posted on 06/26/2013 4:27:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson