Dating dinosaur bones speed dating manila april 2016
If there were 16 times as much it would push the dates forward by 16 x 5,730 = 22,920 years, etc.
On the other hand, if the atmosphere had less C14 at the time of death, say about 4% of what it is today, then the C14 dates indicate the fossils died 5,000 years ago. Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin.
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.
Bear in mind typically fossils are found - not bones or tissue - when it comes to dinos.
Lots of creationists are trying to make an eureka moment but unless the chain of custody and true source of these samples can be proven there is no science here. from layers supposedly hundreds of millions of years old have C14 traces.
It doesn't count emissions, it counts isotopic ratios.
However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. Evolutionists admit they are finding so many instances of C-14 in 300 million-year-old samples, they gave up trying to find large quantities free of C-14.The author uses the word "some" to describe C14 discoveries.We actually know now it is MOST not some of the coal!As Hurley points out: Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. 108)Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. You're just cutting and pasting NCSE talking points, not actual reported lab and field observations.And furthermore there are some supposedly tens-of-millions-of-years-old fossils with 22,000 year dates which mean they have greater than 6.25 p MC (percent Modern C14/C ratios).
An AMS machine can distinguish something like the isotopes of Tin (mean atomic mass 118.710) from Carbon 14 (mean atomic mass 14.003).