Carbon dating of dinosaur fossils

Rated 3.89/5 based on 966 customer reviews

Compare this with Abstract.pdf, which does include presentation 5.

Notice the titles of 4 and 6 correspond in both lists, which in the opinion of some, hints strongly that the list with number 5 present was an original list." href="#footnote5_2w1oxif"Why is the information presented in the paper important?

In other words, if a tree or animal died only a few centuries after the Flood of Noah, the remains could be radiocarbon dated to be tens of thousands of years old rather than the correct date of thousands of years old.

But that’s a long story, not where we’re going with carbon-14 dating in this post.

However, the abstract of the Miller presentation was removed from the website for the conference. Double-click on the box for Wednesday, Room Leo 2, BG02.

You will see presentation 5 is missing between 4 and 6.

Dating with C is possible for up to “50 to 80 thousand years” before the present, yet we need to remember that these older dates are under the assumption that there never was any worldwide flood.

This is not predicted by conventional evolutionary theory; and other discoveries have been made concerning dinosaurs which also are not predicted by evolutionary theory such as the discovery of soft tissue in bones that are not or are only partially fossilized.Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them: Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution.(I would be delighted beyond words if scientists had already begun dating pterosaur fossils through radiocarbon methods, but it appears we need to wait for that.) Shellac contamination?A 1990 experiment that involved radiocarbon dating of pieces from two dinosaur bones—that test will not be covered, for it involved a controversy regarding a report of shellac that may have contaminated one of the two sample sources.

Leave a Reply