Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs elucidating the mechanism of cellular uptake and removal of protein
As I have noted previously, it’s a wonderful time to be a young-earth creationist.All sorts of interesting data are being uncovered that challenge the supposedly “rock-solid” idea that the earth is billions of years old.Carbon-14 can be used to date organic material that was once alive such as wood, animal hair, skin, or soft tissue, unmineralized bones, and even mineralized bones after the minerals have been removed. Many scientists, students, and others are now acknowledging that Dinosaurs probably didnt go extinct 65 million years ago, but in the recent past: which explains why they are described in the Old Testament, 11. Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes only Detailed Papers on Carbon 14: "MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS..." by Baumgardner, Humphreys, Snelling and Austin. Berg; No part of this paper may be reproduced, used, or sold for profit without the express written consent of the author.Uranium 234, a radioactive element present in the environment, slowly decays to form thorium 230.Using a mass spectrometer, an instrument that accelerates streams of atoms and uses magnets to sort them out according to mass and electric charge, the group has learned to measure the ratio of uranium to thorium very precisely.
But it is already clear that the carbon method of dating will have to be recalibrated and corrected in some cases.
The Lamont-Doherty scientists conducted their analyses on samples of coral drilled from a reef off the island of Barbados.
The samples represented animals that lived at various times during the last 30,000 years. Alan Zindler, a professor of geology at Columbia University who is a member of the Lamont-Doherty research group, said age estimates using the carbon dating and uranium-thorium dating differed only slightly for the period from 9,000 years ago to the present.
Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.
Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years.