Volcanic lies: Have prehistoric eruptions been lying about their age? | University of Canterbury
Main · Videos; Wiggle matching radio carbon dating meaning. ” we don't skew clink opposite a chic ways, but opposite many. Grumpier browning verses without . Jun 8, Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery by e.g. Youtube video https://www·youtube·com/watch?v=Kcuz1JiMk9k offers .. High- precision carbon dating involves wiggle matching, so most of the. It has a radio half-life (T 1/2) of 5, years and is a low energy beta emitter with a .. The carbon "age" will not match the tree ring "age" very well at all. . A t- value is given to a wiggle-match on the basis of a statistical .. This video presentation was up on YouTube at the time of writing this report (Link).
These ancient fossils should have no carbon remaining at all. When tested for carbon they should yield an "infinite" age but they do not because they do in fact have carbon remaining.
- Site Sections
- Medha: Preparing youth for life after school with new-age skills training
What is the explanation of this phenomenon? Such claims for carbon 14 found in organic material dating in the millions of years are in fact quite common. Coal is supposed to have formed millions of years ago, and yet all coal has fair amounts of carbon Of course, despite the great care taken to avoid contamination, significant levels of carbon, when found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old, are still attributed to contamination, background noise, or even production of carbon by the radioactive decay of other closely associated radioactive elements.
It is thought that one or all of these processes explain the fact that trace amounts of carbon are expected in all ancient organic material. These effects seems to limit carbon dates of all organic specimens to less than 43, years.
A team of researchers gave a presentation at the Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, Augustat which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22, to 39, years, right in the 'ballpark' predicted by creationists.
It appears that the researchers approached the matter with considerable professionalism, including taking great pains to eliminate contamination with modern carbon as a source of the 14C signal in the bones. This video presentation was up on YouTube at the time of writing this report Link.
They say that the media should be encouraging scientists to do this also, presenting the findings openly and honestly at similar conferences. This would certainly be in the interests of scientific truth - especially following the repeated findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and now even seemingly irrefutable DNA in dinosaur specimens.
The public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth. Normally as in any test with decay counting, background counts must be made.
Usually, fossil carbon is used for the background count since it is assumed that the fossil carbon is anywhere between 60 and million years old and therefore cannot possibly have any 14C left. However, as previously noted, fairly high levels of carbon 14 are in fact present in these samples.
Brown reported in Origins 15p. The journal Radiocarbon Vol. The first group, from Simon Frazer University in British Columbia Vogel, Nelson and Southon measured 43 samples of anthracite coal from Pennsylvania, USA, that had been given the best known pretreatment to remove contamination by modern carbon. The sizes of the samples ranged from 0. They all yielded around 43,year carbon 14 dates, regardless of the sample size.
Again this finding was attributed to machine background and contamination during sample preparation. The second group, from the University of Toronto in Ontario Gurfinkel stated that "One of the major problems encountered in this study was the apparent presence of 14C contamination in samples that were assumed dead. Gurfinkel, went through a meticulous process using graphite, calcite, limestone and anthracite samples to come up with her conclusions. And, all she could say is that "infinite age" samples should be expected to have "contamination" giving dates as recent as 43, years, which is similar to what the Simon Frazer University group obtained.
As more and more groups looked at this problem, it has become common knowledge that there is a wall this side of about 50, 14C years that cannot be passed in practice. Now, consider that if the "background noise" was really a problem that even if no sample was in the detection machine that the machine would still report background noise corresponding to ages less than 50, years. This is not what happens.
According to Schmidt et. Compare this with "infinite age" samples of fossil coal, oil, bone, ect. So, what about other sources of actual contamination?
However, to explain the current rather high levels of 14C in coal, oil, and other ancient carboniferous fossils, the amount of surrounding radioactivity must have been much greater in the past. For example, lets say we have a 10 million year old specimen with enough 14C in it to give it an apparent age of 40, years.
In order for this level of 14C to be the result of surrounding radioactivity the initial level of radioactivity 10 million years ago had to be far above lethal levels high enough to glow like a light bulb. This level of contamination would be hard enough to believe with oil and gas, but would be extremely incredible with coal since many coal seams are hundreds of feet thick and very pure without evident radiogenic contamination significant enough to explain the high carbon 14 levels generally found in coal fields all over the globe.
Clearly there is a problem here.
Volcanic lies: Have prehistoric eruptions been lying about their age?
The common explanations given simply do not explain the obviously high levels of 14C in supposedly ancient organic specimens to my own satisfaction. These specimens often come from deep in the earth in areas that are effectively shielded from environmental carbon interaction or contamination. Without the possibility of carbon exchange with the external environment, how could such specimens be contaminated?
The 3D position of all excavated objects such as coprolites, feathers, bones, eggshell fragments is accurately measured and recorded so that the relative positions can be plotted later using 3D visualisation software. Once removed from the ground, objects are individually stored in sterile bags or vials to prevent cross-contamination, and kept at low temperature to help preserve DNA. Sediments are sampled stratigraphically for analysis of DNA, pollen, fungal spores, and plant macrofossils.
Sediment cores are being taken from wetland and forest soils using two different methods. First, where soils are hard, compacted, or full of fibrous roots, a square pit is dug using a spade, and a length of drain pipe sliced in half is pressed into a face of the pit. The pipe is then held in place while the spade is used to slice around it, and when the pipe is removed it should contain a D-shaped section of the soil. Where sediments are less compacted or silty, or have a high moisture content such as in wetlandswe use a Russian D-corer.
This device consists of a semi-circular barrel that rotates and cuts a D-shaped core around a flat blade that acts as an anchor. The barrel can be pushed to the required depth using the handle and attachable sections of shaft for more information see Prehistoric Settlement Impacts. The world-class facilities are specifically designed for the retrieval of tiny amounts of small or damaged DNA from ancient samples.
The lab is positively pressurised for the same reason, and while it is sterilised by UV light each night, every surface or benchtop touched by researchers is frequently cleaned using a combination of bleach, detergent, and alcohol.