I realize that this won't even phase the true believers, but I'm not posting this for their benefit. I'm posting it for those who might be undecided on this issue. Take a gander at this. http://crev.info/2015/06/c14-dinosaur-bone/ After reading this, ask yourself why the scientific community isn't doing their own testing. They should be all over this one.
This just shows how unreliable science is. Tomorrow they may find something new to reverse this which is why when people say something is scientifically proven they are showing their ignorance.
Creation science is pseudo science... Paleontologist don't try to make the fossil record "fit" the Bible because the Bible was never intended to be science and history.
How do you explain c14 in fossils that are millions of years old? Everything science knows about c14 tells us there should be none. Explain this.
Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon-14 dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Question: How does carbon-14 dating work? Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen-14 (N-14) into carbon-14 (C-14 or radiocarbon). Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C-14 into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C-14, and the old C-14 starts to decay back into N-14 by emitting beta particles. The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C-14 is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. C-14 decays with a half-life of 5,730 years. Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply? Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from - page 24 - the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however. continued here: http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
Has their claim been refuted? The answer is no. As far as I know, no one has even tried. Why is that?
This REFUTES the Creationist Junk Science. - - - Updated - - - Yes... and its been posted TWICE with a link. Creationists are pathetic.
From what I've read, c14 in the environment can vary wildly. In order for it to be accurate, we would have to know how much c14 was in the environment when the source of the sample died. It is entirely possible that a young earth had significantly less c14 than there is today. This would throw off the results obtained.
It has been refuted that c14 was found in fossils millions of years old? Really? How about posting that link again?
