However, creation scientists have carbon-dated fossils, diamonds, and coal that between carbon dating and old-earth thinking, but they are by no However, if you go to the official site, you can see that the talk has been removed. Well not those ones, I mean jr. high/ some highschool books and I. As soon as it dies, however, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones from outside, Another way of saying it is that the C14/C12 ration gets smaller. Do scientists assume that it was the same as it is now? . Refs2,3 below, as well as chapter on Carbon Dating from our Creation Answers Book. I am sometimes asked why I do not mention creation science, as an Darwin wrote a book that pulled together several scientific findings and Natural selection does not indicate what is best for individual happiness. . "People who ask about carbon (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric dating.
In his presentation, however, Dr. Seiler gives several lines of argument that tend to cast doubt on such an explanation. First, all the standard treatment used to make a fossil ready for carbon dating was done, which is supposed to get rid of contamination. Second, in some cases, they were examining actual proteins, such as collagen.
Third, there are some chemicals like humic acid that are common contaminants, and it was confirmed that the treatment done on the samples removed those contaminants. Fourth, the amount of carbon in the vicinity of the fossil decreased as you moved away from the fossil. However, I thought the most striking argument he made against the contamination explanation was his last.
He showed a graph that ordered the samples according to their amount of carbon, and he showed that they naturally separate into four distinct groups. The plants were all in the group that had the lowest level of carbon, while the dinosaurs and megafauna formed three other groups. This kind of structure would not be expected in data that come from contamination.
Creation Science Book Review
They strengthen the case for a discord between carbon dating and old-earth thinking, but they are by no means conclusive. Even combined with the previous studies, for example, the specimens represent only a small fraction of what is available to measure.
Also, until there is some explanation for the trends in the data, such as the grouping I mentioned above, there is always the possibility of an alternative explanation. Despite my caution, I can say two things for sure about these data. First, they are completely unexpected in any old-earth paradigm. The hypothesis was confirmed.
The sequences in hemoglobin has been compared across species. All hemoglobin has two chains: The number of amino acids in alpha chain is the same for all animals and the numbering the beta chain is the same as well they differ from each other.
When the ordering of the amino acids is compared, the DNA similarity is more similar among species that share a recent common ancestor than among species whose common ancestor is further away in time.
To get more different than that, you have to compare mammals with placenta to pouch mammals. So on and so on. Scientists found that the percentage difference was a surprisingly excellent match to the theory and provides some of the strongest evidence that the theory of evolution is correct. The DNA mutations allow the mutations to serve as a molecular clock. Furthermore, evolution predicts that natural selection has acted on the alpha and beta chains independently, with any harmful mutations being removed from the gene pool and helpful mutations being passed down through the generations.
What would be predicted based on this? Stop and think before reading.
More Problems with Carbon and Old-Earth Assumptions – Proslogion
Both chains have been mutating on occasion -- but the mutation in one of the chains will not affect the DNA of the other chain. It would be expected that animals close in evolution history will have similar alpha chains and similar beta chains to their more recent ancestors but since natural selection has been preserving helpful mutation that occur in either chain since hemoglobin evolved, then the two strands should diverge at about to about the same degree as the earliest split in species, and this difference between the two chains should be about the same for all species.
Unlike the discussion above, which does require some effort and careful reading of at least one full paragraph, some powerful evidence is very easy to see. It was this type of evidence that first suggested to scientists hundreds of years ago that evolution had occurred. Convergent and divergent evolution would occur under the pressure of natural selection, and otherwise makes little sense.
If one is trying to choose between two models one that each species was created separately about years ago; or that modern species have arisen from pre-existing life forms over millions of years which does the evidence support?
More Problems with Carbon-14 and Old-Earth Assumptions
Whales and dolphins have hip bones. Why would I put a hip bone in a dolphin and not a shark? Advancing technology has allowed radiocarbon dating to become accurate to within just a few decades in many cases.
Carbon dating is a brilliant way for archaeologists to take advantage of the natural ways that atoms decay. Unfortunately, humans are on the verge of messing things up. The slow, steady process of Carbon creation in the upper atmosphere has been dwarfed in the past centuries by humans spewing carbon from fossil fuels into the air. Since fossil fuels are millions of years old, they no longer contain any measurable amount of Carbon Thus, as millions of tons of Carbon are pushed into the atmosphere, the steady ratio of these two isotopes is being disrupted.
In a study published last yearImperial College London physicist Heather Graven pointed out how these extra carbon emissions will skew radiocarbon dating. Although Carbon comprises just over 1 percent of Earth's atmosphere, plants take up its larger, heavier atoms at a much lower rate than Carbon during photosynthesis.
Thus Carbon is found in very low levels in the fossil fuels produced from plants and the animals that eat them. In other words, burning these fossil fuels dwarfs the atmospheric levels of Carbon, too.