The Instigator
Aleksa_Stojkovic
Pro (for)
The Contender
BezoomnyBratchny
Con (against)

Carbon dating proves dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Argument Due
We are waiting for BezoomnyBratchny to post argument for round #2. If you are BezoomnyBratchny, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
02days09hours47minutes02seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 14 hours ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 80 times Debate No: 107914
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Aleksa_Stojkovic

Pro

It's quite simple, what I'm saying here. The half life of C-14 is 5730 years, and therefore, no traces of C-14 should be found after 100,000 years, or 17 half lives. This is confirmed by accelerator mass spectrometry, which is the most accurate method used to carbon date.

www.newgeology.us presentation 48 (http://newgeology.us...) presents numerous results of dinosaur bones being carbon dated, in various laboratories, independently, and even signed by a leading carbon dating expert.


BezoomnyBratchny

Con

I accept.

Pro has provided a link to an article on newgeology that lists radiocarbon dating results for a number of different dinosaurs, all of which are a factor of tens of thousands of years. They use this as a case for the resolution that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago. But is the article sufficient to justify such a bold claim? No. The absolute best case scenario for Pro based on the case given so far is that the article gets cross-examined and comes out the other end smelling of roses. But this would not prove that dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago. If everything from the article checks out, at best it presents a conflict between radiocarbon dates of dinosaurs and relative dating done using various other radiometric techniques and/or with the use of index fossils. Pro would still have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate that the conflict should be resolved in favour of the radiocarbon dates.
Debate Round No. 1
Aleksa_Stojkovic

Pro

I would like to clarify that definitive proof can never be achieved, as I sense that the opponent is going to base his position on the fact that other methods seem to indicate different ages and that the age of the dinosaurs is therefore not conclusive. Of course, there will always be a conflict of data - but based upon scientific methods, we can determine what is likely to be the case. No one can ever present definitive proof, unless in mathematics. I am attempting to show that C-14 provides a very heavy case for young dinosaurs.

When multiple, non-affiliated, independent laboratories across the United States arrive at similar results for the age of certain bone samples, that carries significant weight - but even that is not the point - the point is, that nothing at all should be found in those bones when they exceed a hundred thousand years of age, and even standard methods that are not state-of-the-art managed to detect significant amounts of C-14 in those bones, repeatedly, without exception.

Unless a reasonable alternative explanation for the presence of C-14 is put forth, from a carbon dating perspective (which is a legitimate scientific method for dating bones), the conclusion is that dinosaurs likely lived tens of thousands of years ago, and definitely less than a hundred thousand years ago. And yes, the results presented have been cross-examined using multiple methods on several occasions, as written in the presentation. The names of the researchers are clearly written for verification purposes, and even the signature of a renowned carbon dating expert is to be seen in the presentation, as additional verification that the results are legitimate.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Aleksa_Stojkovic 14 hours ago
Aleksa_Stojkovic
WOLF.J - No I do not know, and neither do you, or anyone else. It will be a day to congratulate when you learn to differentiate between facts of nature and speculative ideas.
Posted by WOLF.J 6 days ago
WOLF.J
Mate you do know birds are descendants of dinosaurs, they're literally sh1ttin themselves right now!
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.