The Instigator
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ferare
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/1/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 648 times Debate No: 78314
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

Dinosaurs have been carbon dated by many laboratories all over the earth and the results have come back 'young'. For this argument, I will use a specific example of this because in my opinion it's so well done. They have used state-of-the-art equipment.

This paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting, their abstract was without any notification removed from the website after the meeting by two chairmen, no scientific reason was given.

Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

Here is the website and you can read for yourself:
http://newgeology.us...
Ferare

Con

Hello, I'm looking forwards to this.

Just a point of order, I assume we will discuss the validity of carbon dating dinosaur bones, rather than the outcome of the dating. Otherwise, I can't debate your statement without performing tests of my own.

Carbon dating depends on the half-life of Carbon-14, which is around 5700 years. That means that the amount of Carbon-14 is cut in half 10 times within less than 60 000 years. Therefore, carbon dating is not recommended to determine any age over 50 000 years. (1) Rather, you should use Radiometric dating, where they look for isotopes with a half-life of millions, sometimes even billions of years. (2) While a bit less accurate, it can be used over much longer time frames. If you want to approximate a skeleton you found in a tomb, carbon dating is better but it's useless over the time frames we are discussing.

In conclusion, it's quite possible that the carbon dating shows that these bones are around 40 000 years old, but that does not necessarily reflect the age of said bones. It's just not possible to go much further back using that technology.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org... (sorry for the source, couldn't find any decent source without paywalls)
2: http://paleobiology.si.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

You: Just a point of order, I assume we will discuss the validity of carbon dating dinosaur bones, rather than the outcome of the dating. Otherwise, I can't debate your statement without performing tests of my own.

Answer: Yes, it's about the validity of the results.
_____________________________________
You: Carbon dating depends on the half-life of Carbon-14, which is around 5700 years. That means that the amount of Carbon-14 is cut in half 10 times within less than 60 000 years. Therefore, carbon dating is not recommended to determine any age over 50 000 years. (1) Rather, you should use Radiometric dating, where they look for isotopes with a half-life of millions, sometimes even billions of years. (2) While a bit less accurate, it can be used over much longer time frames. If you want to approximate a skeleton you found in a tomb, carbon dating is better but it's useless over the time frames we are discussing.

Answer: I completely agree with everything you said, I would suggest that carbon dating begins to be less accurate after three thousand years, due to the constant (and faster than outcome) transformation of N-14 into C-14. However, we're not looking to determine an exact date for the age of dinosaurs. The point is, there should be exactly zero atoms of C-14 inside the bones if the dinosaurs went extinct 100,000 years ago, not to mention 70,000,000 years ago -- and therefore, I have to conclude that it had to be younger than that, since C-14 is found inside.
_____________________________________
Ferare

Con

"The point is, there should be exactly zero atoms of C-14 inside the bones if the dinosaurs went extinct 100,000 years ago, not to mention 70,000,000 years ago -- and therefore, I have to conclude that it had to be younger than that, since C-14 is found inside."

I understand. I appreciate you took the time to explain about contamination, since that seems to be the most relevant point in that case. As the amount of detectable carbon is halved every 5700 year, you could be down to a few thousand, or even a few hundred isotopes. In other words if it originally had 100 000 isotopes, it would have 97 after 57 000 years. As that is an extremely low number, a small contamination that may have not been relevant in a normal test can skew it completely.
I couldn't find a link to the publishing article this was extrapolated from, and this is not an attempt to muddy the water (the source you provided may be completely valid and I'm not trying to achieve guilt by association) but there have been creation scientists who have been disproven. This is more of a comment concerning the wording in the article you posted, saying that other findings corroborate their claims without really giving examples.
Some have not known that rock can in fact contain carbon as well, and therefore been convinced that the bones are not fossiles, using bad samples with shellac and other contaminations.
"The so-called "dates" are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic detritus and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the age of any dinosaurs."(1)

There is a very strong consensus on the age of dinosaurs. This is because they have managed to verify, by countless separate methods that dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago. It's news when they may have to adjust that by 1%. (2) They track countless isotopes, that all converge around that period. They measure rock samples and do chemical analysis, and a bunch of methods I don't understand. (3) The point is that they all match up. If one method, used primarily for a completely different purpose, gives a diffuse reading that should probably be discarded at that point. It could be worth to check closer into, but certainly not something you should change any predictions over and especially not totally revolutionary findings.

My last argument is of a different nature. I'm not sure who published this but New Geology, the e-mail domain, doesn't seem to exist on wikipedia and their highly 90's looking homepage also "debunks" plate tectonics, evolution, and discusses however God allows evil. (4) I'm not saying you should ignore people because they are religious, but if they are emotionally invested in find evidence of a young earth they will not be rational or truthful to themselves or others. These people are not scientists, they are firebrands. While they may use certain sciency-sounding words, they make the first mistake you can make - they start out by trying to prove what they are already convinced is the case.

1: http://www.fleming-group.com...
2: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org...
3: http://australianmuseum.net.au...
4: http://www.newgeology.us...
Debate Round No. 2
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

You: I couldn't find a link to the publishing article this was extrapolated from, and this is not an attempt to muddy the water (the source you provided may be completely valid and I'm not trying to achieve guilt by association) but there have been creation scientists who have been disproven. This is more of a comment concerning the wording in the article you posted, saying that other findings corroborate their claims without really giving examples.

Answer: In the link I provided, you can find a picture containing some of the data from this research along with e-mail addresses and other information relevant. Here you can see it: http://newgeology.us... and the talk organization can be seen here: http://newgeology.us... but the video has since been removed by the chairmen, this I find very disturbing and I take it as a serious move against the advancement of science, namely, the censorship of laboratory data which seems to disagree with the consensus -- re-calling that open discussion and disagreements is what advances science.
______________________________________
You: Some have not known that rock can in fact contain carbon as well, and therefore been convinced that the bones are not fossiles, using bad samples with shellac and other contaminations.
"The so-called "dates" are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic detritus and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the age of any dinosaurs."(1)

Answer: I don't understand what you are trying to bring forth here by talking about rocks containing carbon, I can't tell whether my understanding has fallen for the moment or whether you have not explained yourself well enough. Then, the statement given in your reference (1) seems to be concerned about contamination, which could have been a problem if this was one bone from one laboratory, but these results published on the website are many bones from different locations tested in different states, using state-of-the-art equipment to avoid contamination and taking every precaution. Therefore, contamination seems extremely unlikely. If that is the only explanation you (the opposition) have then I would consider your case extremely weak.
______________________________________
You: There is a very strong consensus on the age of dinosaurs. This is because they have managed to verify, by countless separate methods that dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago. They track countless isotopes, that all converge around that period. They measure rock samples and do chemical analysis, and a bunch of methods I don't understand.

Answer: Like I said above, that is false. I am very familiar with radiometric dating and I know for a fact that the assumption of constant is false, the decay rate is altered by heat and pressure, by solar flares and high amounts of He in various hard crystals support the idea that the decay rates are unstable. Then, the ages assigned to the various eras, contrary to what many believe, have not come from radiometric dating; they have been pulled out of the blue sky by influtential figures in the 19th and 20th century. I and many others have tested the assumed agreement between the various ages assigned to eras and radiometric dating by sending rock samples to laboratories without giving them the information necessary to rule out certain results, and they don't agree at all. You can google this practice and you'll see how many examples of this there are. In any case, I would love to have another debate with you about this, but in this debate, we discuss 'carbon dating' and whether or not it supports the idea that dinosaurs lived recently and not in the distant past.
______________________________________
You: My last argument is of a different nature. I'm not sure who published this but New Geology, the e-mail domain, doesn't seem to exist on wikipedia and their highly 90's looking homepage also "debunks" plate tectonics, evolution, and discusses however God allows evil. (4) I'm not saying you should ignore people because they are religious, but if they are emotionally invested in find evidence of a young earth they will not be rational or truthful to themselves or others. These people are not scientists, they are firebrands. While they may use certain sciency-sounding words, they make the first mistake you can make - they start out by trying to prove what they are already convinced is the case.

Answer: I don't care who is behind newgeology.us, what I care about is the data that they provide. Scientists don't dismiss data if the data comes from a person they personally disagree with, scientists always examine data regardless of the sender, and that is how science works -- it's independent.
______________________________________
Ferare

Con

In the link I provided, you can find a picture containing some of the data from this research along with e-mail addresses and other information relevant. Here you can see it: http://newgeology.us...... and the talk organization can be seen here: http://newgeology.us...... but the video has since been removed by the chairmen, this I find very disturbing and I take it as a serious move against the advancement of science, namely, the censorship of laboratory data which seems to disagree with the consensus -- re-calling that open discussion and disagreements is what advances science.

Are they being censored by youtube as well? A victim complex for having their incorrect theories challenged does nothing to prove them right. I'm not sure what chairmen you are referring to, but I suppose you are speaking of some scientific institution. It would not be sensible for them to publish studies on the impacts of smoking made by Marlboro, or environmental impact studies made by Exxon. Likewise, if fundamentalists try to nestle their pseudo-science into proper institutions, that should be scrutinized. Private lobbyists with a stated claim of what they are trying to "discover" do not belong in academia.

I don't understand what you are trying to bring forth here by talking about rocks containing carbon, I can't tell whether my understanding has fallen for the moment or whether you have not explained yourself well enough. Then, the statement given in your reference (1) seems to be concerned about contamination, which could have been a problem if this was one bone from one laboratory, but these results published on the website are many bones from different locations tested in different states, using state-of-the-art equipment to avoid contamination and taking every precaution. Therefore, contamination seems extremely unlikely. If that is the only explanation you (the opposition) have then I would consider your case extremely weak.

What I meant was simply that plenty of young earth creationists have made faulty studies, and therefore the argument of truth in numbers is not valid. Many of these have been elementary mistakes, as they are typically preachers while the competition are geologists and scientists. Your argument seems to rest on finding carbon 14 in every bone sample that has been tested. I don't think that is the case. Otherwise, it may very well be contamination. It would require extremely small amounts. Who performed the digg? Certainly religious groups or lobbyists are not given geological surveys, so they most likely got the fossils from a university or a museum, where they could have been laying in a dusty desk after being covered in some protective ointment. That would explain trace amounts of modern carbon.

Like I said above, that is false...

Well you have a scientific community against you, but if you can provide sufficient sources, I would gladly look over them. I disagree that radiometric dating is irrelevant, there is no point in talking about dating if we have no measure of time what so ever. If you can provide another dating method, we can follow that one instead.

Answer: I don't care who is behind newgeology.us, what I care about is the data that they provide. Scientists don't dismiss data if the data comes from a person they personally disagree with, scientists always examine data regardless of the sender, and that is how science works -- it's independent.

I would argue that your assertion is completely backwards, these people are not scientists and they are not dependent. On their homepage you can not find out anything about who they are, from where they receive funding and on what premises. They also have several outlandish claims that can not be substantiated. That should raise some flags. Who knows what they have omitted, and how they are manipulating their findings, we don't know who is behind it. These specific data are an anomaly, and it could be worth doing further research. Charlatans like these should not be involved however.
Debate Round No. 3
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

Ferare, would you like to stay with the science and the data or are you going to continue your irrelevant persecution of the people running the website, of the paleochronology research group responsible for the carbon dating, maybe even the laboratories in the U.S. where the dating was performed and the techician who signed the results?

Here is the video you requested: https://www.youtube.com...
Ferare

Con

Surely you must agree that the source of information, and motivation of the publishers is relevant? There is not that much more to be said about the data; the numbers are there, they are in complete conflict with all the mainstream science and other data. A likely reason is contamination, since they most likely don't perform excavations themselves. It's not irrelevant, or persecution, to question the motivation and methods of the publishers. Since they don't seem to be affiliated with any department, there is no disclosure or oversight of their methods. That's relevant.
Debate Round No. 4
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

In summary, the only scientific argument you have brought to the table is that the bones were contaminated. I would say that this is a very, very shaky and weak argument -- the reason I say that is.. quite obvious. Laboratory reports and the signature of one of the world's leading carbon dating technicians confirm that every precaution was taken to avoid contamination such as the protection of the bones, the avoiding of cracked areas, meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals, comparison of AMS collagen and bioapatite tests with conventional counting methods.

The extreme precautions taken above would be enough to rule out contamination even if one bone was tested, but they performed this exact same anti-contamination process on eight different bones, completely ruling out contamination as a possible explanation of the results.

If you want to keep telling us that the bones were contaminated, you better explain how contamination can leak into the results of EIGHT DIFFERENT BONES after precise and accurate chemical cleaning, after precise and accurate avoidance of possible contamination areas, after precise and accurate comparison of AMS/Conventional tests.
Ferare

Con

Hold on now. I have provided a lot more scientific data than you have, all pointing to dinosaurs being quite a bit older than you claim. Your continued unsubstantiated dismissals of what the actual scientists say made me change my approach. If we can't agree to a linear time table, there is simply no point in debating the science of dating things. Since you could not provide one form of measurement you believe in that stretches more than 50 000 years, it's pointless to argue the science. Somehow solar flairs and crystals has effected all isotopes in such an extreme and conform way that 100 000 000 years seems like 20 000 or vice versa.

Besides the actual science, I provided a hypothesis that would explain this anomaly, and provided sources of other times when creation scientists did similar things out of either incompetence or ill will. I also showed several other outlandish hypotheses this church, or lobby group or whatever they are, also claim. That is a substantial dent in their credibility, and therefore devastating to your case. I also brought up the question of the origin of these bones several times, without getting any response.

It's a pretty grand claim that we should completely abandon modern geology, astronomy, paleontology and our general scientific method because of one article. It's unreasonable to dismiss all other dating methods because one dating method points in another direction once. In my opinion, the most likely explanation is incompetence or ill intent from the team creating that article, but I can't substantiate that neither have I ever tried.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Actually, the debate was not about the age of the dinosaurs in general, it was a debate to determine whether or not CARBON DATING says dinosaurs are young. The goal of the opposition was to find errors in the data of the scientific method of carbon dating and this has not been done.
Posted by Ferare 1 year ago
Ferare
Once again, how could I possibly disprove a study if I'm not allowed to point to any other studies? And the question at hand, regardless of how poorly you worded it was "Answer: Yes, it's about the validity of the results." Not about carbon dating in general, not about the method in said study, but in the validity of the claim that dinosaurs lived 20 000- 40 000 years ago. That's the only logical way of understanding that. That's why I asked specifically if that was what you were asking for.
In other words, I'm perfectly in order to point to other studies that shows it's not a valid claim. Here is one of the sources I used to show there is a quite solid consensus that dinosaurs lived around 65 million years ago, despite them possibly having to revise their time-frame by 700 000 years.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org...

If you don't understand that you are painting yourself into a corner at this point, I'm just going to let you keep arguing against yourself. The debate is over, good bye.
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
No... what you have done is make the claim (without any evidence whatsoever, no reports, nothing) that different methods of dating all arrive at the same conclusion -- which is of course, beyond false. However, even if it were correct, it would still not apply in the debate, because I specifically started a debate on whether or not --------carbon dating----------- supports the young age of the dinosaurs.
Posted by Ferare 1 year ago
Ferare
A great way of disproving your claim, is to point to all the other measurements that disprove yours. That is precisely what the debate was about, the validity of the claim.
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
As clearly seen, the opposition has in his last argument appealed to the majority and the consensus of dinosaur age, this was not what the debate was about. The debate was about carbon dating specifically, and in that case he only provided contamination, which I carefully refuted in my last argument.
Posted by Leroy_J 1 year ago
Leroy_J
The link you've provided does not appear to be an unbiased source and the supposed study does not read or is presented as one from a serious scholar. That coupled with the fact that carbon dating can only be used for a maximum of 40,000 years and inaccuracies occurring the closer you get to this are inconclusive that this leads to a young earth.
Posted by TheProphett 1 year ago
TheProphett
Very impressive "paraphrasing."
Posted by Ferare 1 year ago
Ferare
I would happily debate this if you rephrased the question. Perhaps "Dinosaurs are young" or even "Certain dinosaurs are young". The only way I could refute your question as it is posed, is if I carbon dated those bones.
No votes have been placed for this debate.