The Instigator
Abeceda
Pro (for)
The Contender
Apophis66
Con (against)

The existence of C-14 in the bones of dinosaurs proves they lived less than 100,000 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Apophis66 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 99230
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Abeceda

Pro

The theoretical limit for the detection of C-14 is 100,000 years. Therefore, when C-14 is detected in a closed system, the age is certainly less than 100,000 years of age. C-14 has been detected in numerous dinosaur bones consistently, therefore the dinosaur bones are less than 100,000 years. Read further for more information:

Ten researchers from the United States, France and Poland wrote a report called BG02-A012 A Comparison of 13C & pMC Values for Ten Cretaceous-Jurassic Dinosaur Bones from Texas to Alaska, China and Europe - after investigating the existence of C-14 in dinosaurs.

In this report, they state that they measured C-14 in 20 bone fragments of eight dinosaurs from different locations, using accelerator mass spectrometry at the University of Georgia. The removal of contaminants and preparation of the samples was overseen by senior scientist and carbon dating expert dr. Alexander Cherkinsky. As a cross check, two of the samples were dated using conventional equipment and the results were compared to confirm accuracy.

To summarize their research in five points:
(1) There was not one dinosaur, but eight different dinosaurs.
(2) The eight dinosaurs were not from one location, but several.
(3) There were taken not few, but twenty two samples for testing.
(4) The process was overseen independently for accurate handling.
(5) The samples were dated using two methods as a cross check.

The data came in a very consistent manner and there was no inconsistencies in the data. This, in combination with the five points above, make contamination an impossible explanation for the data that was observed in the study. If you have an alternative explanation, feel free to accept the debate and present that explanation. If you need clarification, please do not accept the debate, but use the comment section to voice your concerns.
Apophis66

Con

I would like to present three rebuttals to this argument.

The bones that are found are not the actual dinosaur bones and are minerals including Carbon that have replaced the bone over time. The C-14 in the mineral rocks are not the same as that in the original fossil and this is an illegitimate way of dating a fossil. This C-14 came later and can be much younger than the fossil.

Also C-14 has a half-life of 6,000 years which means that after 6,000 year half of it will degrade. So if the fossil was millions of years old there would only be a tiny amount left. All dating methods have a margin of error because sometimes C-14 can come in from the outside, and usually this margin is about 2% when there is a normal amount of the original left.

If we have only trace amounts of the original left then the margin of error will be bigger than the amount left making the method inaccurate. That is why we don't use Carbon dating on fossils that are millions of years old because there isn't enough original carbon left to do a date because it will be much smaller than any carbon that got in from the outside.

On old fossils it is better to use isotopes that have a half-life of millions of years because there will still be a significant amount of the original left and there are plenty of dating methods that do this.

If you want to use C-14 on the minerals that have replaced dinosaur bones, you need to present evidence that this method has been used accurately in the past because no real scientists do this for the reasons I have mentioned above, and this use of dating you are proposing is completely new and untested.
Debate Round No. 1
Abeceda

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I shall do point by point counter rebuttals.

(1) The bones that are found are not the actual dinosaur bones and are minerals including Carbon that have replaced the bone over time. (1A) C-14 does not force it's way inside fossils and become a part of a fossil over time, there is no mechanism known to science that would allow this to happen. The way C-14 comes inside the bones is through the processes of respiration and consumption, which are processes that cease to happen at the time of death and therefore the carbon dating method can provide a relatively accurate date and show researchers how many years have passed since the death of an organism.

(2) All dating methods have a margin of error because sometimes C-14 can come in from the outside, and usually this margin is about 2% when there is a normal amount of the original left. (2A) As I have explained in my opening argument, when many dinosaur bones from many different locations are split into many samples and then the samples undergo an excessive chemical cleaning to remove potential contaminants, as well as undergoing two different types of dating methods as a cross check - and then they arrive with the same date ranges - one can be certain that contamination is not responsible.

(3) On old fossils it is better to use isotopes that have a half-life of millions of years because there will still be a significant amount of the original left and there are plenty of dating methods that do this. (3A) First, what you state is completely irrelevant to the case that I have presented, as the method of accelerator mass spectrometry will not under any circumstances detect C-14 after a total of 17 half lives, or roughly 100,000 years. Secondly, your train of thought is positively anti-scientific. One does not simply assume the age of a fossil before the act of dating, but vice versa. But like I said, this is totally irrelevant to the case (as AMS does not count above 100,000 years even theoretically).

Apophis66

Con

What you are forgetting is that these fossils we are finding are not the original bone, but are minerals that have replaced the bone when it decayed. So I do not believe that C-14 forced its way into bone. It is very commonly known that Carbon dating usually only works on organic material. It works in plants because plants take C-14 from the atmosphere the radiocarbon ratio is the same as the atmosphere. When the plant dies the C-14 is no longer replaced and begins to decay.

As the Oxford dating service explains:
"For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. This means that things like stone, metal and pottery cannot usually be directly dated by this means unless there is some organic material embedded or left as a residue."
https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk...

You need to explained how the starting radiocarbon amount in the fossil minerals will be the same as the atmosphere and how no new carbon will be added. If the minerals didn't get their carbon from the atmosphere carbon dating is inaccurate.

Another point to mention is that fossils are coated with preservatives like Acetone and Shellac which have C-14 while being dug up and transported and we don't know if all of it was removed.

You also said that they were dated using another dating method. Seeing that this study was disowned by its own university I am curious to know what this other method was. You need to present evidence that this new method is accurate.

Concerning the point about dating old fossils, we know from many other dating methods that dinosaurs are millions of years old so we know that if we find C-14 in some of them there is a very high chance that this is merely contamination in a few samples even if we don't know what it is. If dinosaurs really are young then we should be finding significant C-14 in all dinosaurs yet no evidence has shown this.

My last point is even if these dinosaurs are thousands of years old then they are just undiscovered reptiles that survived past the mass extinction like crocodiles and modern reptiles. This doesn't prove all dinosaurs are young and that other dating methods don't work on them.
Debate Round No. 2
Abeceda

Pro

(1) The bones are mineralized and therefore not suitable for carbon dating
(1A) This tells me that you have not read the report. It clearly says that fractions of residual collagen were dated, in other words, the proteins of the main connective tissue. The bones were not mineralized. Please, the first step you should take is to read the report. This rebuttal is therefore dismissed, unless you can provide a further explanation or clarification of your rebuttal.

(2) Acetone and Shellac might have contaminated the bones
(2A) There are two things to consider here. First, the bones were not bought from a sales company, they were taken specifically for the task of carbon dating by professional paleontologists - they would know not to contaminate. Secondly, the chemical cleaning process was overseen by an independent senior scientist who is a carbon dating expert. There are no reasons to believe that Acetone or Shellac was used, and there are good reasons to dismiss that notion. Unless you can provide a reasonable case for this, then rebuttal is dismissed.

(3) If these dates are true then they are simply undiscovered reptiles like crocodiles
(3A) These are well known dinosaurs, not undiscovered. If the dates are true, science books have to be rewritten, the evolutionary theory has to be rewritten, countless theories have to be dismissed, for they all state, in unison, that dinosaurs went extinct as a whole a very long time ago, tens of millions of years ago, when an asteroid struck the earth and turned the entire planet into a living hell.

:)
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Abeceda 1 year ago
Abeceda
MagicAintReal, we are not going for accuracy, but for a determination that the age is less than 100,000 years
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Not with organic items within the 50,000 year range, in fact within said scale, C14 is one of the most accurate particularly with fossilized plants.
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
EggsAndSam
The C-14 method is a known flawed dating method that gets inaccurate information
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
C14 is only used for things that are less than 50,000 years old.
It'd be like saying that measuring an elephant with a kitchen scale indicates that elephants are only 2 pounds.
Well, the kitchen scale only goes up to two pounds, so it's not proper for an elephant.
This is the scale of your error.
This debate has 4 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.