Carbon 14 is not that complex really. When cosmic rays bombard earth's atmosphere, they produce neutrons. These neutrons then collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, changing them into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 is then absorbed by plants during photosynthesis. When the animals eat the plants the carbon-14 is then absorbed into there bodies, and when other animals eat that animal it is absorbed into them also. All of us have the same amount of carbon-14 in us currently and the carbon-14 slowly leaks out by turning into nitogen-14 and escaping but we, by eating, continually re-absorb it at the same rate. When an animal or plant dies the carbon still leaks out in this way but it is no longer being brought back into the body and me can measure the rate at which it leaves (the basis for carbon-14 dating) the problem with this is that all the carbon will leave any dead organism in about 11,460 years. So if we are finding this carbon in dinosaur ones and fossils these fossils can be no older than about 11,460 or else they would no longer contain carbon-14! This is why I believe that it is impossible for the millions of years necessary for the evolutionary process.
First off you do realize C14 dating isn't the only radiometric dating method used? These various methods are independent of each other and thus can be compared to confirm the age.
the problem with this is that all the carbon will leave any dead organism in about 11,460 years.
Who's @$$ did you pull this out of? Even the bs creationist sites state C14 lasting 50,000 years (which is still wrong).
So if we are finding this carbon in dinosaur ones and fossils these fossils can be no older than about 11,460 or else they would no longer contain carbon-14!
The second problem here is C14 dating isn't used to date dinosaur fossils, uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating is used.
Alexander... I have come to the conclusion that all you can do is regurgitate what some teacher has told you and that you are, yourself, looking for evidence that suits your own personal view... in other words, you are deluded and bias which takes your mind past the point of being able to reason properly.
Perhaps you can prove me wrong by showing some form of debate?
This means that after 5730 years, half of it is left. After 11,460 years, half of half is left, meaning 25% is left.
There comes to a point where the readings either become so insignificant that it's unreadable, or that it's small enough to conflict with the merging surroundings.
Either way, Mage wins this one. We do not use carbon dating to date dinosaur fossils. Carbon dating is used to measure more-recent dates, as it half-lifes faster.
You again... your threads were locked before I could comment on the great amount of stupidity you spewed forth. What with intelligent design... o boy. You sir obviously lack coherent knowledge on anything remotely scientific, especially when it involves evolution and the proving of evolution. Carbon 14 dating is perhaps the most widely known method of dating something, however, as previously stated it is not the ONLY method. Argon, which is much more stable than carbon, is also used to date things. Perhaps you should take a chemistry lesson as well. What scratch that, take chemistry and biology, and maybe physics for good measure.
Maybe these "facts" are coming from conservapedia.
Nope even conservapedia isn't that off.
"14C is unstable and decays back to 14N, at the rate of 50% every 5,730 years (so after 11,460 years 25% will be left, after 17,190 years 12.5% will be left, and so on)."
He should be allowed to speak his mind, I think he just needs to work on his fact checking a bit more. (lot more)
Ah I can see how that would come out... I don't mean to say plug his posts with no thought as to the contents. I meant plug his posts that show no thought in the content. e.g. this one.
Here are a few links for you Alexander so that you can educate yourself to the facts about the various types of radiocarbon dating and which methods are used. Also, I suggest you look some of this up on your own before you make any more threads about science. I can't tell if you are quoting NephilimFree from youtube or AnswersInGenesis' webpage, but both are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. And here's why:
You guys are totally correct I did double the half life which was entirely my mistake but I am human and in my hast to type that message up I did miscalculate but either way my point still stands. how can we possible find any carbon-14 in muti-milion year old fossils? Please enlighten me...
