Funny carbon dating results
Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago.
What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years.
The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be .
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample.
By looking at the , it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
There are more than 80 such technologies that are claimed to work.
Prior to looking at the many flaws in the Carbon-14 Dating Technique, it should be noted that no radiometric technique is reliable.
Let’s now see if we cannot bring them together, at least for this “, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms.
Williams, Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled '93211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post...
Hominid skull.' We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago.
Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety that one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be 'Malibu Barbie.' It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradict your findings.
However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin: 1. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilised bone. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimetres, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time.