Loretta Sosa, 36 years old
Claim CD :. Source: Lee, Robert E. Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Radiocarbon dating talk origins 19 3 : Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19 2 :
At four to five meters in length, the Greenland shark Squaliformes, Somniosus microcephalus is the largest fish native to the Arctic waters. Getting that big must take a while, and scientists have long known that these sharks grow less than one cm per year. Instead, the team used a modified radiocarbon dating technique that has worked before on other boneless animals: tracking the chronology of the eye lens. The eye lens nucleus is composed radiocarbon dating talk origins inert proteins.
For Research Professionals Please contact Managing Editor Kim Elliott kimelliott at email. Please scroll down on this page for links to computer programs.
Radiocarbon dating talk origins
More about radiocarbon dating talk origins:
They say Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth radiocarbon dating talk origins. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. Despite the claims of the demonstrably unreliable Talk. Origins site, they have failed to deal with the problems 14 C poses for uniformitarians. First of all, they are wrong to suggest that 14 C is a problem for biblical creationists. Radiocarbon does not pose a problem for the young earth position since 14 C has a half-life of 5, years—meaning that no 14 C ought to be detected in any sample that is believed to be more than aboutyears old. In fact, if a lump of 14 C were as massive as the Earth, all of it would have decayed away in less than a million years.
Radiocarbon dating talk origins is a slightly modified version of an article that first appeared on the American Scientific Affiliation's website. An early draft was responded to by Dr. John Baumgardner. The current article contains Dr. Bertsche's reply.