More Problems with Carbon and Old-Earth Assumptions – Proslogion
Jun 23, Bill Nye the Science Guy is back to explain climate change using a As a result, carbon dioxide concentration in the earth's atmosphere has. He references a rock formation dated ~ years old I'm pretty sure Bill Nye destroyed his "nothing is older than 6, years old". Oct 3, Carbon dating uses the radioactive decay of carbon into nitrogen .. “The reason for this apparent anomaly undoubtedly is that the act of.
Of course, both options could also be true.
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating – Proslogion
While these studies use several different samples, they represent the work of only a few scientists. As a result, it is always possible that they are not as reliable as they seem. However, as time has gone on, more people have been looking for carbon in carbon-containing materials that are supposed to be millions of years old, and the results are becoming more and more convincing.
The minute presentation, which you can watch herewas given by Dr. Thomas Seiler, a German physicist.
Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists
In it, he reports on the carbon dating of dinosaur bones, other megafauna such as mammothsand plants. In all cases, these materials are supposed to be millions of years old, but they all have detectable levels of carbon in them. This is in agreement with the two studies mentioned above, strengthening the overall case.
- BibMe Free Bibliography Citation Maker MLA, APA.
- Online History
- Rational Faith Showing why belief in Christianity is.
Of course, one possible explanation for these results is contamination. In his presentation, however, Dr. Seiler gives several lines of argument that tend to cast doubt on such an explanation.
First, all the standard treatment used to make a fossil ready for carbon dating was done, which is supposed to get rid of contamination.Bill Nye Fact-Checks His Weirdest Memes
Second, in some cases, they were examining actual proteins, such as collagen. Third, there are some chemicals like humic acid that are common contaminants, and it was confirmed that the treatment done on the samples removed those contaminants.
Fourth, the amount of carbon in the vicinity of the fossil decreased as you moved away from the fossil. However, I thought the most striking argument he made against the contamination explanation was his last. He showed a graph that ordered the samples according to their amount of carbon, and he showed that they naturally separate into four distinct groups.
The plants were all in the group that had the lowest level of carbon, while the dinosaurs and megafauna formed three other groups. This kind of structure would not be expected in data that come from contamination.
They strengthen the case for a discord between carbon dating and old-earth thinking, but they are by no means conclusive. Even combined with the previous studies, for example, the specimens represent only a small fraction of what is available to measure.
That's why Nye agreed to this debate, he wants to raise awareness that " this belief [in creationism] is still among us " and it is a political issue that cannot be ignored. Creationism still "finds its way onto school boards in the United States". This debate isn't about the world of real science. In the scientific community, the support for the theory of evolution is unquestionable. Instead, this is about alerting the whole population that creationism is still an issue and that teaching it to students is a moral wrong.
In September, I heard Nye speak and he explained that he had spoken out because he had a moral responsibility to oppose the teaching of creationism.
Radiometric dating bill nye meme
He's said creationism is "completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe" and miseducating a generation of students by teaching creationism will harm our country because "we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future". Nye is doing his part by raising awareness of the issue, but as citizens, we all have a moral responsibility to speak out and make sure the next generation of students is scientifically literate.
We can do that by fighting back against policy that would allow creationism into public school science classes. My home state of Louisiana has a creationism law, the misnamed and misguided Louisiana Science Education Act.
This law allows creationism to be snuck into public school science classrooms through a loophole: This legislation that allows "critiques" to be snuck into public school classes is the modern day strategy of creationists. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court in Edwards v Aguillardand Judge John Jones III in Kitzmiller v Doverhave invalidated the teaching of creationism or if its offshoot, intelligent design creationism in public schools.
Creationists are now resorting to stealth and this type of stealth legislation is what we must fight against today. Tennessee has a law based off Louisiana's that allows creationism to be snuck into the classroom, and each year we see dozens of copycat bills introduced across the country to attack the teaching of evolution.
Already inthere have been five bills that promote creationism or attack evolution in four different states Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Dakota. Some bills aren't even as clever as Louisiana's; In South Dakota, 13 legislators signed onto a flagrantly unconstitutional bill to "prohibit schools from preventing the instruction of intelligent design".
Texas also has problems with creationism. The largest charter program in the state, Responsive Education Solutions, is teaching creationism.
They describe evolution as "dogma", call the fossil record "sketchy", and explain that supernatural creation is an equally valid explanation of life on earth and a competing theory among scientists. Facing challenges by watchdog organizations, the CEO of Responsive Education Solutions, Chuck Cook, explained that he wasn't violating any laws, because Texas science standards call for teaching "all sides" of evolution.