Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

DNA half-life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

If paleontology lives by radiometric dating, it also dies by radiometric dating. Either DNA trapped in 200 million-year-old Jurassic insect amber is young or it has some unexplained source. I argue it is young. Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young. As I’ve said many times, the radiometric date of 65 million-year-old rocks is irrelevant to the radiometric date of the actual physical tissue of a fossil. I could bury a living dog in 65 million-year-old rocks, and the age of rocks will have nothing to say of the age of the dog. The best inferences for time of death of a fossil: half-life of C-14, half life of DNA, half-life of amino acids, etc., NOT the age of the rocks they are buried in…

From Nature News

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate.

Determining that rate has been difficult because it is rare to find large sets of DNA-containing fossils with which to make meaningful comparisons. To make matters worse, variable environmental conditions such as temperature, degree of microbial attack and oxygenation alter the speed of the decay process.

But palaeogeneticists led by Morten Allentoft at the University of Copenhagen and Michael Bunce at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, examined 158 DNA-containing leg bones belonging to three species of extinct giant birds called moa. The bones, which were between 600 and 8,000 years old, had been recovered from three sites within 5 kilometres of each other, with nearly identical preservation conditions including a temperature of 13.1 ºC. The findings are published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B1.

Diminishing returns

By comparing the specimens’ ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information.

“This confirms the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient insects trapped in amber are incorrect,”

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

😯

Mark Armitage was fired because his data dared to question the mainstream. And now we find dino blood with dino DNA that can’t be more than a few million years old, maybe even on the order of thousands of years with a DNA half-life of 521 years! And what about DNA insect amber? Armitage was fired, but his claims continue to be vindicated by mainstream science. His career martyrdom was not in vain.

We can assume for the sake of argument the universe is old, the Earth is old, that even many fossils are old, but if some fossils are proven young (like the dinos and insects) paleontology will go into anarchy and evolutionism won’t even have a coherent chronology to go on. One does not have to be a YEC to realize the latest discoveries are good news for ID because it casts doubt on the claims of Darwinist interpretation of the fossil record.

NOTES
1. HT: Darwin then and now

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

2. Hope Ken Ham bashes Bill Nye with this in debate. 🙂

Comments
JGuy:
Adam was not suppose to name species as you think of them. Nor was he told to name every animal. He named the beasts of the field.
Not true. Adam named every animal that walked on the ground and every bird that flew in the sky. The only species he did not name were the creatures in the seas and the lakes and rivers. Even if we do not count variations within kinds (a just-so story, not unlike Darwinist stories), we would still have tens of thousands of species. Not even the six-million dollar man could do what Adam did in one little afternoon.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
For the interested - random YEC links on the age of the earth etc.: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate Young Earth 101 Evidences for a Young Earthdrc466
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Lincoln,
It’s disappointing that there is none !
From this, I will assume that you take the position that every single one of those articles claiming to have found ancient fossil tissue is mistaken/false.
The rocks that the dino bones are in dates the dino bones.
As shown by scordova's "bury a dog today" example, this is a fairly large assumption that is at the core of CvE disagreement. Stating it as a fact doesn't make it so. I take it you would agree that there's not a lot of pure undecayed uranium laying around? Yet apparently dinosaurs had perfected uranium-smelting operations...
As the science shows there is a natural explanation so far for other results. That YEC don’t like the results is no good reason to claim palaeontologists are negligent (deliberately or otherwise) in their jobs.
The only thing your citation shows is that YEC'ers have accused evolutionists of failing to look for original biological material in dinosaur fossils, because their long-age paradigm makes them believe it would be a waste of time. This would seem to be an uncontroversial, obvious assertion. You can't say that YEC don't like the results, because...there are very few results to dislike. And the results that do exist (ref prior link) support YEC. Unless you are saying that scientists HAVE looked for biological material in ancient fossils and HAVE NOT found any. If that is what you are saying, I would appreciate seeing links to those studies, as I am unaware of any such.
people have been gagging out for dino DNA.
And yet, as I just stated, I don't know of any study where a group of scientists cracked open a dinosaur bone to look for DNA, and failed to find anything at all. I do know of scientists refusing to even look, which seems against the true spirit of science, but hey. Realistically, though, I have to sympathize with scientists such as Jack Horner faced with the challenge of looking for dino DNA. As can be easily seen by the Armitage example, such a move carries significant career and reputation risks. How many of us would do something we weren't required to, at the risk of our jobs? I probably wouldn't, sadly - I need my job.drc466
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Mapou @ 64 Adam was not suppose to name species as you think of them. Nor was he told to name every animal. He named the beasts of the field.
We can safely assume that there were many more animal species moving about then than now.
That's not a safe assumption at all. Though I believe there were were more varieties of animals pre-flood. The original creation needed only the original kinds of animals. For example, there needed not be lions and tigers etc...but an original feline kind. With higher genetic potential, diversification would be rapid. Consider for example that every dog today could be from one more original variety of dog (w/ greater genetic potential) - some describe it as something akin to a wolf.JGuy
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
LP @ 58 Is your assertion that the fiction writer Crichton was writing about what scientists actually thought regarding the possibility or prospect of finding dino DNA in any recognizable form?JGuy
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
I'm a little busy today. Can someone post some info on the diffusion work on Zircons, argon in the atmosphere, lack of saturation of minerals in the ocean, etc. I wrote an essay on the problem of fast entombment and slow erosion and the geological column. https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/cocktail-falsifying-darwinism-via-falsifying-the-geological-column/ To my astonishment there weren't many credible counter arguments. Invoking million of years in geological processes cuts both ways. Time can destroy the fossil record faster than it can build it! The 521-year DNA half life has opened a nice panadora's box against the Darwinists. We may as well pour it on them in this discussion. :-) This data point on DNA doesn't lie in isolation, it is representative of problems the paleontological community is actively suppressing. We don't have to insist the Earth is young, we can say however, science doesn't make the mainstream paleontological account a done deal, responsible science ought to classify it as a speculation at best given the mountains of evidence based on basic science against the standard Darwinist narrative. The fact that an agnostic like Richard Milton sees the problems is indicative that the contentions put forward by the YECs don't have to be religiously based. The difficulties are so obvious even non-creationists are becoming skeptical. Really, finding dino blood and soft tissue and soft tissue in amber after tens and hundreds of millions of years seems downright problematic. Why hasn't erosion of a mere 6cm per 1000 years erased the Phanerozoic record within about 10 million years. Certainly it seems awfully premature to say the evolutionary record is settled science since basic science does not cooperate with the Darwinist narrative. Worse for the Darwinists, even if we assume their chronology, it doesn't help their case since real evolution in the wild is destructive, not constructive.scordova
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
JGuy @39:
This doesn’t add up. The text does not call the Adam male and female. God made man and woman both on day six. Besides, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are accounts of part of the same week of creation, but in a different perspective. Nowhere does it indicate Eve was created long after Adam.
Let's see now. Adam was lonely. So God asked him to give a name to all the animals on earth. We can safely assume that there were many more animal species moving about then than now. That is a huge number. Adam was still lonely. So God operated on Adam and Eve was created. Consider that naming all the animal species on earth is something that would take many decades, if not centuries, even if thousands of people worked at it. And you can't just do it orally. You need a writing system and a record keeping system. And all this animal-naming business occurred in one little afternoon? And that wily talking serpent had time to fool Eve into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. All that knowledge was downloaded into Eve's brain instantly. And all this amazing stuff happened before the setting of the sun? You YECs are hopelessly delusional. Doctrine is all that is important to you.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
LP You find soft dinosaur tissue in strata that also has a igneous rock formation. What is the right tool to date the soft tissue?JGuy
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Mapou:
I take it you are a YEC?
No. I don't hold to a particular timeframe. If anything, I tend to lean toward an old earth chronology and it would take a lot more to convince me that a YEC position is tenable. That said, I do think some thoughtful YEC's have raised some valuable questions and I am always open to learning more. What I am opposed to is dogmatic interpretations of a few words here or there in scripture, in a language that was translated from another language, that was written down by someone who presumably heard it through oral tradition handed down for a couple thousand years, and when the purpose of the writing almost certainly wasn't to give a scientific answer to the age of the Earth anyway.Eric Anderson
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
LP
Joe, ok so you don’t like, don’t understand or don’t want to understand what scientists calculate and explain. I get that; you had to be there for it to be “real”. Then invent a Time Machine and go visit it. Drop in to the 3rd Reich and the Moon Landings as there are just as many people who have a problem with that history too.
Historic events and scientifically testable hypotheses are two very different things, LP. This is the furthest one can get from an analogous comparison.TSErik
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Joe, ok so you don't like, don't understand or don't want to understand what scientists calculate and explain. I get that; you had to be there for it to be "real". Then invent a Time Machine and go visit it. Drop in to the 3rd Reich and the Moon Landings as there are just as many people who have a problem with that history too. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Someone who brings it all together like Dalrymple is a lot rarer.Lincoln Phipps
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
drc466, the key point is "perhaps even DNA". The link you provide is duplicitous when it says, "Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of secular universities ignoring previous claims by young-earth creationists due to the false evolutionary timescale which so biased paleontologists that they would never even look for non-decomposed original biological tissue inside of dinosaur bones." Why ? Well ever since Jurassic Park (1990 for the book but really Crichton was thinking of this earlier in 1983) and quite possible earlier people have been gagging out for dino DNA. As science has sequenced whole genomes since the early 1980s then it has always been assumed that there would potentially be DNA to find albeit decayed. It's disappointing that there is none ! No dino pets. The rocks that the dino bones are in dates the dino bones. As the science shows there is a natural explanation so far for other results. That YEC don't like the results is no good reason to claim palaeontologists are negligent (deliberately or otherwise) in their jobs.Lincoln Phipps
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
@Lincoln - Just out of curiosity, I would like your personal opinion on my linked list of ancient fossil tissue recorded in professional sciences journals (#18 above). Real tissue magically preserved, or are they all lying/mistaken? @20 Mapou - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on who's argument is weaker. Perhaps the following analogy will help: "In 1997 as a grad student in Animal Husbandry, I created several species of colored cows. First I created an egg-shell white cow, then a glossy black cow, and then an off-tan cow. My culminating triumph, however, was a species of green cow I called 'Greenies' I created on my last week of my final semester. I created my first green bull by taking a standard Holstein cow and splicing in the genome for the color green from a common American Lizard. I called him 'Greenie'. I then created a female cow variant by taking the color genome from Greenie and splicing it into a female egg. That's how I created my species of green cows called 'Greenies'". Other than being completely fictional and scientifically ridiculous, there isn't anything partically atypical about how I tell the story of the creation of Greenies above. In fact, there is almost no other way to tell the story in a sensible fashion. It also matches the pattern of the Genesis account of "man/adam". There isn't anything contradictory in stating that I created "Greenies" by my act of creating "Greenie". Nor is there anything contradictory in Genesis by stating in Genesis 1 (Intro) that God created man, in Genesis 2 (Details) that God created Adam and Eve first and only, and in Genesis 5 (Conclusion) that that was how God created man. Again, we'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I think my analogy above at the very least proves that the standard YEC interpretation of the Genesis account of man's creation via a single man is both reasonable and straight-forward.drc466
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Lincoln, I am an amateur astronomer. I have most likely read everything we have on the alleged formation of the earth. And as I said none of it can be scientifically tested.Joe
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Lincoln Phipps:
if you visit a library Joe then look under DDC 550 for Earth sciences. Or you can just google ‘ formation of the earth ‘.
Lincoln, everything I have read sez t6he earth formed via multiple cosmic collisions. That cannot be tested scientifically. IOW all we have is a bias based on people's personal point of view. FYI- the alleged age of the earth DEPENDS on the ASSUMPTION that the early earth was molten, above 20,ooo kelvin, such that no crystals remained. THAT cannot be tested.Joe
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
scordova, "Dr. David Plaisted has written a "critique" of radiometric dating, which appears on the The True.Origin Archive. He claims on p. 2 (the page numbers for Dr. Plaisted's report are based on placing a copy into Microsoft Word® with a Times New Roman Font 12 single spacing format) that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dalrymple (1984), Brush (1983), Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references. " For more see..... http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.htmlLincoln Phipps
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Joe, if you visit a library Joe then look under DDC 550 for Earth sciences. Or you can just google ' formation of the earth '. Brent Dalrymple's book should be fine for you (the earlier The Age of the Earth book or the more recent Ancient Earth, ancient skies: the age of Earth and its cosmic surroundings. Both are by the Stanford University Press. Sure you'll find critics of the science but the process of dating and the ages are accepted irrespective of religion, (or none). It is only a minority (so called Young Earth Creationists) that have a pre-conceived idea that the Earth should be young or should be formed in a certain way. Few other Christians have such niche views.Lincoln Phipps
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
There are problems with dating volcanically formed rocks. So much for "bracketing". http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html Some highlights:
Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning. Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava (properly called magma before it erupts) fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question. Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger. Finally, we have a third quotation from Elaine G. Kennedy in Geoscience Reports, Spring 1997, No. 22, p.8.:
Contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community.2 For example, if a magma chamber does not have homogeneously mixed isotopes, lighter daughter products could accumulate in the upper portion of the chamber. If this occurs, initial volcanic eruptions would have a preponderance of daughter products relative to the parent isotopes. Such a distribution would give the appearance of age. As the magma chamber is depleted in daughter products, subsequent lava flows and ash beds would have younger dates. Such a scenario does not answer all of the questions or solve all of the problems that radiometric dating poses for those who believe the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood. It does suggest at least one aspect of the problem that could be researched more thoroughly. 2. G. Faure. 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY, 589p. It is interesting that contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community. But they may not be so familiar to the readers of talk.origins and other forums where creation and evolution are discussed.
So there you have it. Ignore the actual clocks available in the fossils and then deliberately affix dates to the fossils based on the rocks they are buried in, not to mention the dates of the rocks may have issues as well. Where is the logic in any of this. No forensic crime scene investigator who investigates a buried body will attempt to establish time of death by measuring the age of the soil or rocks the victim was buried in, but this sort of illogical procedure is par for the course in paleontology. :roll: More from Plaisted:
Some information from the book Uranium Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Geology provided by Jon Covey gives us evidence that fractionation processes are making radiometric dates much, much too old. Geology contributing author Massimo Cortini cites a very interesting anomaly regarding the U 238 decay chain, which is U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, Rn-222, Po-218 Po-214, Po-210, Pb-210, Bi-210, Pb-206. The half life of U-238 is 4.47 x 10^9 years and that of Ra-226 is 1.6 x 10^3 years. Thus radium is decaying 3 million times as fast as U-238. At equilibrium, which should be attained in 500,000 years for this decay series, we should expect to have 3 million times as much U-238 as radium to equalize the amount of daughter produced. Cortini says geologists discovered that ten times more Ra-226 than the equilibrium value was present in rocks from Vesuvius. They found similar excess radium at Mount St. Helens, Vulcanello, and Lipari and other volcanic sites. The only place where radioactive equilibrium of the U-238 series exists in zero age lavas is in Hawiian rocks. Thus instead of having 1/(3 million) as much radium as uranium, which we should expect, there is ten times as much, or 1/(300,000) times as much radium as uranium. We need to consider the implications of this for radiometric dating. How is this excess of radium being produced? This radium cannot be the result of decay of uranium, since there is far too much of it. Either it is the result of an unknown decay process, or it is the result of fractionation which is greatly increasing the concentration of radium or greatly decreasing the concentration of uranium. Thus only a small fraction of the radium present in the lava (at most 10 percent) is the result of decay of the uranium in the lava. This is interesting because both radium and lead are daughter products of uranium. If similar fractionation processes are operating for lead, this would mean that only a small fraction of the lead is the result of decay from the parent uranium, implying that the U-Pb radiometric dates are much, much too old.</b< Cortini, in an article appearing in the Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research also suggests this possibility. He says:
"The invalidity of the Th-230 dating method is a consequence of the open-system behaviour of U and Th. By analogy with the behaviour of Ra, Th and U it can be suggested that Pb, owing to its large mobility, was also fed to the magma by fluids. This can and must be tested. The open-system behaviour of Pb, if true, would have dramatic consequences...." J Vol Geotherm Res 14 (1982) 247-260.
scordova
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Lincoln Phipps:
the fossils are dated by the bracketing in rocks and those rocks are dated by radiodating systems that do not have the known limits of C14 dating.
No one knows the age of the rocks unless they know how those rocks were formed and how the earth was formed. So please tell us when there is scientific data to support the premise that the earth formed via multiple cosmic collisions.Joe
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
@47 tjguy, That's a great list. And who's to say that the so-called 'starlight problem' won't end up to have been yet another 'old-age of the gaps' argument doomed to be falsified by further advances in scientific understanding, as were the 'Darwin of the gaps' arguments such as 'vestigial organs' and 'junk DNA'?George E.
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
the fossils are dated by the bracketing in rocks and those rocks are dated by radiodating systems that do not have the known limits of C14 dating.
A living dog today could be bracketed by old rocks if I buried it old rocks! The sedimentation video JGuy provided may suggest how this can be done in nicely stratified layers. Bracketing living dog today inside layers of old rocks doesn't make the dog 500 million years old! Unbelievable you guys will insist on using the rock dates when dates are available in the fossil tissues themselves, unless of course the truth needs to be covered up to maintain a narrative. If we found a victim buried somewhere due to some sort of catastrophe (say a flood or tsunami), would we use the date of the sediments to establish the approximate time of death? Heck no. But you guys insist on doing this even in the face of available alternate clocking mechanisms. scordova
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Lincoln says:
Over the past 100 years of radiometric dating the right tool for rocks has never been C14. The right tool is what doesn’t hit its limits when it is used.
The point is, how do you know what the right tool for the job is? If you automatically assume the rocks are old, then you use radiometric dating, but the point is, before you date the rocks, how do you know what the right tool is? It is quite informative that almost any time you use the C14 test on anything, you can find traces of C14 still in the rock, etc. That should not be if it is really old as is claimed. Here is an article that speaks to this C14 Dating problem: "What about carbon dating?" http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf And here is a short clip from another article that deals with the subject.
Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata. With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/
tjguy
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
OK, I was looking for a chance to post this without it being off topic. Here is a list of various natural processes that we used to think took thousands/millions of years to happen, but which have been demonstrated to happen very quickly! Check out the article for links to the scientific data supporting these claims. http://www.icr.org/article/7874/
One hour oil production Normally slow-decaying radioisotopes sometimes decay in very short time frames.4 Wood petrifies in decades or even weeks.5 Coal forms within weeks.6 Bacteria produce opals in weeks.7 Floods gouge huge canyons within hours or days.8 Brown coal releases natural gas in two to five days.9 Magma moves over 2,000 feet per day through Earth’s crust.10 Sedimentary layers are laid down in minutes.11 Diamonds harden in a matter of minutes.12 Gold forms from deep earthquakes almost instantly.13
Basically what this means is that scientists can no longer use these processes as support for an old earth.tjguy
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
scordova, the fossils are dated by the bracketing in rocks and those rocks are dated by radiodating systems that do not have the known limits of C14 dating. Using the right too for the job is not circular reasoning but being professional. Deliberately using a tool that will show only a limited reading is just dishonest. I would not expect someone to do that. Part of the science of measurements is choosing the right tool for the job. This applies to all fields from technicians to engineers and scientists. Over the past 100 years of radiometric dating the right tool for rocks has never been C14. The right tool is what doesn't hit its limits when it is used. The fossils are deemed old because they are in rock structures that are old and those rocks are measured using different isotopes that have different half-lifes. That's like choosing the right temperature probe on your temperature probe. Rather than going overscale and showing an wrong reading it shows an accurate reading. The temperature isn't what it is because of the probe but a n independent fact that you deny and try and cover up by using the wrong tool.Lincoln Phipps
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
JGuy, The disturbing thing to me is that this data should be interpreted as YEC rebuttal, counter-argument, or anything else. What I mean is that - The presence in chlorophyll in most plants is not a Catholic argument, socialist rebuttal, or anything else. - Punctuated equilibrium might be attractive to a Marxist philosophy, but that it does so is completely irrelevant to Science. See what I mean? -QQuerius
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Sal @ 42. Maybe that would be like someone finding an 1-hour hour glass with sand in it still falling through unimpeded. And a skeptic claiming that the hour glass must be broken, because they believe that it must have been draining for months.JGuy
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
Q (again), When I say that the arguments they have are distant starlight and radioactivity. That isn't to say that their arguments aren't without a YEC rebuttal or counter argument. My thrust was that that is what is usually relied on to make the claims for an old earth and/or universe.JGuy
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
If the radiocarbon dating has a limit according to the lab of so many thousand years then trying to date a sample that knowingly exceeds that then that’s always going to get a wrong reading.
Darwinist circular reasoning as usual. "The carbon dates are invalid because the fossil is old, the fossil is shown old because the carbon dates are invalid." You're assuming the very thing your trying to prove. That was the same circular reasoning in play in part of your link to the antediluvian DNA. Some of that info was correct, but not all of it, and where it was wrong is the issue at hand. Circular reasoning and dodging due process to hide inconvenient facts ought to be called out, and Jack Horner bailed. The only way this false narrative will be perpetuated is through institutional facism and a culture that willing disbelieve Design like JLAFan....it's not because the data is really helping out evolutionism. I'm not insisting all fossils are young based on DNA half life, but its enough to throw paleontology into disarray if they were willing to deal fairly with the facts. They won't do it, they'll choose to close their eyes like JLAFan and just keep screaming falsehoods in the face of truth.scordova
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Q, I didn't read it carefully, but I think Schweitzer’s theory is not based on actual decay rates. It's based on the decay compared between two samples. In other words, take the best case scenario of the evolutionists & old earth types, and assume the tissue was soaked in a bathtub of blood (ewww)...and somehow encapsulated that way. They still need to determine, if I'm not mistaken, the rate of decay in this unrealistic best case scenario. My bet is that it still won't work.JGuy
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
Some comments on the comments:
Schweitzer’s new theory is that the rich iron content in blood helped preserve proteins for 100+ million years.
Yeah, it musta worked like that because everyone knows that the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago . . . and around the circle we go. Wheee! Don't forget background radiation (mostly from Radon). It's a ubiquitous factor that's even present in bones, and this radiation is slowly cooking the DNA, relentlessly breaking it apart. Naturally, Darwinist apologists will eventually have to claim that ancient DNA musta been more resistant than modern DNA, and then they run off in search of some unlikely reason such as a protein that contains Fe ions that magically reflects or absorbs radiation. We know it must be working, but just not exactly how. lol And this is what passes for Science? It's more like science fiction!
The only thing old earthers really have to argue with are distant starlight and radioactive dating.
With the inflationary model of the universe, a star that's 55 million light years distant (let's say SDSS J122952.66+112227.8) doesn't mean that the light we see from it was in transit for 55 million of our years. Remember that the universe initially expanded much faster than the speed of light. In other words, that star might have been very close only 1 million years ago--the fabric of space inflated "beneath" it, stretching the light. Because of wide discrepancies between the results of different radioactive dating methods, the results have to be "calibrated" (I'm not making this up). Of course the old term for calibration was "cheating." Dang, I wish I would have thought of "calibrating" my results in the various lab sections that I took in college. lol -QQuerius
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply