Cocktails! C14, DNA, collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

julianbre,

Querius, if your thinking about buying Darwin’s Doubt, do it! I’m re-reading it now. I enjoyed it even more than SITC. Dr. Meyer has really grown as a writer. The book will move you plus you will learn something new. Highly recommended!

Well, I took your suggestion and I wanted to thank you. What an interesting read so far! :-) Querius

Hi UD! Just finished Darwin's Doubt and reviewed it on Amazon.com as just great! I had the honor of chatting with Dr. Meyer about the book for an hour, 40 minutes of which we recorded as an interview to air in Denver and at http://rsr.org on Fri., Aug. 2. On Aug. 9th, we'll interview a PhD in nuclear chemistry to evaluate a single sentence in Meyer's "Questionable Assumptions" section on p. 109 :) Should be fun! -Bob Enyart Real Science Radio p.s. As we concluded Dr. Meyer agreed to keep an eye out in future research for the the millions of nautiloid fossils in the bottom layer of the Redwall Limestone throughout the Grand Canyon. (I especially enjoy the thousands fossilized standing on their heads. :) "Remember the Nautiloids" may turn out to be as substantive significant a challenge to Darwinism as is Remember the Cambrian. Bob Enyart

Thanks, julianbre. Great recommendation! OK, you convinced me. I'll go buy a copy! Querius

WD400 @ 76 See comments 30, 31 and 58. It's not a matter of making a complete case, but moreso highlighting the obvious contradictions to the popular geologic paradigm and circular reasoning on dating methods. Most people were conditioned to think some bad ideas (e.g. strata require millions of years to form). And this contradicts the fact that arguably all strata, especially those that have fossils, were needed to be laid down quickly. Example point: We find strata with the theme being parallel on massive scales. Where do we see such strata forming on regional, continental & intercontinental scales just as they are observed to exist? Again. Visit the comments above, and if you dare respond to comment 30/31. ... JGuy

Querius, if your thinking about buying Darwin's Doubt, do it! I'm re-reading it now. I enjoyed it even more than SITC. Dr. Meyer has really grown as a writer. The book will move you plus you will learn something new. Highly recommended! julianbre

The thread is now at 71 posts, and no has put forward a good empirical and theoretical case as to why the mainstream narrative is as good as the theory of gravity. I'm sure no account could satisfy youa at this point. But read this thread. It's just a series of clueless (and sometimes baseless) lurches from a tiny piece of data (sometimes burial is fast, you can get dates when you run c14 dating on fossils) to grant statements about how wrong geology is. If you have a real case about how bad mainstream geology is, then by all means make it. If all you've are these hald-understood factoids then there's really nothing to engage with. wd400

Sal,

One does not have to be a YEC to see the evidence does not support mainstream story telling of the past. Like evolutionary biology, its a cute story, but its only a story, and a story not consistent with hard nosed empiricism and basic logic.

Exactly! I would be delighted by reasonable, naturalistic explanations, but C-14 dating that comes up with the "wrong" answer uses so many "coulda" and "musta" excuses that it's reminiscent of Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit.

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it! Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

And yes, most of what I've learned about evolutionary biology is a scientific-sounding myth with beautiful plumage that consists of loosely assembled observations and self-referential conjecture, which often seems to be embarrassed by the latest discovery, and that is cemented together with liberal amounts of "Darwin of the Gaps" faith. Bah. Querius

Bob,

I guess I was naive for hoping that here, less mockery would accompany disagreements. To some this might sound surprising coming from me, but I wish there were more kindness in these discussions.

I so agree with you!

Related: I’ve heard it said that Meyer’s new book might be a tough read. So far, through chap. 16, I think Dr. Meyer targeted it well for an engaged layman readership.

The more I hear about it, the more I'm *really* tempted to buy a copy based on the quality of Meyer's Signature in the Cell, which I thought was well-researched, well-written, and fascinating. Querius

Hi guys, I guess I was naive for hoping that here, less mockery would accompany disagreements. To some this might sound surprising coming from me, but I wish there were more kindness in these discussions. Related: I've heard it said that Meyer's new book might be a tough read. So far, through chap. 16, I think Dr. Meyer targeted it well for an engaged layman readership. And as expected, it's a tour de force against neo-whatevertheyusedtocallit. :) -Bob Enyart Bob Enyart

More to smoke with your C14 pipes: http://crev.info/2013/07/underwater-forest-discovered-how-old/ http://www.livescience.com/37977-underwater-cypress-forest-discovered.html ... JGuy

They never “insisted” that the forest layers represented millions of years of history; they said that those layers were millions of years old, which is completely different.

I didn't say forest layers, go back to the original essay, and you'll see the "layers" refer to the entire geological column. You're misreading what I wrote again. From the original essay:

the fact remains that large sections of the geological column that contain fossils, could not, even in principle be assembled over millions of years. At best we have one catastrophe that creates a bed of fossils followed by a long era of stasis (no activity) and then followed another catastrophe, etc.

It stands to reason, however, if one important layer takes a few weeks to construct, why not all the other layers of the geological "column"? It's an open question whether the "column" really exists intact anywhere on the Earth or is merely a construct of the imagination. Why? Some places one only finds 1 or so layers. Where there are multiple layers, sometimes the layers are out of order. For that matter, if one only finds one layer, it's dubious there is a column representing history at all! Because by definition, one is missing entire sections, hence its all a fabricated construct. If sediments construct the layers, where did the sediments come from. So let me add yet one more item to your list of points to address: 5. why are there so many missing or out of place layers, even if we found one place where the entire Phanerzoic (from about 500 million years back to the present) was in place, how does that square with 99.9% of the rest of the world where its out of sequence? Glen Morton claims such a place where the entire column exists, but that is contested. His claims are worth a look. The points you have yet to engage then:

1. C14 in the fossils which indicate they are young (under 100,000 years) 2. DNA and other biological material that indicate they are young (under 1 million years if not less) 3. the perminieralization process implies burial must take place quickly, and not over millions of years, hence the supposed need of millions of years to create such sedimentary layers with permineralized fossils is falsified 4. estimated erosion rates would have wiped out the geological layers with fossils anyway in about 10 million years 5. why are there so many missing or out of place layers, even if we found one place where the entire Phanerzoic (from about 500 million years back to the present) was in place, how does that square with 99.9% of the rest of the world where its out of sequence? Glen Morton claims such a place exists, but that is contested. It's worth a look.

For these reasons and others, people like Richard Milton and Michael Cremo who are not creationists are skeptical. I don't blame them. The paleontological narrative looks like it has been falsified, but the institutional imperative is too powerful. The thread is now at 71 posts, and no has put forward a good empirical and theoretical case as to why the mainstream narrative is as good as the theory of gravity. In fact, the mainstream narrative of geological ages is looking as bad as evolutionary biology, to which Jerry Coyne said:

In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.

One does not have to be a YEC to see the evidence does not support mainstream story telling of the past. Like evolutionary biology, its a cute story, but its only a story, and a story not consistent with hard nosed empiricism and basic logic. scordova

Sal, There is absolutely nothing new about rapid burial. It's nothing for a YEC to get excited about. You were excited because you thought that the paleontologists were contradicting themselves, and that the fossilization took place rapidly:

So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn’t feel wholesome!

If the fossilization took place rapidly, and the fossils were young, then that would get the YECs excited. Of course, the paleontologists aren't contradicting themselves at all. They think that the forest was buried rapidly, and that this happened 307 million years ago. They never "insisted" that the forest layers represented millions of years of history; they said that those layers were millions of years old, which is completely different. keiths

You're so very patient, Sal. Kudos! Querius

franklin, You wrote:

that is incorrect. Using proper statistics for small sample sizes you could toss the third result with 99% confidence. So you likely would have written that the third result was a outlier and suggestive of something like contamination in the analysis. Look up Q-test.

No, my statement is correct. Please notice that I wrote "If statistical analysis wouldn’t let me throw out the third result . . ." The "If" qualifier is pretty important. Yes, I've used the Q test and I know what it is, no I didn't see the need to perform it on my fictitious example, and yes, I did get some embarrassingly inconsistent results on occasion that were more likely due to my shaky lab technique than contamination. Querius

Hi Scordova, This article in Fox News/ science should be of some interest to this discussion. It seems they just keep popping up :) http://www.foxnews.com/science.....in-mexico/

Thanks PeterJ! scordova

KeithS: You were excited because you thought the fossilization, not merely the burial, happened in a matter of weeks.

No, the fossilization (as in "death and entombment into conditions that will preserve biological material"), took place in a matter of weeks, hence the burial had to be rapid, and rapid burial is exciting because then it means millions of years aren't needed to explain the accumulation sedimentary deposits, in fact, it can't take millions of years for the deposits to happen because otherwise fossilization wouldn't happen! The speed of fossilization (fossilization here is meant to be death and entombment for preservation) doesn't immediately tell us how far back in time the organism died, but it does tell us the speed of the burial. The speed of the burial tells us whether we should or should not invoke millions of years to explain accumulation of sedimentary deposits. And clearly we should not. I wasn't arguing the speed of the fossilization (fossilization here is meant to be death and entombment for preservation) means the organism died recently. That's you falsely attributing an argument to me which I didn't make. You're attributing arguments to me I didn't make, and then refuting those arguments I didn't make. We call that knocking down a strawman. Further published erosion rate estimates of 6cm / 1000 years would imply the stratified fossil layers in the continental surface would have been wiped out into the sea in 10 million years given the average height of the continental surface is 620 meters above sea level. The points you did not address: 1. C14 in the fossils which indicate they are young (under 100,000 years) 2. DNA and other biological material that indicate they are young (under 1 million years if not less) 3. the perminieralization process implies burial must take place quickly, and not over millions of years, hence the supposed need of millions of years to create such sedimentary layers with permineralized fossils is falsified 4. estimated erosion rates would have wiped out the geological layers with fossils anyway in about 10 million years You've not discussed much less refuted even 1 of those points, instead you refuted arguments I didn't make, you go on and on trying to convince me and the readers I made arguments I didn't make or got excited about. You talk about anything except deal with the real arguments put forward. Instead you insist your misreading of what I wrote is the correct reading, and that's a howler because I'm the one who wrote what I wrote, so I know what the correct reading is of what I wrote is, not you! You're the one who should be embarrassed, not me. I'm just irritated you're wasting my time, the readers time on arguments I didn't make. scordova

'Feel free to explain to the reader the problem of biological tissue. Just telling me to go read, eh? Go read some physics and chemistry yourself, and maybe you’ll have more credible arguments.# Joe's begun coaching you, hasn't he, Sal? But don't believe him about the knuckle-dusters. They frown on them here. I believe the CIA is located at Langley. Langley, Virginia. I once worked in Ford's truck plant at Langley. Langley near Slough, in Berkshire. We were kind of proud to be working for them - a bit like General Woundwort's owsla in Watership Down. But you know what? They jibbed at people throwing anyone from a fifth-floor window. Quite prissy, really? Not like the other Langley lot. Axel

Hello ba77, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Yes, that was a fun show with biologist Dr. Jerry Bergman on whale evolution! (I especially enjoyed the part about evolutionists claiming to have identified a marine whale ancestor, then finding that the rest of the skeleton showed it to be a land dwelling animal, and yet, without missing a beat they retain it's place in the alleged whale lineage even though they had initially completely misidentified what kind of a creature it was.) -Bob Enyart p.s. bornagain, now I'm up to chapter 10 of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. It's very well done, strong, and a really enjoyable read. Bob Enyart

Sal, Your attempted rebuttal doesn't make any sense. If the burial was rapid, but the fossils are millions of years old, then there is nothing for a YEC to get excited about. You were excited because you thought the fossilization, not merely the burial, happened in a matter of weeks. It's obvious from what you wrote:

So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn’t feel wholesome!

You actually thought the paleontologists were contradicting themselves when they claimed that the fossils were millions of years old! Of course there is no contradiction. The burial was rapid, the fossils are millions of years old, and none of this gives any support whatsoever to YEC. Your excitement was for naught. Look, Sal, I know you're embarrassed, and you should be. But I really can't see why this is more embarrassing to you than the other YEC ideas you take seriously. Those ideas also involve ridiculous claims about how quickly certain things happened, like the propagation of light from distant galaxies to earth. Why are you embarrassed by your mistake about fossilization if you are not embarrassed about those other ideas? keiths

Hi Scordova, This article in Fox News/ science should be of some interest to this discussion. It seems they just keep popping up :) http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/08/23-million-year-old-lizard-fossil-discovered-in-mexico/ PeterJ

Calling nwells! Alan Fox

Sal, You must really think the onlookers are slow. If you didn’t think that forest had fossilized quickly, you wouldn’t even have mentioned it.

If by fossilization I meant death and inescapable entombment and conditions that lead to long term preservation, then my original statement stands, but if by fossilization you mean your equivocated misrepresentation of arguments that I didn't make, then your strawman falsehoods about what I meant are knocked down. And you utterly slaughter arguments I didn't make but falsely attribute to me. I mentioned the forest because of the rapid burial, and the entombment is what I meant by fossilization (not your equivocation of what I meant). I won't use that word in that way in the future to avoid your sophistry.

That’s why you got excited. You thought that this was evidence that the fossilization happened in a matter of weeks, rather than millions of years.

LOL! How do you know what got me excited! You don't even understand the point I was making. I was excited because rapid burial implies complications in the supposed speed of sedimentary deposition. You're so determined to attribute arguments to me which I didn't make because you're unwilling to deal with arguments I'm really making. Why is that? Many onlooker know what is exciting is the speed of burial and the formation of the strata itself, not your equivocation of the way I used fossilization. From the previous discussion which JoeCoder provided the material from the OP:

Suppose we have intact geological column which can be found in one location such that you get to dig and find fossils in the order prescribed by the diagram above (and there are some who argue there is no such place on Earth, only in the conceptual imaginations of paleontologists). Suppose we give a generous height to this column of 200 miles spanning a history of 500 million years, what would be the average rate of deposition (accumulation of sediments on top of each other). I calculated that it would be .667 millimeters a year. The geologist then fumed at my figure of a 200-mile deep geological column and argued it could be less than that. Of course, he didn’t realize he actually strengthened my argument. So I said, “fine, 14 miles, since that’s the farthest man has ever drilled into the Earth, that yields a deposition rate of .046 millimeters a year,” which is about half the thickness of a sheet of paper. That would mean a dinosaur that is lying 5 meters high will take about 100,000 years to bury, and thus it becomes very doubtful that it will fossilize because it is exposed to scavengers and decomposition and other environmental effects. From Darwin-loving pages of Wiki we read:

Fossilization processes proceed differently according to tissue type and external conditions. Permineralization is a process of fossilization that occurs when an organism is buried. The empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater. Minerals precipitate from the groundwater, occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decay process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

What? The organism needs to buried with sediments and water quickly. Of note, many layers of the geological “column” indicated mass extinction events, such that it could also be interpreted to be rapid simultaneous burial over large geographical regions by water and sediments, if not rapid simultaneous burial over the entire globe! But whatever the details, the fact remains that large sections of the geological column that contain fossils, could not, even in principle be assembled over millions of years. At best we have one catastrophe that creates a bed of fossils followed by a long era of stasis (no activity) and then followed another catastrophe, etc.

Notice I went into the calculation of the speed of deposition, not the speed with which a dead organism approaches one state of preservation or another. Apparently you don't have anything of substance to offer except false accusations about what I actually thought, actually got excited about. You'd prefer to fabricate stuff than actually engage the problem of young biological material and the fact of rapid deposition over short periods of time versus millions of years. You prefer to define terms in ways that I wasn't using, attribute arguments to me which I didn't make, attribute excitement on my part to claims I didn't make, and all the while not engage the points I was actually making. Now, Keiths, how about it. How fast do you think the sedimentary depostion of a permineralized layer takes to form? A million years? In the case of the fossil forest, a few weeks. Right? :-) That was the point, the rapid burial, not the point you're falsely accusing me of making. Now that I pointed out your false accusations, how about actually engaging the problem of rapid burial rather than making up falsehoods about what I got excited about. But if you want to keep making up falsehoods, go right on ahead, because I'll call you on it and point out, you're unwilling to acknowledge the speed of sedimentary deposition in permineralized layers. scordova

wd400 #56 But even if fossils where only ever burried in, say, flash floods. So what? I honestly cant see a path from rapid burial to young formations Multiple fossil graveyards are consistent with flood geology scordova @49 The fact your grabbing for a triviality of what I meant by fossilized tells me you know you don’t have good cards in this exchange. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. bevets

WD400

But the fact that all other non-avian Dinosaur bones are found sediments that are >65 Ma isn’t a presuppositions, it’s, well, a fact. If these supposed C14 dates where real, we’d have to change pretty much everything we know about pre-history. So, yes, I am skeptical of dates that don’t fit with literally everything else we know about the history of life.

Translation: When dealing with radio-isotope dating, old ages are fact and young ages are not. JGuy

What’s amazing is the degree to which UD readers will buy all this YEC stuff.

When you're starving for good news, you'll pounce on anything and eat it. You can always throw it up later if it turns out to be inedible. keiths

Would you say permineralized fossil layers were buried in a matter of weeks, months, or a few years, or decades at the most — especially animal remains? I would say I don't know what "permineralized fossil layers" means. Animals that go o to make permineralized fossils probably got buried quickly. But a given sedimentary layer might be continuously laid down over a very long time, and only compressed into stone over millions upon millions of years. Permineralization itself is usually a slow process. But even if fossils where only ever burried in, say, flash floods. So what? I honestly cant see a path from rapid burial to young formations. What's amazing is the degree to which UD readers will buy all this YEC stuff. wd400

Sal, You must really think the onlookers are slow. If you didn't think that forest had fossilized quickly, you wouldn't even have mentioned it. Rapid burial doesn't support YEC. Rapid fossilization would have. That's why you got excited. You thought that this was evidence that the fossilization happened in a matter of weeks, rather than millions of years. Look at what you wrote:

So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn’t feel wholesome!

Oops. keiths

Dino DNA is obviously different from plant DNA, but just to give an order of magnitude: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11920366

The results allowed us to establish that the DNA half-life in papyri is about 19-24 years. This means that the last DNA fragments will vanish within no more than 532-672 years from the sheets being manufactured.

But I emphasize, that's just to get a rough order of magnitude of the timescales we should be dealing with. Then I found this embarrassing unexplained morsel of supposed DNA decay rates based on mainstream fossil dates versus the rates predicted by chemistry:

Claims of extreme survival of DNA have emphasized the need for reliable models of DNA degradation through time. By analysing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 radiocarbon-dated bones of the extinct New Zealand moa, we confirm empirically a long-hypothesized exponential decay relationship. The average DNA half-life within this geographically constrained fossil assemblage was estimated to be 521 years for a 242 bp mtDNA sequence, corresponding to a per nucleotide fragmentation rate (k) of 5.50 × 10(-6) per year. With an effective burial temperature of 13.1°C, the rate is almost 400 times slower than predicted from published kinetic data of in vitro DNA depurination at pH 5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23055061

They only offer speculation as to why the DNA decay rates are off by a factor of 400. There isn't any hard nosed chemistry being done except speculation put forward to preserve the mainstream narrative. Chemical kinetics via Dariwnism, that's rich. :-) scordova

Comments are insightful. No matter what fossil data is discovered that implies a young age, the evolutionist will dismiss all on the claim that the fossil was still found in (what he believes is) 65+ MYA rock layer. Even though this point has been shown to be a simple logical fallacy and nothing more than fact-free speculation, the evolutionist sticks to his guns, in what I'm guessing is simply a last ditch attempt to feign argument. lifepsy

you would also assert the permineralized fossil layers formed in a matter of weeks, right? No.

Would you say permineralized fossil layers were buried in a matter of weeks, months, or a few years, or decades at the most -- especially animal remains? Or will you argue an animal or other organism is going to lie above ground for a few thousand years without decomposing? scordova

I said in comment 29:

Permineralized fossils had to have been buried rapidly, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/cocktail-c14-dna-collagen-in-dinosaurs-indicates-geological-timescales-are-false/#comment-461792

Yet KeithS has the gall to say:

Sal’s “recollection” of his initial claim

The initial claim was in comment 29. See for yourself before you accuse me of saying the issue was fossilization process rather than quick burial. Once an organism that eventually is discovered as a fossil is entombed, it is reasonable to claim it is already a fossil because now its remains are being preserved. From wiki:

Fossils (from Classical Latin fossilis, literally "obtained by digging[1]") are the preserved remains or traces of animals (also known as zoolites), plants, and other organisms from the remote past

If the organism is discovered as a fossil, it is fair to say it's preservation began from the moment it died. You're just arguing semantics because you have nothing of substance. I know the deal. I can fix the wording, not a problem. And besides, I did say "buried rapidly". Besides, doesn't matter if I'm stupid or said things poorly, the facts of young biological artifacts remain, and the facts are something that you're obviously not engaging. scordova

you would also assert the permineralized fossil layers formed in a matter of weeks, right? No. wd400

Umm, Sal — Elrick is saying that the forest was buried in a few weeks, not that it fossilized in a few weeks.

If by fossilized, I meant dead and buried and inescapably entombed, then the statement I made stands (instead of the slow process of fossilization over time that you meant). And you accuse me of grabbing for scraps, not one the Darwinists gave credible explanations for persistent biological material. The fact your grabbing for a triviality of what I meant by fossilized tells me you know you don't have good cards in this exchange. Thank you very much. scordova

Sal's initial claim [bolding mine]:

So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks...

Sal's "recollection" of his initial claim:

Burial in few weeks, that’s even more to the point! Thank you lending even more credence to my initial claim of fast burial!

We're not idiots, Sal. You thought the fossilization happened in weeks. Embarrassing, but true. keiths

scordova. You’ll have to explain why fast burial can bury everything we know about paleontology. It’s not immediately obvious.

I didn't say "bury everything we know about paleontology", but you assert geological layers represent millions of years, you would also assert the permineralized fossil layers formed in a matter of weeks, right? So what's the justification again for saying the fossils are old? You say the dinos are buried in 65 million year old sediments? A lizard today could be buried in 65 million year old sediment, does that make the lizard 65 million years old. I don't think so. When we try to establish time of death of a biological organism, we look at the biological material to get a clue for time of death, not the ages of the rocks the organism was buried in. scordova

Julianbre, I'm afraid what they present is not close to what you'd need to do to establish they are aging genuine biological material and have eliminated contamination as en explanation. The ongoing work to see if the apparent collagen in some fossil dinosaur bones is in fact collagen should give you an idea of the tests they should do. scordova. You'll have to explain why fast burial can bury everything we know about paleontology. It's not immediately obvious. wd400

JoeCoder, I’ve been trying to find a paper that estimates DNA lifespan based on biochemistry, but the ones I’ve checked so far simply rely on fossil dates.

That's the last thing we need, evolutionary paleontology corrupting biochemistry. scordova

Umm, Sal — Elrick is saying that the forest was buried in a few weeks, not that it fossilized in a few weeks.

Burial in few weeks, that's even more to the point! Thank you lending even more credence to my initial claim of fast burial! scordova

Sal:

Look at this report of how quickly a fossil forest had to form: The World’s Largest Fossil Wilderness http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.....meval.html

That’s when an earthquake suddenly lowered the swamp 15 to 30 feet and mud and sand rushed in, covering everything with sediment and killing trees and other plants. “It must have happened in a matter of weeks,” says Elrick. “What we see here is the death of a peat swamp, a moment in geologic time frozen by an accident of nature.”

So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn’t feel wholesome!

Umm, Sal -- Elrick is saying that the forest was buried in a few weeks, not that it fossilized in a few weeks. Your overeagerness to find scraps of evidence for YEC is taking a toll on your intelligence. keiths

It was about a month ago that I shared those notes with Sal. To add some more information: First, C14 has a half life of 5730 years. 66m years (top of the cretaceious) is 11,518 half lives. So in order for C14 to be remaining you would need a starting amount of 2^11518 -- far more than the 10^80 or so atoms in the universe. So there should be zero atoms of C14 left, which cannot be adjusted for with any calibration scale. Second, the actual presentation by German physcist Thomas Seiler at the American Geophysical Union/Asia Oceania Geosciences Society conference is worth watching. In particular he provides evidence against contamination at about 12:30. Transcription the slide: 1. pmC [percent modern carbon] concordance of organics and extraction. If pmC of organics stemmed entirely from contaminant then we would expect intermediate pmC 2. pmC concordance between AMS (small sample size) and beta-MS (large sample size). inhomogeneously distributed contaminant would be found. 3. pmC concordance of different chemical fractions (minerals, collage, total organics) c.f. A Cherkinsky, RadioCarbon Vol 51 (2) 2009, p647-655 4. ?13C value of collagen (-20% to -24%) close to typical value for C3 [C3 carbon-fixation system found in plants in temperate environments] eaters (-15% to -21%) and considered as reliable for dating (c.f. A Cherkinsky) 5. Matrix [surrounding sediments] on Triceratops had pmc of [only] 0.4%. But a huge contamination needed to produce sample pmC of 5%. 6. same pre-treatment procedure delivers pmc &lt 1% for many plant fossils. And at 13:30, "Another argument was the concentration of carbon when we measured it in the vicinity of the fossils. It becomes smaller the further we get away from the fossil and this indicates the carbon is leaking away from the fossil, not vice-versa." Third, the article in The Biochemist (and the others I previously cited in the link from Sal above) use fossil data for their DNA preservation estimates. It isn't a biochemical method as I first assumed it was. So one of their premises in calculating survival time is one we're declaring faulty. I've been trying to find a paper that estimates DNA lifespan based on biochemistry, but the ones I've checked so far simply rely on fossil dates. However, nobody I've read seems to think DNA or collagen should last 66m years. Per an article in Discover magazine:

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana.

JoeCoder

wd400, that a well reasoned argument you make. Your skeptical of the dates but "That’s not to say we couldn’t overturn everything we know". That's all anyone is asking. Just do the tests. That's good science and you understand that. "Such a revolution requires a bit more than c14 dates in a PDF on the internet." That is so true, that's why Jack Horner was contacted to send other samples out to different independent labs for c14 testing. Why wouldn't he do it? He didn't want to give "creationist" any more "ammunition". Jack's not after the truth, he's trying to cover up the truth. He left science years ago. "you’d taken all reasonable measures to exclude the idea that these results where down to contamination." ect... Please see my post #28 or follow the link http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm. I believe it answers all those question. julianbre

These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it... Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold." ~ Karl Popper A while ago I had a discussion with several atheists who had never seen this, but were certain that it must have been a rhinoceros at sunset. Maybe, but the first thing that occurred to me was how ill informed they were about information that does not easily fit into their Origin story. I was also impressed by how quickly they were able to make confident pronouncements regarding Cambodian iconography. bevets

There is an interesting pattern arising in this thread - creationist after creationist has lined up to say we should treat these dates in isolation and ignore "presuppositions" about the truth of evolution or the age of the earth. But the fact that all other non-avian Dinosaur bones are found sediments that are >65 Ma isn't a presuppositions, it's, well, a fact. If these supposed C14 dates where real, we'd have to change pretty much everything we know about pre-history. So, yes, I am skeptical of dates that don't fit with literally everything else we know about the history of life. That's not to say we couldn't overturn everything we know, just that such a revolution requires a bit more than c14 dates in a PDF on the internet. You'd need to make dam sure the thing you were dating was actually bone, for instance. Mineral won't work. You'd need to show you'd taken all reasonable measures to exclude the idea that these results where down to contamination. You'd want to show than an independent lab can go through the same process and get comparable dates. Until you do that it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the dates are not a reflection of the age of any biological material in the samples (since we have a such a huge amount of prior evidence to the antiquity of non-avian dinosaurs). wd400

We were told organic material could not last more than 100,000 years MAXIMUM by evolutionists

Estimates for how long organic material could last have always been all over the map. I remember, not that long ago, scientists claiming that with new technology we'd soon be mapping the DNA of dinos. (This is what inspired Crichton to write Jurassic Park). Today, we're still waiting for the first dino nucleotide, and the oldest mapped genome is less than 1 million years old: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/breaking-the-time-barrier-700000-year-old-horse-fossil-oldest-ever-found-from-dna-mapped-animal/ So, yes, organic material lasts much longer than many thought, but also (from evidence thus far) no where near as long as others had thought. Considering that we occasionally dig up a mammoth carcass that looks like it was alive last week, and preserved well enough to hold a mammoth bbq, is finding microscopic bits of protein (which are far hardier than DNA) inside dino bones that far fetched? goodusername

We were told organic material could not last more than 100,000 years MAXIMUM by evolutionists...unless of course that organic material belongs to dinosaurs. In those cases, darwin's myth trumps all science because evolutionists KNOW (praise darwin) that dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago. ;-) Blue_Savannah

Feel free to explain to the reader the problem of biological tissue. Just telling me to go read, eh? Go read some physics and chemistry yourself, and maybe you’ll have more credible arguments.

Hmm. Nwells (a professor of geology) was very patient with you over many years at ARN and not much seems to have penetrated. The cynic might remark that you may be looking for employment rather than current scientific explanations, Sal. Alan Fox

to that end, this looks interesting: Bergman on Whale Evolution on RSR http://kgov.com/whale-evolution http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2013/20130222-BEL039.mp3 bornagain77

Bob Enyart, what a pleasant surprise. I have enjoyed your shows in the past.,,, http://kgov.com/real-science-radio I'll have to dig through your recent shows later on today and see what fascinating things you have recently covered. bornagain77

Hello UD! (Unrelated: I'm up to chap. 5 of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. Fun book!) I think that the dino soft tissue discoveries merit attention from the ID community. The journals reporting confirmation of dino tissue include Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS One, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Bone, and the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. The biological material found so far, as of today, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, include flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including collagen, actin, and hemoglobin, and powerful evidence for DNA from a T. rex and a hadrosaur. The dinosaurs and other Mesozoic creatures that so far have yielded their biological material are hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur [ostrich-like dinosaurs], mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, and Archaeopteryx. It's all fun, and worthy of a hard look by the ID community I think, especially with the same specimens undoubtedly containing a lot of 14C and unracemized (i.e., still mostly left-handed) amino acids. -Bob Enyart Bob Enyart

Scordova: "Very ancient as determined by whom? Your statement implicitly defends the samples via circular reasoning, not hard nosed empiricism. The circularity begins with the presumption the samples are “very ancient samples”. Mistake #1!" Exactly right. This is is why all bones should be dated blindly; the scientists have no reason to know or care what animals the bones are coming from. Their job is to test the bone; not confirm (or deny) theories world views. This is the only fair way to get an accurate, true, and unbiased result. As it is, personal biases and world views get thrown in the mix. And I find it rather pathetic that the scientific community refuses to date any bone that they deem beforehand as being "too old." Why won't they do some actual science and rule out recent existence via testing instead of ruling out recent existence because they say so? It's this kind of thing that makes me distrust today's science. vh

BTW: 29kyo is well in C14 method's theoretical range. Again, either the method works, or it doesn't. And if you discard C14 radio-isotope method for not cooperating with the paradigm, then what does that say about the use or not of any critical thinking? JGuy

WD400. The C14 'ages' of the full list of about twenty dinosaur bones comes to average of 29.7kyo with the youngest on the list at about 22.3kyo. You claim that the ages are erroneous and the C14 dates are unreliable b/c you consider dinosaur bones as millions of years old...but... Would you accept the C14 ages of a bone artifact that dated to say 23kyo, where it didn't conflict with the evolutionary expectation? Either the radioisotope dating works or it doesn't. It can't work, if and only if, it agree's with the paradigm. ... JGuy

On top of all this is the problem that geological features containing fossils have problematic mechanical explanations if we invoke millions of years. First off, the fossils had to fossilize quickly, maybe in a matter of minutes or hours, particularly woolly mammoths with undigested food in their stomachs! Permineralized fossils had to have been buried rapidly, not over millions of years as a matter of biochemistry. It is mildly disconcerting that Darwinists will fully acknowledge layers with perminerlized fossils had to form quickly and not over millions of years, yet they insists these same layers represent millions of years of history. Look at this report of how quickly a fossil forest had to form: The World’s Largest Fossil Wilderness http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Phenomena-Forest-Primeval.html

That’s when an earthquake suddenly lowered the swamp 15 to 30 feet and mud and sand rushed in, covering everything with sediment and killing trees and other plants. “It must have happened in a matter of weeks,” says Elrick. “What we see here is the death of a peat swamp, a moment in geologic time frozen by an accident of nature.”

So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn't feel wholesome! Second, erosion should have erased geological strata in short order. At an estimated erosion rate of 6 centimeters per year, most of these fossil layers should have been eroded into the sea in couple million years. Mechanical considerations of erosion indicate these fossils should also be young. But the mainstream refuses to consider the problems basic physics and chemistry pose to the prevailing narrative. Notice the refusal of mainstream scientist to make a C14 test even when offered $23K :-) scordova

Here is a good section on objections and rebuttals at the Science vs Evolution site http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm wd400, please read objection #3. That might answer you question on dating samples less than 50,000 years old. POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS AND REBUTTALS (Actual quotations or paraphrases) (1) OBJECTION: "A possible reason for radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones is that collagen contains nitrogen atoms as well as carbon and hydrogen. Irradiation from the Uranium atoms in the soil surrounding the dinosaur femur bones or absorbed in the dinosaur bones through the action of water percolating through the bones could continually over millions of years keep changing the existing nitrogen into C-14.49 REBUTTAL: Bone bio-apatite, which is calcium carbonate, has NO nitrogen yet the RC age for the same bone is concordant with the RC age for the bone collagen. A similar objection has been raised for C-14 in coal and diamond (1) as analysis shows there is sometimes a small percentage of nitrogen: This objection has been refuted by other scientists because the radiation flux and cross section of nitrogen atoms would be too small for radiation from uranium sources to change nitrogen into C-14. (2) OBJECTION: "Modern bacteria and fungi could infiltrate the femur bones to give a young date."50 REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones. (3) OBJECTION: "The radiocarbon dating method is not applicable for samples >50,000 years."51 REBUTTAL: C-14 dating of dinosaur fossil bones from Western United States showed that they are far younger than even 50,000 RC years. The critic who said the above is assuming that dinosaurs are 65 M years or older because of a commitment to the false assumptions of 17 to 19th century stratigraphy and alleged correlation with radiometric dating. Because of their faith in evolutionary philosophy such critics have never bothered to even repeat the C-14 testing to see if the anomalous dates are correct. That attitude is unscientific and regrettable coming from a top scientist in a major field of science. (4) OBJECTION: "The carbon isolated from the dinosaur bones had no chemical relationship to bone protein or flesh."52 REBUTTAL: This objection is based on the writer's belief in long ages of millions and billions of years. The discovery of bone collagen and soft tissue and C-14 dating of the collagen negated that assumption.53 Of course he wrote this in 1992 so in all fairness he can not be faulted for his acceptance of mainstream assumptions of that period. Nonetheless such negativity is of no value to any rational scientific evaluation of anomalous data. Unfortunately that attitude is still prevalent to this day. The discoverers of collagen (anomalous chemicals) in the T-Rex femur bone should have sent a sample to a RC dating lab to test for C-14 but perhaps they were fearful that they would be the first among mainstream scientists to discover why there was collagen: The bones might be only thousands of year old, not millions. (5) OBJECTION: "The use of expensive chemical and physical tests and equipment and learned testimonials are irrelevant to interpreting the data."54 REBUTTAL: This statement naturally follows from a firm belief in biological evolution and long ages and must be ignored in favor of research by unbiased scientists who will test for C-14 in dinosaur bone collagen and soft tissue from the Western United States; thousands of the bones sit untested in dozens of museums. By testing for C-14 they will then know if these anomalous RC ages are valid. Furthermore since there are fossil human-like footprints with dinosaurs in alleged 100 M year old Cretaceous limestone 55/56 and distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide 57 it is paramount that scientists test for C-14 in dinosaurs world-wide to see if C-14 in dinosaur bones is a world-wide phenomenon. Truth in science emerges in experimentation and keen observations. (6) OBJECTION: Because of radiometric dating of volcanic material in many strata of the geologic column, the demise of the dinosaurs was extended from an assumed 12 million years by S. Hubbard58 in 1924 to 65 million years in the 1990's in the Colorado Hell Creek Cretaceous formation by G. B. Dalrymple.59 REBUTTAL: Both time periods are 480 to 2600 time greater than that with direct C-14 dating of the dinosaurs and other fossils from Texas to Alaska. Other examples include: (a) In RC dating the fossil human-like footprint impressions in Mexico S. Gonzalez et al. obtained ages of about 27,000 to 40,000 RC years for shells etc.60 But Renne et al. used K/Ar and Ar/Ar on volcanic material obtained dates of 800,000 and 1,300,000 years61 respectively or about 300 to 480 times greater than that for C-14. (b) For the distinct and pristine fossil human footprints in Texas, in the United States, the alleged geologic age is 108,000,000 years or 2900 times older than that obtained for two RC dates of ~37,500 RC years for carbonized wood in the clay between the limestone strata. 62 julianbre

C14 is not the only thing with a half life. Aspects of DNA and proteins have half-lives too! For example, the homo chirality of a protein decays over time. The chirality has a half-life just like radioactivity except that it is sensitive to the environment. But at some point, no matter how much slowing the environment does to the half life of homochirality, at some point it is ridiculous to even say a fossil is millions of years old if the homochirality is still present. From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_dating As a rule of thumb, sites with a mean annual temperature of 30°C have a maximum range of 200 ka and resolution of about 10 ka; sites at 10°C have a maximum age range of ~2 m.y., and resolution generally about 20% of the age; at -10°C the reaction has a maximum age of ~10 m.y., and a correspondingly coarser resolution.[7]

This is based on chemistry, not geology. If one finds a 65 million year old fossil in a 10 degree celcius environment that is not racemized, something is wrong. The homochirality should have been completely erased in 2 million years. Finding 400 million year-old-fossils that indicate dates no older than 2 million years ought to be a problem too, but that is swept under the rug. scordova

querius: When I took Quantitative Analysis in college, there were results that I would dearly have loved to toss! For example, I might get results like 35.474, 35.570, 31.409 (aargh!), 35.621 (grams, percent, or whatever). If statistical analysis wouldn’t let me throw out the third result, and there was nothing in the experiment that would suggest that my third run had a problem, I was stuck with it!

that is incorrect. Using proper statistics for small sample sizes you could toss the third result with 99% confidence. So you likely would have written that the third result was a outlier and suggestive of something like contamination in the analysis. Look up Q-test. franklin

Why can't we simply follow the evidence? Maybe the C-14 tests will ultimately lead to a new discovery that will improve C-14 testing. In samples this old, one would expect that all the C-14 would be gone. So, an open-minded scientist would ask: Why am I detecting C-14 here? Are these samples, in fact, younger? Is C-14 being introduced from another source? Is there something about C-14 decay that we don't know about yet? Is there a flaw in C-14 testing that needs to be corrected without having to resort to "calibration" to assure acceptable results? So, why must these results be assumed to be false, and why is the data suppressed? This action is the antithesis of science. When I took Quantitative Analysis in college, there were results that I would dearly have loved to toss! For example, I might get results like 35.474, 35.570, 31.409 (aargh!), 35.621 (grams, percent, or whatever). If statistical analysis wouldn't let me throw out the third result, and there was nothing in the experiment that would suggest that my third run had a problem, I was stuck with it! Too bad I couldn't have written "The third result was rejected because it might give credence to ID advocates." ;-) I firmly believe that all science students should be required to watch Monty Python's dead parrot skit and then warned to be careful about holding on to any scientific theory beyond its "expiration date." Querius

Dinos found in fossils all died within the first days or so of noahs flood. It would be funny if modern biology in actually testing something in the hand , like this tissue from dinos, insisted it couldn't be millions of years old. D'oh. Robert Byers

wd400, Soft tissue. Collagen. Osteocyte. C-14 dates under 40,000 years. You're defending a religious position. You're reaction is reminiscent of astronomers that were contrary to Galileo who was very much in the minority. bb

But part of accepted science is that bones older than 50,000 years or so shouldn't be datable by C14. If more dinosaur bones and soft tissue continue to give young dates, then some part of accepted science has to give. Perhaps the view that old bones can't give young dates. Perhaps the view that dinosaurs are really that old. I don't know. But I'm willing to keep an open mind, besides the fact that somebody at another blog insists that religious people are closed-minded. Bilbo I

Sample size isn't really the issue - it's the fact there are a bunch of dates bumping right up against the maximum reliable age that should raise your skeptical hackles. When you are right down an the limit of detection you need to make a very strong case that the result can't arise from old bones. That PDF doesn't provide it. wd400

Hi wd400, I agree with your argument, and that a very strong case would need to be made to overturn accepted science. However, the authors made their case based on a large sample size: http://www.newgeology.us/Dinosaur%20bones%20dated%20by%20Carbon-14.pdf and I presume they made this video where they call for C14 dating for all dinosaur fossils: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=TgM_p9UfOeI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTgM_p9UfOeI Bilbo I

Bilbo, fair enough! If you don't deal with those symbols day in and day out they can trick you :). If you got a date under 40,000 years you'd have some evidence that the bones where young. Of course, you should never treat any evidence in isolation. In this case, there is overwhelming evidence that all non-avian dinosaur bones are older than 65 million years. If you run an analysis and find a very young date you either (a) Have amazing new evidence than changes almost everthing we know about prehistory or (b) messed up somewhere being sample preperation and determination of the age. Bayes theoreom (or, really since bayes is a very simple piece of maths, just probability), tells us in most cases you will have (b) is going to be the right answer, and you'll have to make a very strong case if you want to establish (a). BTW, the possibility of preserved collagen proteins is an example of exactly this process playing out in the scientific literature. A large number of scientists are highly skeptical of these results, so those making the case for preservation are trying to collect better and better evidence to swing the probabilities toward their hypothesis. wd400

Sal, Did you follow the link to the Shock Dynamics site? http://www.newgeology.us/ Bilbo I

My apologies. I get > and < mixed up. If the C14 dating is less than 40,000 years, then isn't that inconsistent with 65mya? Bilbo I

Bilbo, No. 65 Ma is > 40 Ka, isn't it? wd400

Hi wd400, But if the C14 is dating at >40,000 years, then isn't that inconsistent with 65 mya? Bilbo I

But, the c14 results are not insonsistant with a 65 Ma age, and the collagen proteins (not tissues) are absolutely not in "young condition". If they are dinosaur proteins at all (which seems likely) they are highly degraded and correspond only to some parts of the collagen molecule containing a subset of amino acids which are resistant to degradation . wd400

Sal, This is very tiresome. I really think you ought to read some mainstream sources on geology and evolution if you want to make a reasonable argument against the mainstream position.

That's a good suggestion, but a dino being buried in sediment dated 65 million years doesn't imply the dino is 65 million years old especially if that means we need to invoke new physics and biochemistry to explain: 1. C14 2. biological tissues in young condition Feel free to explain to the reader the problem of biological tissue. Just telling me to go read, eh? Go read some physics and chemistry yourself, and maybe you'll have more credible arguments. scordova

Cantor, Young compared with the genuine age of the sample. As you say, once c14 from the original source is down to trace levels the date is very inaccurate. Most labs will simple label such a date greater than some upper bound (though it's possible to run the numbers and see what date you'd get, no one in the field would put any weight on it). Sal, This is very tiresome. I really think you ought to read some mainstream sources on geology and evolution if you want to make a reasonable argument against the mainstream position. I very much doubt thousands up thousands of people will be buried in sediments that reach below 65 Ma volcanic horizons. And that none will be buried above them. wd400

what would happen if you dated a 65 million year old bone (or some tissue from inside the bone? ...You’d get a weirdly young date, of course.

Why would you "get a weirdly young date, of course"? A young date corresponds to a high level of C14. Assuming no contamination, a sample much older than ~40Kya would have virtually no C14. Below a certain level of C14, the test is considerable unreliable and no date can be assigned. cantor

But, of course, the bones don’t exist in isolation. We have many depositis containing (non-avian) dinosaur bones that are sandwiched between volcanic layers that can be accurately dated. In every case, the non-avian dinosaurs are in layers that can be shown to be older than ~65 Ma.

I could be buried tomorrow in 65 million year-old volcanic ash, it doesn't mean my bones are 65 million years old! scordova

No. When I said "doesn't work" I, of course, mean "can't produce reliable dates". There will always be some c14, which is why most labs will simply call samples with very old dates >50 Ka (or whatever the consider to be the upper limit for the location/method used). wd400

“serious science news” like some folks using a dating method that by it’s nature can’t work on very ancient samples on some very ancient samples and getting funny results?

Are you a C14 dating expert? If so, could you please share your insight on the following question: C14 is only good to about 40Kya. What happens if you C14 test something that is actually 65Mya? Do you get dates less than 40Kya? Or does the test come back with results that say essentially "I'm sorry, that sample is too old to date with C14" cantor

c14 dating doesn’t work for samples older than about 50,000 years.

Exactly! C14 is working fine because the fossils are younger than Darwinists suppose. You're assuming something is wrong with the C14 dating because you're assuming the fossils are old. The C14 traces are prima facie evidence the fossils are young. One might suspect C14 contamination, but then what about DNA and collagen, and other independent lines of evidence. Evidence is against the Darwinist position. I'm not pointing out anything that isn't already known, but swept under the rug. The mainstream knows the biological material shouldn't be in the condition it's in. It looks too young. Maybe cause it is young. scordova

“If a carbon-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it.” That seems to be the general scientific view of c14 dating. It looks very simple, but it's also very error-prone. Contamination of the sample is always a concern. The most serious fault in radiocarbon-dating theory is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now. That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially. So the radiocarbon clock is no longer regarded as yielding an absolute chronology but one which measures only relative dates. To get the true date, the radiocarbon date has to be corrected by the tree-ring chronology. Accordingly, the result of a measurement of radiocarbon is referred to as a “radiocarbon date.” By referring this to a calibration curve based on tree rings, the absolute date is inferred. Barb

No, Sal, you haven't grasped the point at all. c14 dating doesn't work for samples older than about 50,000 years. That's just true. So, forgetting everything else, what would happen if you dated a 65 million year old bone (or some tissue from inside the bone? Mineralised bone won't work... )? You'd get a weirdly young date, of course. So, when you consider that age of the bones in question, all the odd c14 results tell you is that the bone is older than the ~50 Ka upper limit, and anything beyond that is going beyond the what the analysis can tell you. But, of course, the bones don't exist in isolation. We have many depositis containing (non-avian) dinosaur bones that are sandwiched between volcanic layers that can be accurately dated. In every case, the non-avian dinosaurs are in layers that can be shown to be older than ~65 Ma. So, given the strong evidence that all non-avian dinosaurs are older than 65 Ma, and the fact the c14 evidence is agnostic with respect the age of these bones (other than the fact they're older than 50 Ka), the only reasonable conclusion is that they are indeed "very ancient". A conclusion which required no "circular" reasoning, just simple inference. wd400

"serious science news” like some folks using a dating method that by it’s nature can’t work on very ancient samples on some very ancient samples and getting funny results?

Very ancient as determined by whom? Your statement implicitly defends the samples via circular reasoning, not hard nosed empiricism. The circularity begins with the presumption the samples are "very ancient samples". Mistake #1! The Darwinist reasoning goes like this: "Strata are old because old fossils are found in them. Fossils are old because we find them in old strata." What did I say about uncritical acceptance? Your quote is exhibit A -- acceptance via circular reasoning, not hard-nosed empirical evidence from physics and chemistry like: 1. C14 residues 2. insufficiently decomposed biological material I'd think hard nosed physical evidence should have supremacy over circularly reasoned geological timescales. You and other Darwinists are more than welcome to explain DNA preservation for 70 million years contrary to what we know of biochemistry... I'm not even saying ID or creationism is correct, but arguing from simple lines of physical evidence. ID can survive falsification of YEC falsification of the Young Universe hypothesis of YECs, but I'm not so sure Darwinism can survive falsification of geological timescales, except through obstinate refusal to come to terms with mainstream physics and chemistry and the facts in clear evidence. scordova

2. mainstream news will fawn over the latest fossil find only to see exaggerated claims falsified later. They don’t really report on serious science news like that above. "serious science news" like some folks using a dating method that by it's nature can't work on very ancient samples on some very ancient samples and getting funny results? The media could certainly cover science and evolution a lot better, but not by giving cranks a venue to espouse their cranky ideas wd400

Entertaining and informative: YEC Bob Enyart calls Jack Horner about carbon dating a T-rex fossil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szHNDAMfA0s YEC Ian Juby gives a run-down of major paleontological evidence against old-earth/geologic column, including organic materials in dinosaur fossils. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XCES79ymeU Sidenote: This subject provides an insightful look into the equivocating nature of the evolutionist. Why? The number one response I read after reports of discoveries of dinosaur proteins is: They didn't find proteins, they found "protein breakdown products" What are protein breakdown products? They are the same peptide bonds that make up proteins. It doesn't change the situation at all, they are just desperate to cling onto any facade of an argument. Evolutionists will kick and scream that nobody found proteins on a dinosaur fossil, even after being shown the study where the researchers repeatedly state they discovered collagen and osteocyte-like protein structures on a supposedly 70 MY Mosasaur fossil. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0019445 The denial from evolutionists is quite a thing to behold. lifepsy

I tried to refrain from interjecting too much of my personal feelings into the above article (there was some). 1. if Darwinian evolution is accepted by the scientific community, what other fallacious ideas are getting a pass that should be dispensed with? 2. mainstream news will fawn over the latest fossil find only to see exaggerated claims falsified later. They don't really report on serious science news like that above. 3. too much money, resources, reputations are on the line for this sort of data to get a fair hearing and more importantly more funding to get the right geological timescales calibrated 4. the truth will march forward, real research can be achieved if people are willing to bypass the mainstream and sacrifice themselves in the service of truth. The path won't be easy because false ideas like Darwinian evolution and possibly false ideas like geological timescales are uncritically accepted in the mainstream, and dissenters are actively suppressed. scordova