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

_{Salvador Cordova

July 6, 2013

News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[the “Cocktail” designation in the title refers to ideas that are possibly true, but are speculative in nature and which are not offered with the same level of conviction as other arguments at UD.]

cocktail

In a rather terse report here: http://justpaste.it/2q1a we learn the C14 dates indicate dinosaur remains are only 22-40K years old, not tens of millions of years old!

1.On this page you can see where 20 samples of acrocanthosaurus, allosaurus, hadrosaur, triceratops, and apatosaur were C14 dated at the University of Arizona using both the AMS and beta-decay methods to be between 22-40k years old. Authors Jean De Pontcharra and Marie Claire van Oosterwych have Ph.D’s in physics and physical chemistry, respectively. It was originally presented as a talk at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore. Their paper was removed with the only explanation being “there is obviously an error in this data”. You can see the rejection letter here. Here are before and after versions of the lists of papers at the conference. Note that #5 is missing in the after version.
2.Jack Horner was offered a $23k grant to C14 date his soft tissue bones, but declined. He agreed the money was more than enough but wouldn’t because it would give evidence to creationists.

One might think contamination is an issue with C14, but then we have other problems. Certain soft tissues shouldn’t be around for more than 125,000 years. In the same link we have this terse report:

1.According to table 1 in Biomolecules in fossil remains, (The Biochemist, 2002): At 0C the maximum survival time for DNA, collagen [a connective tissue protein] and osteolcin [a bone protein] are 125k, 2.7m, and 110m years, respectively. At 10C, the numbers drop to 17.5k, 180k, and 7.5m years.

I provided other considerations (quite apart from YEC), that the mainstream geological timescales are suspect in : Falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological column.

Bottom line: If the above report is true, we can accept the mainstream geological time scales for the sake of argument, but maybe not for the sake of truth.

HT: Joe Coder

[posted by scordova to assist the News desk until 7/7/13]

Comments

I said in comment 29:
Permineralized fossils had to have been buried rapidly, https://uncommondescent.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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

you would also assert the permineralized fossil layers formed in a matter of weeks, right? No.wd400_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

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.mp3bornagain77_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

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 EnyartBob Enyart_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

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_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

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. 62julianbre_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply