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

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

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_p9UfOeIBilbo I_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Sal, Did you follow the link to the Shock Dynamics site? http://www.newgeology.us/Bilbo I_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Bilbo, No. 65 Ma is > 40 Ka, isn't it?wd400_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Hi wd400, But if the C14 is dating at >40,000 years, then isn't that inconsistent with 65 mya?Bilbo I_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

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

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

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

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

“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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

“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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

"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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

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 ideaswd400_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

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_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply