Jump to content


Photo

Out Of Place Fossils Falsify Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
465 replies to this topic

#181 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 June 2016 - 02:18 PM

W>>>> There should be hoodles of vertebrate fossils turning up in sedimentary rock in your world.<<

ME:  Do the math. If there are sediments covering the surface area of the Earth at a depth of one mile, and suppose you had maybe 10 million humans, if that. And then figure what percentage of that amount of cubic miles of material has been exposed, maybe it would not be surprising how few humans or dinosaurs have been found.>>

 

Ok, I did the math.  There are 197 million square miles with 70% of that being water today.  It is hard to say how much to figure for the area of the sediment strata of Earth, but if you include continental shelves I would say maybe 40% of that number, or 31.5 million square miles times 1 mile depth is 31.5 million cubic MILES.  If there were 10 million humans on Earth before the flood, that would mean we could expect to find about 1 human for every three cubic MILES of sediment we uncover....PROVIDED that 100% of the human bodies were not destroyed and were preserved so as to be recognizable.  It appears that 10 humans were found in Moab, Utah, so that means we would have to hunt carefully through 30 cubic miles in order to find the next one...IF they ALL were preserved as fossils. 



#182 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:37 AM

W>> Has a dino bone ever been tested properly and found to have a consistent carbon date from multiple tests ? Or is the result just background noise because there's no C14 left ?<<

In the case of the mosasaur, they did not merely find background levels of carbon-14. The amount was 4.6% and that exceeds the amount of carbon that could be expected as background noise by about 500 times or more. Something was very certainly there which registered the carbon-14 and to try to say that there was enough modern carbon to equal 4.6% of the total carbon in the dinosaur bone is patently absurd. And their DNA testing also confirmed that modern bacteria could not have contributed that huge amount. And yet that is the straw that they had to grasp so as to not have the mighty ship of evolution go sinking under the waves.

#183 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:42 AM

BTW, if the source of carbon was old bacteria then if it was from 5700 years ago then instead of 4.6% you would need 9.2%. If it was from 11400 years ago you would need 18.4%. Plus you need to consider that if the bacteria was feeding upon the Mosasaur tissue then the bacteria would not have modern carbon within their bodies but rather ancient carbon which should have no c-14 remaining in it.

#184 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 June 2016 - 02:40 PM

W>> Yeah, definite mines in the region as I said. <<

No, that isn't exactly what you said. You said the following:


>>Evidence of prehistoric mining activity has been reported FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE<

That statement was plainly false and your own sources said that none had been found not only at this particular site but also in the entire state of Utah. I had my facts straight. You did not!

#185 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 July 2016 - 04:21 PM

I appreciate that you admit that the disarticulation is supportive of the Young Earth interpretation, unless a bulldozer disarticulated the bodies. And I think the photo I showed where the legs are bent and articulated but the top part of the body is non-existent shows that this particular body was disarticulated without any part of that area of the sediments being touched by a bulldozer or backhoe. If you look at that video there are sequential photos of that particular body being exposed where only a very small part of the leg bones are even visible to begin with. There was not any machinery that cut that body in half as your theory suggests. This was done with archaeologists present who were trying to preserve bodies so they would have not gone in there with heavy machinery and not even looked at what was removed to see if there were any body parts in it. Your idea is absurd again. The disarticulation point is conclusive.

 

I haven’t said that archaeologists present were using heavy machinery but the bones could easily have been disturbed when modern mining was taking place. Although not completely clear from the descriptions, the earliest (1971) skeletons seem to have been more intact than later ones. In the 1990’s the articulated leg bones were found, as well as skull fragments and finger bones a short distance away from the earlier finds.

 

>> I’m not sure you could class Patton as a geologist nor would I trust his judgement to be honest or impartial. <<

Once again you imply that your side is always impartial and honest but a creationist will distort facts. Maybe I believe that the evolutionists who came in to look at the site were closing their eyes to any flood interpretation and that article that you quote was indeed a hit job. Why should I believe any of your scientists are honest?

 

Again, Patton is the only one (whether evolutionist or YEC) who is standing by these claims. Doesn’t that set alarm bells ringing for you ? You would have no reason to believe that the authors of the report I showed you were dishonest apart from your prejudice. The report is very comprehensive, drawing together lots of evidence and field observations from previous workers, yet Patton doesn’t even mention it on his dedicated malachite man website. Does that not strike you as odd ? I also wonder why you didn't know about this report, since you seem to have been proselytising this for years, do you not worry about seeking a balanced view ?



 

>>Evidence of prehistoric mining activity has been reported FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE<

That statement was plainly false and your own sources said that none had been found not only at this particular site but also in the entire state of Utah. I had my facts straight. You did not!

 

I was referring to the evidence presented in the Utah Archaeology report. That being actual evidence of tunnels, charcoal/burnt sticks, concentration of azurite nuggets associated with the skeletons, lines of boulders marking tunnel positions, stone flakes, tool markings on rocks etc.



#186 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 July 2016 - 04:46 PM

W>> Has a dino bone ever been tested properly and found to have a consistent carbon date from multiple tests ? Or is the result just background noise because there's no C14 left ?<<

In the case of the mosasaur, they did not merely find background levels of carbon-14. The amount was 4.6% and that exceeds the amount of carbon that could be expected as background noise by about 500 times or more. Something was very certainly there which registered the carbon-14 and to try to say that there was enough modern carbon to equal 4.6% of the total carbon in the dinosaur bone is patently absurd. And their DNA testing also confirmed that modern bacteria could not have contributed that huge amount. And yet that is the straw that they had to grasp so as to not have the mighty ship of evolution go sinking under the waves.

 

It doesn't take much modern contamination to significantly skew a dead carbon sample (dead as in no original C14 left). They didn't find much direct evidence of bacteria but they did observe clusters of cyanobacteria on the bone. Funny how the short lists of dinosaur bone carbon dating results you see in creationist sources are all in the 25,000 to 45,000 year range, which can easily be produced with just the slightest contamination with modern carbon (even millions year old carbon subjected to perfect, contamination free dating will yield an age of 60,000 years because of background noise, just 1% contamination will halve this date)

 

And yet the malachite/moab bones have been C14 dated to 1450 and 210 years respectively. Why don't any dinosaur bones, which according to you were contemporary with humans, date this young ?



#187 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 12 July 2016 - 01:30 PM

W>> It doesn't take much modern contamination to significantly skew a dead carbon sample (dead as in no original C14 left). They didn't find much direct evidence of bacteria but they did observe clusters of cyanobacteria on the bone. Funny how the short lists of dinosaur bone carbon dating results you see in creationist sources are all in the 25,000 to 45,000 year range, which can easily be produced with just the slightest contamination with modern carbon (even millions year old carbon subjected to perfect, contamination free dating will yield an age of 60,000 years because of background noise, just 1% contamination will halve this date)<<

All of these amounts are relative to what the sensitivity of AMS technology is. The mosasaur received a date of 24600 years because it had 4.6% Carbon 14 in it. That means that for this to be caused by bacterial contamination, there would have to be 4.6% of the entire carbon weight of the sample being from bacteria. So your statement about a dinosaur bone date of 25000 years is simply absurdly untrue. That is a staggeringly HIGH amount and not a tiny amount as your statement implies. Even if you go up to 45,000 years, that still is an amount of carbon-14 that is vastly more than what the limits of AMS technology are. I believe that would be about .3% which is still far above what AMS can easily measure.

#188 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 12 July 2016 - 01:37 PM

W> (even millions year old carbon subjected to perfect, contamination free dating will yield an age of 60,000 years because of background noise, just 1% contamination will halve this date)<<

Even this statement shows a lack of understanding about what happens with AMS dating. What usually is done is there is some "ancient" sample of graphite or limestone which is assumed, due to evolutionary assumptions, to have absolutely no carbon-14 left in it. That sample is used as a blank to calibrate their equipment. However because it is not as old as they think it is that is the reason why they cannot get the extremely low measurements that they want to find. AMS is capable to actually count atoms and so they are astonished that they cannot ever get a totally carbon 14 free ancient sample. They can't get the result they want because they have a false assumption. They then subtract this amount from the amount that they actually measure, believing that they must have that much background noise. But they don't!

#189 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 12 July 2016 - 01:44 PM

W>>
I haven’t said that archaeologists present were using heavy machinery but the bones could easily have been disturbed when modern mining was taking place. Although not completely clear from the descriptions, the earliest (1971) skeletons seem to have been more intact than later ones. <<

You simply have chosen to close your eyes to the evidence I have shown you. In the video, Patton shows photographs of the revealing of a set of bones where there are two complete leg assemblages and directly above that there are no other bones. Where those upper bones should have been was never touched by any heavy equipment. Only archaeologists worked to expose those bones entirely. You have to simply imagine facts that you wish were true rather than dealing with the facts which ARE true in order to stay with your idea that bulldozers disarticulated the bodies.

#190 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 13 July 2016 - 03:53 PM

W>> It doesn't take much modern contamination to significantly skew a dead carbon sample (dead as in no original C14 left). They didn't find much direct evidence of bacteria but they did observe clusters of cyanobacteria on the bone. Funny how the short lists of dinosaur bone carbon dating results you see in creationist sources are all in the 25,000 to 45,000 year range, which can easily be produced with just the slightest contamination with modern carbon (even millions year old carbon subjected to perfect, contamination free dating will yield an age of 60,000 years because of background noise, just 1% contamination will halve this date)<<

All of these amounts are relative to what the sensitivity of AMS technology is. The mosasaur received a date of 24600 years because it had 4.6% Carbon 14 in it. That means that for this to be caused by bacterial contamination, there would have to be 4.6% of the entire carbon weight of the sample being from bacteria. So your statement about a dinosaur bone date of 25000 years is simply absurdly untrue. That is a staggeringly HIGH amount and not a tiny amount as your statement implies.


Well the authors don't think it's a staggeringly high amount, they state it is an "exceedingly small amount" because they use it as supporting evidence that fungal activity or addition of bone glue was not likely to be a source for the fibrous matter in the bone. I get your point that 4.6% by weight of bacteria does seem a large proportion but I'm not sure that is what the authors are claiming would be the case for the untreated primary sample. After the acid- alkali treatment of 2g of bone to get rid of modern carbonate and humic acid contamination they had 258 mg of dried residue, which they combusted to CO2 and then reduced to 5 mg of elemental carbon for analysis. Considering the extremely low amount of original mosasaur collagen this process may have harvested most of the contamination from the 2g bone piece (which would have been mainly inorganic material) and concentrated it into the 5 mg end product.

However, that is just my amateur suggestion, I don't know if that is what they would say. I might even email the lead author because I'm curious for elaboration on this myself.

 

Even if you go up to 45,000 years, that still is an amount of carbon-14 that is vastly more than what the limits of AMS technology are. I believe that would be about .3% which is still far above what AMS can easily measure.

 
That is not what these AMS commercial lab guys say, they state 47,000 yrs is the practical limit.
http://www.radiocarb...its-ams-lab.htm


 

W> (even millions year old carbon subjected to perfect, contamination free dating will yield an age of 60,000 years because of background noise, just 1% contamination will halve this date)<<

Even this statement shows a lack of understanding about what happens with AMS dating. What usually is done is there is some "ancient" sample of graphite or limestone which is assumed, due to evolutionary assumptions, to have absolutely no carbon-14 left in it. That sample is used as a blank to calibrate their equipment. However because it is not as old as they think it is that is the reason why they cannot get the extremely low measurements that they want to find. AMS is capable to actually count atoms and so they are astonished that they cannot ever get a totally carbon 14 free ancient sample. They can't get the result they want because they have a false assumption. They then subtract this amount from the amount that they actually measure, believing that they must have that much background noise. But they don't!


Yes I know they use C14 dead samples for calibration purposes. Considering that you think all limestone, coal etc. is only 4500 yrs old then there would be over half of modern levels of C14 in them. Do you think that might not have been noticed at some point ? And I'd like you to cite anyone who is "astonished" about never getting a zero reading for old samples, this is an example of you making things up again.



#191 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 13 July 2016 - 04:01 PM

W>>
I haven’t said that archaeologists present were using heavy machinery but the bones could easily have been disturbed when modern mining was taking place. Although not completely clear from the descriptions, the earliest (1971) skeletons seem to have been more intact than later ones. <<

You simply have chosen to close your eyes to the evidence I have shown you. In the video, Patton shows photographs of the revealing of a set of bones where there are two complete leg assemblages and directly above that there are no other bones. Where those upper bones should have been was never touched by any heavy equipment. Only archaeologists worked to expose those bones entirely. You have to simply imagine facts that you wish were true rather than dealing with the facts which ARE true in order to stay with your idea that bulldozers disarticulated the bodies.

 

I told you, none of the links for that video work for me, so I am not closing my eyes to anything. It is you that is closing your eyes to that Utah Archaeology paper that comprehensively dismisses your case.

 

How do you know that the skeletons weren't damaged during bulldozing activity and partial skeletons reburied by material years before archaeologists re exposed them ?



#192 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 July 2016 - 06:02 PM

Well the authors don't think it's a staggeringly high amount, they state it is an "exceedingly small amount" because they use it as supporting evidence that fungal activity or addition of bone glue was not likely to be a source for the fibrous matter in the bone. I get your point that 4.6% by weight of bacteria does seem a large proportion but I'm not sure that is what the authors are claiming would be the case for the untreated primary sample. After the acid- alkali treatment of 2g of bone to get rid of modern carbonate and humic acid contamination they had 258 mg of dried residue, which they combusted to CO2 and then reduced to 5 mg of elemental carbon for analysis. Considering the extremely low amount of original mosasaur collagen this process may have harvested most of the contamination from the 2g bone piece (which would have been mainly inorganic material) and concentrated it into the 5 mg end product.

However, that is just my amateur suggestion, I don't know if that is what they would say. I might even email the lead author because I'm curious for elaboration on this myself.



That is not what these AMS commercial lab guys say, they state 47,000 yrs is the practical limit.
http://www.radiocarb...its-ams-lab.htm




Yes I know they use C14 dead samples for calibration purposes. Considering that you think all limestone, coal etc. is only 4500 yrs old then there would be over half of modern levels of C14 in them. Do you think that might not have been noticed at some point ? And I'd like you to cite anyone who is "astonished" about never getting a zero reading for old samples, this is an example of you making things up again.


Here is what Andrew Snelling had to say about it. He would say there is a practical limit and then there is a theoretical limit and the Practical limit is much lower because there is too much c14 in the samples that they believe should be carbon dead.

"The maximum theoretical age obtainable by radiocarbon dating depends on the instrument used to do the analyses. The older beta counting instrument was stretched to get results of 50,000 years, whereas the AMS instrument should be effective up to 95,000 years. The other factor is what has become known as the "radiocarbon barrier" at around 55,000–60,000 years. This is due to the fact that the AMS instrument has to be calibrated, and yet the organic materials used for calibration (that are supposed to be so old they shouldn't have any detectable radiocarbon left in them) all contain so much radiocarbon that it means samples of unknown age can't yield dates above this radiocarbon barrier.

This is why there is the disparity in the quoted limits to radiocarbon dating, as highlighted by this inquirer. Theoretically, the AMS instrument should obtain ages up to 95,000 years, but practically, 60,000 years or less is the limit. But the radiocarbon detected in diamonds is equivalent to ages of up to 80,000 years.

So you can see why the various age limits have appeared in different publications of ours. Basically, it is correct to suggest 50,000–95,000 years. The former is the practical limit (based on the calibration materials presently used in radiocarbon labs), while the latter is the theoretical limit of the AMS instrument.

I hope these comments are a help.

Yours sincerely in Christ,
(Dr.) Andrew Snelling

#193 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 July 2016 - 06:13 PM

I told you, none of the links for that video work for me, so I am not closing my eyes to anything. It is you that is closing your eyes to that Utah Archaeology paper that comprehensively dismisses your case.

How do you know that the skeletons weren't damaged during bulldozing activity and partial skeletons reburied by material years before archaeologists re exposed them ?


Here is another link you can try.



At about 49:00 you can see the cross-sectional context and from that it is quite apparent there were no tunnels and there were no bulldozers or backhoes which went further back into the hillside. If you go back to 45:00 you can see the revelation of the articulated legs and see that where the top part of the body SHOULD be is within undisturbed rock but there is no upper body.

#194 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 July 2016 - 06:33 PM

BTW, about three months or so after they published their article about five years ago I wrote to Dr. Lindgren and proposed that they consider several ways to test the bacterial contamination hypothesis. I got a reply from him but he mainly brushed off my suggestion. I would have to go back to review what I wrote to them but as I recall I suggested that if they would take their samples from several places within the bone rather than just one then if they got similar dates from all locations that would rule out the bacterial contamination idea. I also suggested that they should compare a small-diameter bone with a large-diameter bone and again if the dates are the same that rules out bacterial contamination because a smaller bone would have greater surface area compared to its volume and if the bacterial contamination was coming from the outside you would expect to find more near the surface of a bone. And BTW, that is exactly why they did abrasion of the bone before conducting their c14 test. They thought that would reduce to zero the possibility of it having bacteria in their sample. But they were dumbstruck to find they had a huge amount of c-14 so even though there was no DNA that would support that huge amount they still had to grasp that straw as their only explanation.

#195 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 July 2016 - 07:41 PM

One more point that can be made from the article by Lindgren is that they took sample proteins from the mosasaur and compared those to a monitor lizard, a cow, and two types of bacteria. The chart which shows those is in Figure 6. And of course the spectral analysis matches the mosasaur with the monitor lizard and the collagen from cows. Bacteria don't have collagen. They have collagen-like proteins, but not collagen. It is pretty hard to claim that the carbon-14 dating came from modern bacteria when you don't have collagen-like proteins, but rather you have collagen. And when you don't have large amounts of bacterial DNA. But that's what they did anyway!

#196 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 July 2016 - 08:02 PM

And I'd like you to cite anyone who is "astonished" about never getting a zero reading for old samples, this is an example of you making things up again.


I did not make it up. I did however make the statement based on recollections I had of articles I had read on the subject. I quickly found such an article. . The same statement is made in an article by Dr. John Baumgartner. He says:

http://www.icr.org/a...ions-long-ages/

"The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record."

#197 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 July 2016 - 08:12 PM

I quickly found another similar quote which refers to numerous non creationists who have expressed surprise or dismay about not being able to get older c14 dates from objects which are supposedly carbon dead.

http://www.detecting...m/carbon14.html
"In testing the Tandem Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (TAMS), a major problem appeared. Normally as in any test with decay counting, background counts must be made. Usually, fossil carbon is used for the background count since it is assumed that the fossil carbon is anywhere between 60 and 600 million years old and therefore cannot possibly have any 14C left. However, as previously noted, fairly high levels of carbon 14 are in fact present in these samples. R.H. Brown reported in Origins 1988(15), p. 39-43 that "infinite age" samples of fossil carbon are being reported in the literature as having C-14 ages in the 40,000-year range. The laboratories doing this research are from Europe, Canada, and the USA (Brown et al. 1983; Jull et al. 1986; Beukens, Gurfinkel, and Lee 1986; Grootes et al. 1986; and Bonani et al. 1986).
"Contamination from our present Biosphere" was the most widely used interpretation to explain the presence of these "unexpected results". The journal Radiocarbon (Vol. 29, No. 3, 1987) contains two different reports from groups that attempted to explore the limits of this "contamination". The first group, from Simon Frazer University in British Columbia (Vogel, Nelson and Southon 1987) measured 43 samples of anthracite (coal) from Pennsylvania, USA, that had been given the best known pretreatment to remove contamination by modern carbon. The sizes of the samples ranged from 0.5 to 20 milligrams. They all yielded around 43,000-year carbon 14 dates, regardless of the sample size. Again this finding was attributed to machine background and contamination during sample preparation. The second group, from the University of Toronto in Ontario (Gurfinkel 1987) stated that "One of the major problems encountered in this study was the apparent presence of 14C contamination in samples that were assumed dead . . . it could not be assumed that even the oldest samples were necessarily 14C free" (p. 342). Gurfinkel, went through a meticulous process using graphite, calcite, limestone and anthracite samples to come up with her conclusions. And, all she could say is that "infinite age" samples should be expected to have "contamination" giving dates as recent as 43,000 years, which is similar to what the Simon Frazer University group obtained. As more and more groups looked at this problem, it has become common knowledge that there is a wall this side of about 50,000 14C years that cannot be passed in practice.
Now, consider that if the "background noise" was really a problem that even if no sample was in the detection machine that the machine would still report background noise corresponding to ages less than 50,000 years. This is not what happens. According to Schmidt et. al., no counts were detected in 30 minutes giving an age greater than 90,000 years.18 Geological graphite was also tested and gave an carbon 14 age of almost 70,000 years. Compare this with "infinite age" samples of fossil coal, oil, bone, ect., that all date less than 50,000 years.17 Certainly background noise cannot explain such a discrepancy."

#198 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 July 2016 - 08:43 PM

W >> Considering that you think all limestone, coal etc. is only 4500 yrs old then there would be over half of modern levels of C14 in them. Do you think that might not have been noticed at some point ?<<

You should know that we creationists do not take the same view you have as a uniformitarian which says that c14 levels have remained relatively constant for the past 100000 plus years. For numerous reasons, it is likely that pre-flood levels were considerably lower than 1950 levels. And so an organism that died in the flood 4500 years ago could be expected to have a date of 25000 years or older based on the assumptions made with c14 dating.

#199 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 14 July 2016 - 03:43 PM

Here is another link you can try.



At about 49:00 you can see the cross-sectional context and from that it is quite apparent there were no tunnels and there were no bulldozers or backhoes which went further back into the hillside. If you go back to 45:00 you can see the revelation of the articulated legs and see that where the top part of the body SHOULD be is within undisturbed rock but there is no upper body.

 

Ok, that video worked. When you said a video of the bones being uncovered I thought you meant an actual video sequence of that event, not a series of poor quality stills. There's no way to tell from that how hard or how sandy the material around the bones is. Call me biased but I'll go with the reports from multiple workers that the bones were buried in unconsolidated blowsand rather than believe the single person (Patton) who maintains they were in solid rock.

 

In fact the image of the cross sectional context supports the view they weren't in rock because the hard Dakota sandstone layer is clearly visible several feet above where it points to where the bones were found. And surely the well defined backhoe marks indicate compacted sandy material, not rock. There's no way to tell whether there was ever a tunnel there (not from that picture anyway) because the whole site has been wrecked by modern open cast mining activities.



#200 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 14 July 2016 - 03:58 PM

W >> Considering that you think all limestone, coal etc. is only 4500 yrs old then there would be over half of modern levels of C14 in them. Do you think that might not have been noticed at some point ?<<

You should know that we creationists do not take the same view you have as a uniformitarian which says that c14 levels have remained relatively constant for the past 100000 plus years. For numerous reasons, it is likely that pre-flood levels were considerably lower than 1950 levels. And so an organism that died in the flood 4500 years ago could be expected to have a date of 25000 years or older based on the assumptions made with c14 dating.

 

But somehow the malachite bones date to 1450 yrs ago






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users