>>in the case of the malachite man bone carbon age of just 1450 yrs you think contamination is the answer. That would need about 90% replacement with modern carbon !>>
As I said, the c14 dates are a problem, unless there is infiltration/contamination. I am inquisitive about it and would like to see a date from inside an intact tooth. Are you inquisitive about it? Or are you ready to just dismiss it as well as the young date for the mosasaur?
>>The MAS report I showed you states it was organic material associated with one of the skeletons excavated by a team of professional archaeologists in Autumn 1990. This doesn't help you of course because any organic material would have to have been buried with the body at the time of death.>>
That does raise some issues. Why would they NOT use a bone? Maybe it is regarded as "sacred" by Indians.
The C14 dates sure are a problem for you and I would fully expect a date from a tooth would confirm that. I expect they didn’t use the bone because there was no protein left in it and you can’t accurately date the inorganic hydroxyapatite portion of bone. So they used associated organic material (charcoal ?), which you seem to think is plausible that 90% of the original carbon atoms had been replaced by modern carbon. Do you ?
>>And how can you state so definitively that there is "no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart" ? If the miner was buried in a crouched position for example why couldn't the leg bones become separated from the upper skeleton in this way ?>>
The only leg you have to stand on (no pun) is an absurd idea that the upper body was ripped up by a back hoe (with no one noticing a skull or torso) and then the lower body got covered up in such a way that it appeared as it does in the still photos...being revealed in a matrix that shows no evidence at all of the supposed destruction of the context right at the point where the bones that SHOULD be there...are not.
The undisputed fact is that the context of where the bones originally laid has been completely altered by heavy machinery due to modern mining. All the skeletons seem to be almost completely disarticulated with various portions scattered about. It’s not like you have two intact halves (upper body + legs) separated neatly. The most obvious interpretation is that buried skeletons were ripped apart by a greater or lesser degree as bulldozers moved material about. Certainly a better explanation than a flood.
>>I also don't see why skeletons disarticulated in this way is strong evidence for a flood. As I've said before a flood violent enough to rip bodies apart would not keep all the pieces in such a small area.>>
You seem to believe it is all (fully articulated) or nothing (every bone is disarticulated). I don't think real life works that way.
You’re evading the question. How would a flood capable of ripping apart freshly killed humans (so not decomposed) deposit the disarticulated parts in such close proximity ?
>>Also, under a violent flood scenario, why would the Dakota formation been laid in such a way, with soft sandy layers alternating with hard sandstone ?>>
Whether you have incredulity about it or not, there is good evidence from many places that there was quick deposition. Sometimes even AE's admit this. Just look as the polystrate trees, where multiple layers of coal and limestone (maybe it is sandstone...don't recall) are laid in a short enough time that the tree did not decompose.
Another non answer. I wasn’t talking about quick deposition, I’m asking how a sudden violent flood deposits hard rock layers interspersed with soft sandy layers ?
Why have you disregarded the argument I made (and presented to Lindgren) that they could easily rule out bacterial contamination if they got C14 dates from multiple places in a single bone, or compared smaller bones to larger ones. If they got the same 24,600 year date every time, then that rules out bacteria...AGREE?
Depends how homogeneously the contaminants were present within the bone but a consistent date from multiple samples from the same source would I think lend credence to the date being real, yes. However, it’s a bit of a moot point unless you actually have this data.
W>>>>The MAS report I showed you states it was organic material associated with one of the skeletons excavated by a team of professional archaeologists in Autumn 1990. This doesn't help you of course because any organic material would have to have been buried with the body at the time of death.>>>>
I think you are purposely blinding yourself if you think the 1450 date is valid, but the 200 yr date is not. Why so? If they are both valid then you have to try to say there were TWO unlikely mine collapses. It is just your grasping at any straw you can come up with to save your theory.
What are you talking about, where have I said the 200 yr date is invalid ? That date was from one of the 1971 finds, the older date was from the more recent 1990s excavations from a different part of the site. Is two mine collapses unlikely in a span of 1200 yrs ? I expect there was a lot more than that.
And besides, just as you would be suspicious if Patton did the C14 dating with no one overseeing him, I am also suspicious of the ev's doing the dating without being overseen by a YE person. The truth is these dating procedures are pretty rife with corruption. They toss out any date they don't like and make any adjustments they can to get a "correct" date. They even ask ahead of time what the EXPECTED date is!
And this is what you have to fall back on, the ridiculous assertion that the employees of radiocarbon labs are either all charlatans involved in a conspiracy or have completely no clue about their profession.