W>>What, doesn't he know whether he still has possession of the bones ? Your link in post 209 mentions 'Moab woman', why isn't there any more than anecdote about the infant ?>>
When I spoke to him he was in a hurry because of some visitors to the museum. I didn't ask him if he no longer possesses ANY of the MM bones. I asked him about the jawbone with teeth in it and he said it now belongs to Carl Baugh. I may call him to see if he would agree to C14 date the tooth pulp.
Taylor commented that the infant was being held tightly to the chest of its mother. He even commented on the condition of the feet of the mother. He was not just making this up. I don't know why it was not reported. As for the date of 210 years for "Moab woman", I am quite sure that the date lab just itemizes and labels each sample according to what it was told when it was submitted. This was a humerus from one of the first 2 individuals from 1971...and it was not until 1990 that the mother and infant were found. That is how I understand it anyway.
>>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.>>
According to Taylor and Armitage, there was no collagen in their pelvis bone. I have my doubts that the MAS people would have known that. But it makes little difference, except I would think "organic matter" outside a bone would have a MUCH higher chance of being contaminated with modern carbon.
>>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organic material (charcoal ?), which you seem to think is plausible that 90% of the original carbon atoms had been replaced by modern carbon.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 ?>>
Not 90%...by my calc...but a large %. It is hard to say since it is so nebulous. It SHOULD be a date from a bone...or better still, inside a tooth.
The undisputed fact is that the context of where the bones originally laid has been completely altered by heavy machinery due to modern mining.>>
No, I would dispute that...unless you mean the general context. That hillside WAS removed, however where those photos were taken, the place where the upper part of the body of those 2 legs SHOULD be...WAS UNDISTURBED. Then they dug a hole back into the hillside to remove the legs.
>>All the skeletons seem to be almost completely disarticulated with various portions scattered about.>>
Right. Even this, from 1971:
shows disarticulated bones which are still embedded in the hardened (but still not super hard) rock. This also helps refute your mining accident theory. They should be articulated, and there should be torches and tools and bags full of azurite stones.
>>It’s not like you have two intact halves (upper body + legs) separated neatly. >>
Right again. Piles of bones, not complete bodies.
>>The most obvious interpretation is that buried skeletons were ripped apart by a greater or lesser degree as bulldozers moved material about.>>
Obvious if you have dismissed in your mind the flood theory. Of course your idea is refuted by the fact that the IMMEDIATE context of the legs removed in 1990 was undisturbed...inside the hillside. The still photos show what the hillside looked like before they exposed the legs.
>>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 ?>>
I suppose you have some kind of similar explanation when you find dino bones that are not fully articulated...and they seem to you to be buried by a massive flood. It COULD wash away parts of the body where you NEVER can find it, or it could be just a few yards away. It is serendipitous.
>>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 ?>>
It really is off-topic, but the answer is....one word...WAVES. Sedimentary waves or flows of material. Some have more cementing agents within them. The polystrate trees proves that happened...just as I said. It was not a non-answer...it was very much to the point.
>>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.>>
Yep. They possess the bones all right. You would THINK they would WANT to know...especially now that AMS dating is quite reasonable in cost. But they are afraid to find out. I will do my best to recommend my idea to others...YE or AE...who may at some point want to do the dating. I wrote to Schweitzer (who consulted re. the mosasaur) and she was also IMO afraid to find out the real answer.
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.>>
Unlike you, I don't live in a fantasy world where all the AE's are unbiased and open to YE interpretations. What is YOUR explanation for why they ask ahead of time what date is expected? Why do YOU think that if they figure out it is a creationist who is seeking the date, they will refuse to perform testing (at least some of the time)?