Jump to content


Photo

Out Of Place Fossils Falsify Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
557 replies to this topic

#201 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 July 2016 - 10:15 PM

But somehow the malachite bones date to 1450 yrs ago


I will grant to you that the date is a problem in my mind. However Patton has told me that because of the known infiltration from another location which did cause the mineralization of the bones, making them turn green and become partially malachite... then we should not be surprised that there is a younger c14 date. I believe if someone would attempt AMS dating of tooth pulp (they did find teeth), and if there was a young date for that then I would agree that the bones must have been recently intrusively buried. If the date is 4500 years or older, possibly up to 25,000 to 40000 then that would be consistent with humans who became buried by the flood. However I would expect that you would just blow that off and say that it was just some human who lived alongside Neanderthals. I guess in your mind that means heads you win tails I lose, eh?

BTW, Patton's video shows the still photos that were supplied by the Bureau of Land Management so that is all the evidence there is. But Patton does not say that all of the material surrounding the bones is rock hard. Some of it is what he would call partially consolidated sandstone. You can see the tooth marks of the back hoe in the side of the wall but it is certainly not just sand or else it would not be perpendicular nor would there be tooth marks visible remaining in the wall after twenty years. And you can see from the position of the body that the top part of it is gone but there is no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart. If you are fair-minded you would see that as strong evidence they were killed and buried by a flood which deposited all the sediments. A mining accident or purposeful burial in no way fits with the fact that the bodies were disarticulated. People don't chop up their family members before they bury them nor do mine collapses cause bodies to be torn apart.

#202 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 22 July 2016 - 04:47 AM

I will grant to you that the date is a problem in my mind. However Patton has told me that because of the known infiltration from another location which did cause the mineralization of the bones, making them turn green and become partially malachite... then we should not be surprised that there is a younger c14 date.


The bones from the 1971 excavations were reported as slightly mineralized and stained blue green by leaching copper minerals. I don't see anywhere where it states the bones are "partially malachite" and even if they were do you think a professional lab would be so incompetent as to not date an appropriate section of the bone ? Besides, you complain when  a very small amount of contamination (in the case of the mosasaur bone in the Lindgren paper 4.8%, and all other dinosaur 'young' bone dates cited by creationists substantially less than that) is given as the cause of non infinite dates yet 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 !

 

Attached File  136402_max.jpg   22.24KB   0 downloads
 
Having said that I don't think the analysis commissioned by the Moab Archaeological Society even used the actual bone. 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.
 
 

BTW, Patton's video shows the still photos that were supplied by the Bureau of Land Management so that is all the evidence there is. But Patton does not say that all of the material surrounding the bones is rock hard. Some of it is what he would call partially consolidated sandstone. You can see the tooth marks of the back hoe in the side of the wall but it is certainly not just sand or else it would not be perpendicular nor would there be tooth marks visible remaining in the wall after twenty years. And you can see from the position of the body that the top part of it is gone but there is no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart. If you are fair-minded you would see that as strong evidence they were killed and buried by a flood which deposited all the sediments. A mining accident or purposeful burial in no way fits with the fact that the bodies were disarticulated. People don't chop up their family members before they bury them nor do mine collapses cause bodies to be torn apart.


If that's all the evidence there is and that has been your main basis for arguing the bones were not just found in consolidated sand and rock fragments then I question your objectivity. 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 ?
 
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. 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 ?



#203 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 11:07 AM

W>>even if they were do you think a professional lab would be so incompetent as to not date an appropriate section of the bone ?>>

Hmmm...isn't that I should say about the mosasaur?  Actually they DID try as hard as they could (by abrading away outer layers) to get into a part of the bone that they thought would NOT have bacteria. 

 

>>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. 

 

>>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. 

 

>>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.

 

>>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. 

 

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?



#204 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 11:16 AM

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.  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!



#205 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 12:55 PM

In this article LINK Mark Armitage (former microscopy instructor at Cal State) compares dino bones which DID have endogenous collagen with the Moab Man bones...and he found NO collagen, and DID find the remains of a boring insect and suggested they consumed all the original collagen inside the bones.  I would suggest that this could also be the cause of the young dates.  If they got INSIDE the hip bone (it was found after it was pressure cracked) then they probably were also inside the "associated organic material associated with the bones."  He also pointed out that plenty of collagen was found in ancient Egyptian mummies. 



#206 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 01:35 PM

Wibble, why did you totally IGNORE the good evidence I showed you of the cat track?  It was cross-sectioned, and it shows clear compression features.  If it were carved, there would be clear evidence of truncations. 



#207 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 03:04 PM

W>>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.>>

Ok, it is total bullcrap for you to try to say that in that video at 47:44, which is the same photo as this:

 

malachite-man-1990-leg-knee.jpg

 

is BLOWSAND where the femur is and where the pelvis and spine would have to be...BUT ARE NOT.  I don't care WHAT any ev authors might have written about it, that photo puts the lie to the idea it was just BLOWSAND.  But you are not objective or inquisitive about it.  The same goes for this picture too.

 

post-1952-0-10157200-1459944907.jpg

 

Some IS crumbly, but much of it is clearly solidified ROCK.  It is just BOGUS for you to try to suggest they were in blowsand.  Do you even know what that word MEANS?  And how could anyone tunnel 200 feet through sand anyway???



#208 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 03:13 PM

I did see this in the Coulam article:

 

In the fall of 1995, Mr. Harrison allowed several creationists to dig for additional human remains. They
discovered several skeletal fragments in loose unconsolidated fill about 15 m north of the 1971 discoveries. These
specimens appear to be some of the missing skeletal parts of the two individuals excavated by Jack Marwitt. They
were apparently pushed into this area during the 1971 bulldozer activities that originally uncovered the remains.

 

 

So SOME of the remains were in a pile of loose fill that may have been unintentionally pushed by a bulldozer in 1971.  I would think that after the 1971 discoveries they were quite careful with the heavy equipment.  The leg bones shown in my previous post were in a totally different location than the 1971 finds.  And in 1990, as can be seen in the sequence of stills, the BLM archaeologists were careful when exposing the bones they found. 



#209 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 03:45 PM

At 48:30 of the video the location is shown after the articulated legs were removed.  You cannot see any backhoe marks at all.  You see 2 rather deep holes from the careful excavation.  The picture seen at 49:07 is after the site was "cleaned up"  and you can see tooth marks of the backhoe.  BUT before the excavation of the bones, there were none. 

 

Also, regarding the 210bp date taken from a humerus bone...from this source: UCLA radiocarbon dates XI, 1989 Radiology vol 31 No. 1  (When I gave a link before, that did not work...here it is again, in case it works now:  LINK  Here is the intro:

 

The radiocarbon dates reported in this list are almost all based on collagen measurements from human archaeologic bone material. This collagen was isolated according to the methods developed by Berger, Homey and Libby (1964), Ho, Marcus and Berger (1969), Longin (1971) and
Protsch (1973). All samples were counted as CO2 gas at close to 1 atm in a 7.5L proportional counter with three energy channels. The 14C reported dates are calculated with the Libby half-life of 5568 ± 30 years as required by convention. 13C measurements were used to normalize to 25%o in the standard manner. The biospheric standard is 95% the count
rate of NBS oxalic acid for radiocarbon laboratories. Background is based on CO2 obtained from marble. The accuracy of counter operation is checked against historically dated wood from the funerary boat of Sesostris III, 1872_8 BC (Hayes, 1962). The 14C ages are not tree-ring calibrated.

 

However, the electron microscope work by Armitage could find NO COLLAGEN inside his bone sample.  Hmmm. 



#210 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 July 2016 - 01:27 PM

I just spoke with Joe Taylor who was very involved with Malachite Man...had possession of some of the bones.  (Maybe no longer).  He said that there was indeed a female who was holding an infant.  Not very likely to be someone entering a long and low mine tunnel!



#211 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2016 - 03:19 PM

>>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.



#212 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2016 - 04:01 PM

W>>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.>>

Ok, it is total bullcrap for you to try to say that in that video at 47:44, which is the same photo as this:

 

malachite-man-1990-leg-knee.jpg

 

is BLOWSAND where the femur is and where the pelvis and spine would have to be...BUT ARE NOT.  I don't care WHAT any ev authors might have written about it, that photo puts the lie to the idea it was just BLOWSAND.  But you are not objective or inquisitive about it.  The same goes for this picture too.

 

post-1952-0-10157200-1459944907.jpg

 

Some IS crumbly, but much of it is clearly solidified ROCK.  It is just BOGUS for you to try to suggest they were in blowsand.  Do you even know what that word MEANS?  And how could anyone tunnel 200 feet through sand anyway???

 

The top photo appears to be bone contained within harder material. However, nothing is confirmed from an old grainy photo in poor light. You just cannot tell how hard that material actually is. There is plenty of documentation that you have seen, from the workers who were actually on site extracting the bones that state they were in unconsolidated fill. Excuse me for trusting them rather than Patton. Perhaps some of these leg bones have not been shifted by machinery, if so you might expect that sand and spall in fill would become relatively compacted over the centuries with water percolating through.

 

And stop going on about a 200 foot tunnel as if that is fact. Why does the original mine entrance have to be all the way back to the modern road cutting ? Why couldn't it have been at a much closer point from another angle at the side of the hill ?

 

 

I just spoke with Joe Taylor who was very involved with Malachite Man...had possession of some of the bones.  (Maybe no longer).  He said that there was indeed a female who was holding an infant.  Not very likely to be someone entering a long and low mine tunnel!

 

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 ?



#213 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 08:38 PM

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:

 

malachite-man-1971b.jpg

 

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)? 



#214 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 08:48 PM

W>>However, nothing is confirmed from an old grainy photo in poor light. You just cannot tell how hard that material actually is.>>

To a fair minded person, what IS confirmed is that it is not just blowsand.  You can't trust AE's to report fairly. 

 

>>And stop going on about a 200 foot tunnel as if that is fact. Why does the original mine entrance have to be all the way back to the modern road cutting ? Why couldn't it have been at a much closer point from another angle at the side of the hill ?>>

I accept that possibility...IF there was some nearer side of a hill where there could be a shorter tunnel...but they have aerial photos just about the time of the road cut.  There was not a nearer location...else someone who knows the topography could have easily pointed that out and made Patton look bad.  They have not because they CAN not. 



#215 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 08:54 PM

Let me ask you simply, Wibble...IF a tooth was C14 dated and they got a date of 4500 years...or more likely 25,000 (since the assumption of steady C14 levels is very unlikely. Dino bones etc tend to get dates in that range)...then what affect would it have on you?  I think the answer is NONE.  That is because your evolutionary view is unfalsifiable in any practical sense, just as I have said.  As a last resort...such as when soft dino tissue was found, even with evidence of dino DNA...your side will always simply say, "My my...that IS a mystery which science will some day have to explain for us!"  Which means, "our evolutionary suit of armor is entirely undented...because it is a matter of FAITH to us...faith that naturalism/science will always SOME DAY have the answer we seek." 



#216 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 28 July 2016 - 04:21 PM

Let me ask you simply, Wibble...IF a tooth was C14 dated and they got a date of 4500 years...or more likely 25,000 (since the assumption of steady C14 levels is very unlikely. Dino bones etc tend to get dates in that range)...then what affect would it have on you?  I think the answer is NONE.  That is because your evolutionary view is unfalsifiable in any practical sense, just as I have said.


Given that the existing radiocarbon date of 1450 BP (about 600 AD) fits neatly into the known period of mining for azurite etc. by indigenous people in the American Southwest and I assume 4500 yrs+ is outside this known range then I would be extremely surprised. Maybe Patton should put up some of his own money to get a tooth dated if he thinks this will weaken the mainstream position. A date of 25000 yrs for a human bone would hardly count as a knockout blow against evolution but it would be perplexing as to how the skeletons got into that layer if that date was verified. I would be 100% for a tooth to be dated, just to shut you up on this topic at last. :)

 

Regarding your comment about assumption of steady C14 levels. Scientists became aware of variations against known absolute dates soon after the method was invented, that is why we have calibration curves to account for this. It may suit you to pretend that scientists are hapless fools making blind assumptions but you are only deluding yourself. We have a robust calibration curve based on the dendrochronology of bristlecone pines and other trees going back to 13,900 yrs BP and beyond that based on a variety of different methods back to about 50,000 yrs BP.

 

http://www.radiocarb...calibration.htm

 

http://pure.qub.ac.u...TION_CURVES.pdf

 

Radiocarbon labs ask for the expected date because they want to avoid cross contamination during sample processing. If a very old sample, say 20,000 yrs followed a modern sample then the smallest contamination would introduce a very large error. The other way round would unlikely be an issue. Also, they want to avoid samples that produce a very large date range as would be the case where the calibration curve is flat and therefore any result will have very little value.

 

Now, going back to the 600 AD date yielded by the organic matter associated with the malachite bones please think seriously about what you have to believe (in common with Patton), that about 90% of the original carbon of the material has been replace by modern carbon. During pretreatment before testing modern contaminants like carbonates and humic acids are removed by acid-alkali washing. Any remaining contaminant (bacteria or insect remains perhaps) is hardly going to comprise that proportion of the material is it ? (even before washing). Remember, you complained about just 4.8% contamination given by the Swedish researchers for the 24,000 yr date for the mosasaur bone which you have to believe is exactly the same age as malachite man. Anything much younger than that given for the mosasaur increasingly has to have a LOT more C14 in it. Look at the decay curve again, see where the supposed young dates (25-45,000 yr range) for dinosaur bones (that are mainly fragments from museum collections obtained by creationists that have been covered in organic preservative) reside on the curve. Look where malachite man would be (not to mention the 210 yr old date for the associated Moab man). Does that tell you something ?

 

Attached File  C-14decay.jpg   71.39KB   0 downloads



#217 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 30 July 2016 - 04:15 PM

W>> . Maybe Patton should put up some of his own money to get a tooth dated if he thinks this will weaken the mainstream position. A date of 25000 yrs for a human bone would hardly count as a knockout blow against evolution but it would be perplexing as to how the skeletons got into that layer if that date was verified. I would be 100% for a tooth to be dated, just to shut you up on this topic at last. :)<<

I guess it would depend on which date we got whether it would shut me up or shut you up! Given the two very different dates so far I think they have to be viewed as quite suspicious.

Regarding calibration, I believe it is quite certain that a relatively level amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is assumed. I am simply saying that a valid date for the flood could be 4500 years even though a carbon date is 25000. I would hope that you would not attempt to quibble on that point.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you that the reason they ask for an expected date is so they can prevent having a young sample be contaminated by a sample which is older from a prior test or vice versa. They are capable of cleaning their instrument to avoid cross-contamination. It is obvious that they are using the expected date as a way to provide a backup to their testing so that if they get an unusual result then they can go back to attempt to find where the problem was.

>> please think seriously about what you have to believe (in common with Patton), that about 90% of the original carbon of the material has been replace by modern carbon<<

I understand totally what is implied. As for the 210 year date, that was supposed to be from a bone and according to Armitage his bones had zero collagen inside them. And in his bone they also found actual parts of a boring insect. So it is hard to say how valid that date is. Until we know more about the organic matter that was dated to 1450 years ago, it is hard to comment about that. In my opinion the carbon dating is enough to call into serious question whether these are flood victims until a date is acquired by AMS dating which comes from within a tooth or perhaps a bone which is clearly unpenetrated by water. For me, it is hard to let the c14 dating totally discredit the other good evidence such as finding an infant, finding no tools, and having disarticulated bodies. It is bogus to suggest that heavy machinery caused that.

>> Anything much younger than that given for the mosasaur increasingly has to have a LOT more C14 in it. <<

Again, you don't have to explain this to me. I have given you much more of an answer regarding malachite man then you have given to me about the mosasaur. In that case they did the acid alkali acid procedure which was preceded by abrading away the outer surface of the bone and yet they still got very high amounts of c14 and their DNA amplification showed clearly that the source could not be from contamination by bacteria or other sources. So let's hear your answer on that.

>> see where the supposed young dates (25-45,000 yr range) for dinosaur bones (that are mainly fragments from museum collections obtained by creationists that have been covered in organic preservative) reside on the curve.<<

Let me hasten to inform you that the mosasaur was not dated by creationists. You can pretend that in every instance there was surface contamination by glue or preservatives but that is bogus. The techniques that I suggested which would get multiple dates from smaller bones and larger bones or from different locations all over the body would eliminate that if all of the dates were the same. I would hope you would agree to that.

#218 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 30 July 2016 - 05:47 PM

W>> . Maybe Patton should put up some of his own money to get a tooth dated if he thinks this will weaken the mainstream position. A date of 25000 yrs for a human bone would hardly count as a knockout blow against evolution but it would be perplexing as to how the skeletons got into that layer if that date was verified. I would be 100% for a tooth to be dated, just to shut you up on this topic at last. :)<<

I guess it would depend on which date we got whether it would shut me up or shut you up! Given the two very different dates so far I think they have to be viewed as quite suspicious.


Why ? The two dates aren't from the same material, they are from separate finds from different locations.
 

Regarding calibration, I believe it is quite certain that a relatively level amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is assumed. I am simply saying that a validate for the flood could be 4500 years even though a carbon date is 25000. I would hope that you would not attempt to quibble on that point.


No, because, as I mentioned, we have calibration curves sourced from independent measures of age (you seem to have ignored this important truth). What basis do you have anyway that your postulated global Flood drastically altered carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere ?
 

I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you that the reason they ask for an expected date is so they can prevent having a young sample be contaminated by a sample which is older from a prior test. They are capable of cleaning their instrument to avoid cross-contamination. It is obvious that they are using the expected date as a way to provide a backup to their testing so that if they get an unusual result then they can go back to attempt to find where the problem was.


That is their reason, I am just restating it. Feel free to believe they make up dates if you want to.
 

>> please think seriously about what you have to believe (in common with Patton), that about 90% of the original carbon of the material has been replace by modern carbon<<

I understand totally what is implied.


You say that, but you are giving no explanation
 

As for the 210 year date, that was supposed to be from a bone and according to Armitage his bones had zero collagen inside them.


I haven't researched how they dated the Moab man bone so if you have any supporting info let me know. Did they directly date the bone ?
 

And in his bone they also found actual parts of a boring insect. So it is hard to say how valid that date is.


Part of the process is to visually check the sample under a microscope for contaminants such as insect parts so a competent lab would have excluded that.
 

Until we know more about the organic matter that was dated to 1450 years ago, it is hard to comment about that. In my opinion the carbon dating is enough to call into serious question whether these are flood victims until a date is acquired by AMS dating which comes from within a tooth or perhaps a bone which is clearly unpenetrated by water.

 

Glad you agree that it is very questionable that they were flood victims. All bones will get penetrated by water, that is why they do the acid - alkali cleansing. This process also dissolves the mineral part of bone so you get left with the organic collagen part. As it seems there is no collagen remaining in malachite man bones then that suggests no direct bone dating is possible in this case (don't know about teeth but I imagine water would penetrate from the root). So associated charcoal or whatever would be the best bet for dating, and the original material from that is not going to be severely diminished by the washing. So you are still left with how that could be 90% replaced with modern contaminant.
 

>> Anything much younger than that given for the mosasaur increasingly has to have a LOT more C14 in it. <<

Again, you don't have to explain this to me. I have given you much more of an answer regarding malachite man then you have given to me about the mosasaur. In that case they did the acid alkali acid procedure which was preceded by abrading away the outer surface of the bone and yet they still got very high amounts of c14. So let's hear your answer on that.


I think I did give you an answer. After pre treatment, a residue of just 5mg of carbon was produced from a 2g bone sample. Live bone is 30% organic (collagen etc.) and 70% inorganic (hydroxyapatite mineral - the part that gets dissolved away during treatment) so clearly there was very little organic material left from the mosasaur. If throughout that 2g bone sample there was contamination (which there was as they observed and reported) then all this would have been concentrated down as part of the 5mg residue. Which would introduce a lot of C14 contamination to the original mosasaur organic material. Quite feasibly enough to produce 4.85% fraction of modern C14.
 

>> see where the supposed young dates (25-45,000 yr range) for dinosaur bones (that are mainly fragments from museum collections obtained by creationists that have been covered in organic preservative) reside on the curve.<<

Let me hasten to inform you that the mosasaur was not dated by creationists.

I'm quite aware of that. However the vast majority of the small lists of dinosaur bone 'young' dates publicised by creationist organisations are.
 

You can pretend that in every instance there was surface contamination by glue or preservatives but that is bogus.[


I haven't looked at "every instance", but many seem to be sourced from  creationist Hugh Miller and his associates who obtained dinosaur bone fragments from the Carnegie Museum under false pretenses and had them carbon dated even though they were explicitly told that they had been preserved in such a way.

 

https://ncse.com/fil...pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

 



#219 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 31 July 2016 - 09:25 AM

W>> The two dates aren't from the same material, they are from separate finds from different locations.<<

They were only about forty feet from each other.

>> What basis do you have anyway that your postulated global Flood drastically altered carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere ?<<

There are several reasonings switch all could contribute to this. The simplest to me is that the pre-flood Earth was only about 2000 years old and it would take some time to build up the C 14 inventory. It is of course possible that the Earth was created with an atmosphere including c-14 but it is also possible that it was not. If indeed all of the plant material which is within coal and possibly also oil were to be living this would have an effect on the carbon 14 reservoirs in the atmosphere. There are several articles about this which you can access if you want. It is probably beyond the scope of this topic.

>> Did they directly date the bone ?<<

I located the report and I gave the link previously but I don't want to go back to find it now. I believe it was a radiology report from UCLA and it had about three sentences about it. It's simply said Moab Utah female humerus 210 years. The introductory remarks said that most of their samples were collagen however according to Armitage there was no collagen. So there are some questions in my mind about that test.

>> All bones will get penetrated by water, that is why they do the acid - alkali cleansing<<

You simply are talking out of two sides of your mouth. When it comes to the Malachite Man dates you are just completely confident they were done well with accurate dates. But then you have a long drawn-out explanation for why you believe the Mosasaur dates were contaminated. I will grant of course that the percentages are different but you still must either toss out the whole idea of dating a bone at all, or you need to accept the date for the Mosasaur which was well within the limits of the AMS technology. They got about 1000 times more then the limit. BTW, I would probably grant that if this supposed associated matter is something like a burned stick of wood that the date is likely to be valid. But we just don't know what this matter was.

>> If throughout that 2g bone sample there was contamination (which there was as they observed and reported) <<

They reported it, but they did not observe it. They were suggesting that as the cause but all of their evidence including the DNA evidence and the spectrographic evidence was contrary to the idea that there was bacterial contamination. You have simply whiffed this point.

>> Which would introduce a lot of C14 contamination to the original mosasaur organic material. Quite feasibly enough to produce 4.85% fraction of modern C14.<<

Either c14 dating is suitable for dating of bone or it is not. You can't have it both ways. Everyone knows that bone has mineral as well as protein/carbon components. And they also know that there can be external contamination. So they have processes to concentrate the carbon and also to eliminate modern sources. They regard them to be quite sufficient most of the time however when they get a "bad" date they have to start backpedaling to say that their procedures are inadequate to eliminate contamination. And you have just parroted their lame excuses.

>> However the vast majority of the small lists of dinosaur bone 'young' dates publicised by creationist organisations are.<<

Creationists are entitled to have their own efforts to date dinosaur bones, especially when the evolutionists simply refuse because they have already decided there must be no c14 left in them. Of course they also had the same reason for deciding that Mary Schweitzer should not have been looking for any soft tissue. Or DNA. She had the guts to ignore what she was told and applied the science. And creationists do the same thing. What is interesting is that when I urged Mary to carbon date her soft tissue she refused to do that stating that the demineralizing fluids would contaminate the results. Then about a year later she told me she DID do c14 dating and got no c14. As far as I know, there was no official reporting of that so I have some reservations about it. A creationist offered her and Jack Horner $22,000 if they would allow her soft tissue to be carbon-dated and they refused. That doesn't sound very much like objective science to me. You can find the telephone interview with Jack Horner and Bob Enyart on YouTube. Of course if you carbon dated soft tissue after demineralization then that would eliminate some of the concerns you have about contamination. If Schweitzer would allow supervised carbon dating of her soft tissue then that could go a long way to settling the question. It won't be long before a creationist will conduct the test themselves on soft tissue and then it will of course be rejected by science until a non creationist does it.

>> Hugh Miller and his associates who obtained dinosaur bone fragments from the Carnegie Museum under false pretenses and had them carbon dated even though they were explicitly told that they had been preserved in such a way.<<

You just want to be a crybaby when a creationist invades the realm that you think should be reserved only for evolutionists. It is baloney for you to dispute those dates published by Miller. And in addition there have been numerous dinosaur bones which have been excavated by creationists such as Carl Baugh without any contamination from museum glue and I believe those have also been carbon dated to around thirty thousand years or so. You can speak about the small list, and they are smaller than they should be because evolutionists refuse to c14 date dinosaur bones. They know that it is a non winner for them, and they are afraid of what it will show.

#220 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 31 July 2016 - 10:40 AM

but many seem to be sourced from creationist Hugh Miller and his associates who obtained dinosaur bone fragments from the Carnegie Museum under false pretenses and had them carbon dated even though they were explicitly told that they had been preserved in such a way.

https://ncse.com/fil...pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf
 

Your extremely lame source from 1992 suggests incorrectly that the only sources for dinosaur fossils which have c14 dates were from scrapings from museums obtained through false pretenses. Your representation of that is what is the false pretense! In that article it refers to dates obtained in the 1980s. That author even suggests that AMS dating is no more accurate than is beta dating! There are many inaccurate statements in that article. It was written before Mary Schweitzer reported on finding soft dinosaur tissue so it was working on the assumption that all carbon inside a dinosaur bone must not be from endogenous collagen.

Hugh Miller has provided ongoing reporting of carbon dating of dinosaur bones which goes through much more recent times through 2012 including bones which he personally sawed in half in order to obtain the sample. You can read about it here...

newgeology.us/presentation48.html   LINK

It is entirely bogus of you to suggest that the only source of c-14 in their samples was from museum glue! These samples were excavated by the creationists themselves and never were coated with glue of any kind.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users