Jump to content


Photo

"project C-14" - New Dinosaur Dating Research!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
7 replies to this topic

#1 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:32 AM

Hope this isn't a repost - it's fairly recent...

New dinosaur fossil dating research!...

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

YouTube video of the actual conference in Singapore:



Powerful evidence that dinos are indeed young!

And of course, although their dates are in the 40,000+/- year range, the ratio of c-14 to c-12 was probably not constant in the past, which means that actual dates could line up very well with the Biblical age of 6,000 to 10,000 years.

-Bryan

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:13 AM

Hope this isn't a repost - it's fairly recent...

New dinosaur fossil dating research!...

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

YouTube video of the actual conference in Singapore:



Powerful evidence that dinos are indeed young!

And of course, although their dates are in the 40,000+/- year range, the ratio of c-14 to c-12 was probably not constant in the past, which means that actual dates could line up very well with the Biblical age of 6,000 to 10,000 years.

-Bryan


Thanks for posting. I had heard Bob Enyart talk about that particular conference but I haven't seen the video yet. Will watch soon.

#3 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:32 PM

Very interesting. Of course, the results are open to other interpretations. Perhaps the most startling thing was that he seems to have dismissed the fact that known humic acid fractions gave the same C14 concentration values as did their anaysis of inorganic fractions from the bone. That to me is a sure sign that the C14 recovered from the bone is a modern contaminant, likley from the same humic acid fraction.

Also there is no description of the dating method itself. What labs provided the dates? Was it normal C14 measurements, or was it done with a Tandem Mass Spectrometer, which is needed for any real accuracy at all?

Hopefully there will be a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal which will provide the information needed to judge the validity of the claimed results. This presentation is insufficient.

Rich

#4 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:40 AM

//Perhaps the most startling thing was that he seems to have dismissed the fact that known humic acid fractions gave the same C14 concentration values as did their anaysis of inorganic fractions from the bone. That to me is a sure sign that the C14 recovered from the bone is a modern contaminant, likley from the same humic acid fraction.//

"There are a number of ways to guage the effects of pretreatment upon samples. The most common is to analyse and date the different fractions that have been removed. This will reveal the magnitude of error. If the dates from sample and contaminant are close, the associated error will be insignificant, however, if there is a major difference, the errors will rise. If different fractions give statistically identical results then it is concluded that no significant contamination has occurred."

Source: http://www.c14dating.com/pret.html

"Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He says that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs."

Source: http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

//Also there is no description of the dating method itself.//

Accelerated mass spectrometry was used...

"The special strength of AMS among the mass spectrometric methods is its power to separate a rare isotope from an abundant neighboring mass."

Source: http://en.wikipedia....ss_spectrometry

//What labs provided the dates?//

Geochron Labs, University of Arizona, and others...

Source: http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

//Hopefully there will be a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal which will provide the information needed to judge the validity of the claimed results. This presentation is insufficient.//

Just the opposite of peer review is happening. This research is intentionally being suppressed. Refer to the proof of this on the website above.

The presence of collagen supports the presence of c-14. The presence of c-14 explains the presence of collagen. Consistent sampling provides further validation.

//This presentation is insufficient.//

Seems pretty rock solid to me. :)

#5 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:10 AM

All of that is well and good, but I think you still missed the point. If all the fractions have the same C14 content, it is NOT a sign that there is no "error" - which they don't define - are they talking about experimental error? They admit that there was, in fact, humic acid recovered from the bones - and humic acid can only be a contaminant. Bone does not contain humic acid as a part of its physiological makeup. Any humic acid present in a bone is an exogenous contaminant.

The presence of collagen in Cretaceous aged dinosaur bone is still a contentious issue. It has not been demonstrated unequivocally. Mary Scwitzer's work, while interesting, and worth following up on, is not accepted yet by the majority of paleontologists. But her work is not being suppressed, because she works carefully, uses the scientific method, is open to criticism, and meets the minimum standards of the scientific publication. If the work reported above is being "suppressed", it is because it does not meet those sandards.

I've pointed out my concerns, which I listed after hearing the presentation. Simply repeating parts of it doesn't answer those concerns. At least one of their basic premises is simply wrong.

Rich

#6 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:50 AM

All of that is well and good, but I think you still missed the point. If all the fractions have the same C14 content, it is NOT a sign that there is no "error" - which they don't define - are they talking about experimental error? They admit that there was, in fact, humic acid recovered from the bones - and humic acid can only be a contaminant. Bone does not contain humic acid as a part of its physiological makeup. Any humic acid present in a bone is an exogenous contaminant.

The presence of collagen in Cretaceous aged dinosaur bone is still a contentious issue. It has not been demonstrated unequivocally. Mary Scwitzer's work, while interesting, and worth following up on, is not accepted yet by the majority of paleontologists. But her work is not being suppressed, because she works carefully, uses the scientific method, is open to criticism, and meets the minimum standards of the scientific publication. If the work reported above is being "suppressed", it is because it does not meet those sandards.

I've pointed out my concerns, which I listed after hearing the presentation. Simply repeating parts of it doesn't answer those concerns. At least one of their basic premises is simply wrong.

Rich


Rich, perhaps you can dismiss the dino research on contamination, but you can't dismiss the scores of other so called millions of years old items such as coal and natural gas, and most notably diamonds, that always have C14 in them. There is no valid scientific argument to explain this from an old earth perspective, its a tremendous problem for you guys (among scores of other evidences that far outweigh the few clocks used to promote an old earth).

Fred

#7 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:36 PM

//All of that is well and good, but I think you still missed the point. If all the fractions have the same C14 content, it is NOT a sign that there is no "error" - which they don't define - are they talking about experimental error? They admit that there was, in fact, humic acid recovered from the bones - and humic acid can only be a contaminant. Bone does not contain humic acid as a part of its physiological makeup. Any humic acid present in a bone is an exogenous contaminant.//

The bones don't have the same c-14 content. I was referring to consistency among samples from the same bone region. There were different percentages of c-14 from bone to bone, and different ages if you'll refer to the chart:

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

You mentioned potential contamination, which they are fully aware of and which was addressed. I also trust that the labs known exactly what they're doing. Your statement implies that humic acid as a contaminant is somehow "news to them". Do you really think that Geochron Labs, for example, is not aware of humic acid and how to apply pretreatments (which they did in fact do)?

//The presence of collagen in Cretaceous aged dinosaur bone is still a contentious issue. It has not been demonstrated unequivocally. Mary Scwitzer's work, while interesting, and worth following up on, is not accepted yet by the majority of paleontologists.//

"Leading scientific journals including Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS One, Proceedings of the Royal Society, and the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, have published many papers (see the research below) confirming the existence of original biological material and even soft tissue in hadrosaur, titanosaur, mosasaur, triceratops, T. rex, archaeopteryx, etc."

Source: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

//Simply repeating parts of it doesn't answer those concerns.//

Nothing was repeated. I actually took quite a bit of time to go through your points and address them specifically. I addressed humic acid and contamination. I addressed the labs. I addressed the method of c-14 dating. All of which you inquired about. And then you claim I'm repeating myself?

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:28 PM

It's OK and actually a must to look for alternative explanations. However I think this has been verified a couple of times now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users