Scientist fired from university after discovering dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 Years Old

a reply to: reletomp

good for you you are open minded but that wont change evolution does not exist

You'd better tell that to drug resistant tuberculosis....and also to those persky scientists who keep proving that it does , over and over and over again.

Feel free to let us know what they reply

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

a reply to: reletomp

good for you you are open minded but that wont change evolution does not exist

You'd better tell that to drug resistant tuberculosis....and also to those persky scientists who keep proving that it does , over and over and over again.

Feel free to let us know what they reply

indeed!!! resistant germs proof of mutation always make things worse

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
I don't really get this. Just because we can see light, doesn't mean we're as old as the source. Just means it's travelled a long distance. Earth may not have existed when that light began travel.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Since fossils are mineralized, is it not possible that the carbon dating is actually measuring the age of carbon that became part of the fossil MANY MANY years after the animal died ?

Carbon dating cannot be, and never is, used on fossils.

Carbon dating is only useful for organic materials dating no further back than around 60,000 years before present.

Harte

The post is inherently suspect off the bat since it misuses extremely basic terms. Archaeology is the the study of prior peoples and cultures, it's a branch of anthropology. Paleontology is the study of ancient plants and animals. I hate when people confuse the two and doing show is a clear sign the author has no idea wtf he is talking about. Old dead people = archaeology, old dead animals= paleontology.

a reply to: R_Clark

a reply to: reletomp

Then you should have no trouble providing supporting citations to verify your claims yet the void is still there. And therein lies one of the largest fundamental differences between taking a scientific approach versus your faith based approach, I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong whereas you will never entertain the notion that you could be wrong and that there might be no god at all or the possibly of a god that is nothing like what you believe and have been taught he/she/it to be.

a reply to: R_Clark
i look at it differently their have been to many instances of fragons and pictures of dinos in historical art to believe they all went extinct at same time. so maybe they had a few surviving pockets here and there. and yes i belive in god but i don't believe that he created the earth in 6 of our days. i totally believe in evolution

a reply to: proteus33

I've seen pictures of dragons flying spaceships too - clearly they are a lost advanced civilisatoin - perhaps Atlantis....

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Wait. . You're telling me that some young earther's use a joke from Futurama to support their position? You certainly just made my day

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Since fossils are mineralized, is it not possible that the carbon dating is actually measuring the age of carbon that became part of the fossil MANY MANY years after the animal died ?

Carbon dating cannot be, and never is, used on fossils.

Carbon dating is only useful for organic materials dating no further back than around 60,000 years before present.

Harte

exactly wise guy, like on fossils of bones dating less than 5 thousands years old, like the dinosours'

a reply to: reletomp

Howdy,

I asked for this all the way back on page 1...

Do you have scientific sources that have claimed to have carbon dated dinosaur fossils to less than 5 thousand years old? Preferably, I'd like to see something with a methods section and some data... I've seen some studies where groundwater contamination and C-14 from non-atmospheric reservoirs have contaminated samples (as confirmed by sampling the ages of nearby limestones/groundwaters that are adjacent to or in contact with the fossils), but I have yet to see a paper claiming what you claim.

I await your sources anxiously.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: reletomp

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Since fossils are mineralized, is it not possible that the carbon dating is actually measuring the age of carbon that became part of the fossil MANY MANY years after the animal died ?

Carbon dating cannot be, and never is, used on fossils.

Carbon dating is only useful for organic materials dating no further back than around 60,000 years before present.

Harte

exactly wise guy, like on fossils of bones dating less than 5 thousands years old, like the dinosours'

Carbon dating was not used on this fossil, not-wise guy.

Harte

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: reletomp

Howdy,

I asked for this all the way back on page 1...

Do you have scientific sources that have claimed to have carbon dated dinosaur fossils to less than 5 thousand years old? Preferably, I'd like to see something with a methods section and some data... I've seen some studies where groundwater contamination and C-14 from non-atmospheric reservoirs have contaminated samples (as confirmed by sampling the ages of nearby limestones/groundwaters that are adjacent to or in contact with the fossils), but I have yet to see a paper claiming what you claim.

I await your sources anxiously.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

carbon dating is not used on bones because it has a wide range. for example a bone from 50 000 might be measured by carbon dating 100 000 minus plus few hundred thousand years. obviously not millions of years!

originally posted by: reletomp
carbon dating is not used on bones because it has a wide range.

sorry, but that's completely incorrect and it's been pointed out several times by other posters now. It's used to date bone and other organic material quite literally every day. And not only does it not have a wide range as you claim, but it has a pretty specific and short window of usefulness. Harte has stated 60,000 years is about as far back as can be dated using C14. In my opinion, its a bit shorter of a window and I lose confidence after about 45-50,000 years. You can't date stone with it, only organic materials. additionally, never, ever, ever is only one method of dating utilized for acquiring a date. Generally, at least 3 cross referenced methods are used to date an item.

for example a bone from 50 000 might be measured by carbon dating 100 000 minus plus few hundred thousand years. obviously not millions of years!

using your own numbers here, a 50,000 year old object could appear to be 250,000 years old or could appear to not exist for another 200,000 years. Do you see how ludicrous your assertions look in that context?

the margin for error does increase slightly as you go farther back with older items but the margin is still only about 12%. What that means is that a 40,000 year old sample would be shown as 40,000 BPE +/- 4800 or some people will list it as item x is between 35,200 years and 44,800 years.


As hydeman has asked you more than once now for a reference or citation, could you provide one as I too am rather curious where you are getting you very wrong info from.

the carbon dating and the existance of blood cells and red blood cells and tissue specific to chicken cprove that they are few thousand years old andan not be millions of years old.


However the crazy evolutionists claim they can not be than recent so they dismiss carbon dating for measuring other stuff, and because they think it is very old is because they found it in sediment layer they believe it happened 100 million years old (based on even more unreliable radioactive testing of radioactive potassium) , so they build their conclusion on a premise they had forged using evidence much more weaker that the evidfence they want to fabricate at hand (the dinossours fossils (bones under pressure)

a reply to: reletomp

So...you don't have a single source or citation for any of this blathering mess then do you? I'm not sure if you've had a couple of drinks or if you're just making it up on the fly but it looks like random gibberish and is making less sense as your posts progress. Feel free to provide any sort of citation and I would be more than happy to attempt to discuss this further. At this point though there simply isn't anything to discuss because you refuse to cite any source material or answer a direct question. Have yourself a good one.

of course i have references but these are low tier information many people know or can access in the internet.
it is surprising that you seem to know much but now you want refs you already know???

originally posted by: reletomp
of course i have references but these are low tier information many people know or can access in the internet.
it is surprising that you seem to know much but now you want refs you already know???

First, its proper board etiquette to support your statements with citations. The more extraordinary or ludicrous the claims, likewise the evidence you use to support those statements must be equally extraordinary. When a poster makes a claim, the onus is upon them to present supporting citations, it is not incumbent on the other readers to do your research for you.

As for your last statement, I'm not looking for citations to support what I know, I'm asking you to support YOUR statements in the appropriate fashion. As you're pretty new here perhaps I could recommend a little light reading to help you navigate your way through the myriad of rules in place for posting on this site-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: R_Clark

Soft tissue has been found in at least half of all dinosaur species. It was previously thought that since the soft tissue was made up of protein, that it should degrade rapidly due to microorganisms.
The explanation for soft tissue in dinosaurs is that iron acts like formaldehyde - it cross-links the protein preserving it.

About the lawsuit, I think he should sue. Of course, we don't know all the details but you can't fire someone because of their religion - unless of course he was spewing it out in the classroom. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: R_Clark

Armitage will have to explain why he didn't backup his hypothesis with hard evidence. The hard evidence would not necessarily include C14 dating. Even C14 acceleration would not date beyond 100,000.

Electron spin resonance, fission track and thermoluminescence are more reliable. The creationist crowd completely ignores these methods because it flies in the face of the fraud they are perpetrating.

Read and learn:

"Abstract:
Many materials found in archaeological sites are able to trap electronic charges as a result of bombardment by radioactive radiation from the surrounding sediment. The presence of these trapped charges can be detected by electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy: the intensity of the ESR signal is a measure of the accumulated dose and thus of the age. Tooth enamel is ubiquitous at archaeological sites and is well suited for ESR dating, with a precision of about 10-20%. This method has now been used to date many sites critical to the biological and cultural evolution of modern man. Dates for sites in Israel and Africa have demonstrated the existence of anatomically modern humans more than 100 ka ago. "

www.jstor.org...

Electron spin resonance dating of animal and human bones.

Ikeya M, Miki T.

Abstract

Ages of fossil bones were determined by electron spin resonance spectroscopy. The electron spin resonance signal is associated with lattice defects or trapped centers produced by natural radiation in the bones and gives a measure of the total dose of natural radiation, or the archeological dose. Archeological doses were determined for samples of known age from a variety of sites and used to estimate apparent average annual rates of natural radiation at the sites. The method has the advantage that the sample need not be ground or heated, and it should be useful for dating biological materials.

www.jstor.org...


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

books.google.com... tmR0c#v=onepage&q=electron%20spin%20resonance%20and%20dating&f=false