University of Georgia and others say dinosaurs THOUSANDS of years old, not millions

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Tearman
well, supose you tried to date something millions of years old, what kind of results would you get?

With C-14? No result as there would be no C-14 atoms left in the sample.

-MM

Is that actually what would happen or just what we presume based on what we know so far about carbon 14 testing?

originally posted by: suicideeddie
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation what proteins? what are the associated chromosones and dna sequences for those proteins?

Collagen, see 1:40 in the first video I posted for more information.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Interestingly there is no direct reference to the actual findings supposedly at UGA.

One wonders why.

a reply to: Tearman

There would be no measurable amounts of C14 in a sample of non-biological material. That's why the finding of soft tissue is so important.

JAden

my question is whether no C14 could produce similar looking results to levels of C14 that are on the edge of detection capabilities.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

Did you buy the article or just read the preface?
This is a no brainer, C-14 is still present in the samples!
And please don't tell me the world is flat also.

a reply to: Tearman
you can get inference from similar mass isotopes in the signal from the sample, carbon hydrates and so on. but you,ll see the spikes for different isotopes on the graph.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Below this quote is a link to the paper that was published by the group it walks you through most of what people are asking.

Our team published a paper in 2009 Scientific article on dating dinosaur bones in Germany and in the National Research Council of Italy in 2009.

Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen.
Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted?
Some important conclusions from the paper:

(4) Most scientists have concluded that catastrophic events of some sort caused the demise of most dinosaurs, but when? It is hoped that this paper has stripped away some of the confusion by showing that the time line for the extinction of dinosaurs appears to be similar to that for many megafauna. It is also hoped that with the publication of these data, more and more scientists will become involved in RC dating of fossils, including dinosaur bones and drill core samples containing wood and shell. As noted earlier, an australite fall of 6000 to 13,000 RC years BP not 800,000 radiometric years ago. 71 Furthermore it is suggested in a recent article J. Kennett 72 that a RC date for the demise of most megafauna is 12,900 RC years BP. Thus based on the many RC dating anomalies cited in this paper and in others, it would appear that the rate of deposition of sediments has been considerably faster than assumed by many scientists such as C. Officer who wrote, "…a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical." 7

(6) All C-14 results were well within the detectible range of the C14 method, and therefore surprisingly young. Indeed, RC studies of dinosaurs in this paper show that bone bio-apatite, bone collagen and pretreated organic material in dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska contained significant quantities of C-14 with conventional ages of 22,380 ± 200 to 33,830 +2910/-1960 RC years BP. This RC age range are the same RC ages as saber tooth tigers (from 12,650 ±160 to 28,000 ±1400 RC years BP for 12 specimens), mammoths (9,670 ± 60 to >53,170 RC years BP for ~360 specimens in Eurasia) and ~26,000 years for 50 mammoths in South Dakota USA) as noted in the introduction. Even sloth dung in a cave ranged between 10,000 to 40,000 RC years BP according to A. Long, et al. 80 Radiocarbon dates for buffalo collagen and wolf bone in the Yukon, Canada were dated at 30,810 ± 975 and a wolf skull at 27,920 ± 650 from the same strata as reported by C. R. Harrington et al. 81 so all must have lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs; and, by deduction, with man.

Edit: shortened link and added bolding to quotes text.

a reply to: Observationalist

Thanks.

Again, where's the copy of the report from UGA?

Out of curiosity where was the "Paper" that you so kindly linked published?

Edit: Nevermind ... I see that the source is a creationist site called "The Scientific Impossibility of Evoluton."

Thanks for your help but i'm not interested in clap-trap.

Well......How does this affect the theory that oil (fossil fuel??), is made up of dead Dinosaurs and trees, from millions of years ago. (which I have found to be an interesting deduction)

Has anyone carbon dated crude oil?........Maybe they have,.... have they ever revealed the results?

Might explain those dinosaur prints mixed with human prints.

Slightly off topic. But with science being in the middle of a replication crisis. Even in the hard sciences like Medicine and Genetics . Where it is estimated that 99% of all peer-reviewed and published research is either fraudulent or so incompetent it is meaningless. Even if this was from a Journal I would not trust it.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Thread Tagged.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
I've always mistrusted our dating techniques. Wouldn't it be wild to one day learn that our myths about dragons turn out to be true but that the dragons were just dinosaurs. And that humans hunted them to extinction.

a reply to: gort51

I first read about the fact that oil is constantly created a few years ago - it blew my mind. So much for the scarcity of oil.

www.wnd.com...

A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a “fossil fuel” derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs. The lead scientist on the study ? Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle ? says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.

The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.

'FOSSIL FUEL' THEORY TAKES HIT WITH NASA FINDING
www.wnd.com...

NASA scientists are about to publish conclusive studies showing abundant methane of a non-biologic nature is found on Saturn’s giant moon Titan, a finding that validates a new book’s contention that oil is not a fossil fuel. “We have determined that Titan’s methane is not of biologic origin,” reports Hasso Niemann of the Goddard Space Flight Center, a principal NASA investigator responsible for the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer aboard the Cassini-Huygens probe that landed on Titan Jan. 14.

Niemann concludes the methane “must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed.” The studies announced by NASA yesterday will be reported in the Dec. 8 issue of the scientific journal Nature. “This finding confirms one of the key arguments in ‘Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil,'” claims co-author Jerome R. Corsi. “We argue that oil and natural gas are abiotic products, not ‘fossil fuels’ that are biologically created by the debris of dead dinosaurs and ancient forests.”

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Abiotic oil is real, however it seems that most fossil fuels are of biotic origin.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Observationalist

Thanks.

Again, where's the copy of the report from UGA?

Out of curiosity where was the "Paper" that you so kindly linked published?

Edit: Nevermind ... I see that the source is a creationist site called "The Scientific Impossibility of Evoluton."

Thanks for your help but i'm not interested in clap-trap.

Well...your welcome, nice talking with you.

According to the fossil record, birds evolved from dinosaurs. How do you explain this happening in such a short amount of time?

Recently, fossils of early birds and their most immediate predecessors have been collected at an unprecedented rate from Mesozoic-aged rocks worldwide. This wealth of new fossils has settled the century-old controversy of the origin of birds. Today, we can safely declare that birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs known as maniraptoran theropods-generally small meat-eating dinosaurs that include Velociraptor of Jurassic Park fame.

Birds: The Late Evolution of Dinosaurs

If birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, where do you propose they came from?

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
You'll have to read it, as most papers it's behind a pay-wall.

-MM

So...you have nothing?

Yes, I read the article. Yes, they say they retrieved soft tissue that is most likely from a triceratops. No, they do not say how old it is/was nor do they say how they would conclude that anyways.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
You'll have to read it, as most papers it's behind a pay-wall.

-MM

So...you have nothing?

Yes, I read the article. Yes, they say they retrieved soft tissue that is most likely from a triceratops. No, they do not say how old it is/was nor do they say how they would conclude that anyways.

The very fact that there's C-14 atoms in the soft tissue means its less than 60,000-80,000 years old.

-MM