It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
i find it humorous that you sought to mock me, when you were actually wrong.
you said evolutionists would follow where the evidence leads...obviously not.
The hadrosaur sample that resulted in a date of 1,950 BP was listed as being contaminated
The finds of collagen by Dr. Schweitzer are still disputed by some scientists who believe that more recent molecular or bacterial growth is the culprit.
you must have not read the source i gave.
multiple methods of dating were used c-14 and AMS multiple times on each sample.
bio-apatite, charred bone, and collagen were all tested for each sample. the clay around the bones was tested to insure no contamination of the bio-apatite. collagen cannot be contaminated. university of georgia did the testing. all three numbers came back very close.
i'm not going to type it all out again, see my other post. in short, no contamination present, testing done by reputable source, accurate and concise dates.
There are other ways the samples can become contaminated
Assumptions made of no contaminations and not crosschecked using another dating method adds up to lazy "science".
AMS and traditional c-14 dating both measure c-14, but in different ways. they're both based on carbon 14 decay, but they are different methods. they even count c-14 atoms differently. its sad you didn't know that.
your argument is born out of the assumption that they were all contaminated. its simply a way to reject what you don't want to believe. c-14 is the most reliable dating method for relatively young things.
They're both radiocarbon methods. Maybe you just don't understand what "crosschecking with a different dating method" means.
No, my argument is born out of the fact that there's a plausible explanation for why their radiocarbon results disagree with other radiometric results from other similar specimens.
c-14 is a very accurate method.
using both conventional and AMS c-14 dating IS crosschecking.
its the recommended procedure.
what else would you want it dated with, potassium argon?
because you only get "accurate" dates AFTER 100,000 years. it has the opposite curve that c-14 dating has due to a longer half life.
what you think of as "crosschecking" is more of a "spray and pray" method of dating. test for lots of different substances, and use only the dates that fall within the range of age the fossil is assumed to be. differences in dates are dramatic ranging from 10 million to over 100 million years. that's how evolutionary "scientists" conduct research.
you're plausible explanation is that all the samples were contaminated, dispite the evidence. the clay was tested, and came back statistically negative, and the expensive acid/pulverizing treatment. you're saying that multiple samples from each dinosaur were contaminated, and somehow they all give very similar dates? highly improbable. so improbable that your explanation isn't plausible.
anything to reject the findings that don't agree.