PeterPear Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 I recall this find at 8,800 elevation near Snowmass village in Colorado:http://www.dmns.org/press-room/news-releases/snowmass-village-fossil-excavation-fact-sheet/"The Snowmass Village site is one of the most significant fossil discoveries in Colorado history.This discovery is very unique because there are no known sites in Colorado, and few in North America, that contain both mammoth and mastodon fossils in one location.The juvenile Columbian mammoth that was first uncovered in October appears to be the most complete mammoth fossil found at high elevation (8,870 feet) in Colorado. It is also the highest elevation at which mastodons and giant ground sloths have been found in Colorado.Not including the finds made in Snowmass Village, there have been 103 mammoth discoveries and only three mastodon discoveries on record in Colorado. There have only been four other giant ground sloth discoveries in Colorado.""The total number of animal species found at the dig site now totals five: Columbian mammoth, American mastodon, Ice Age bison, giant ground sloth, and the deer-like animal."At 8,800 feet elevation. Amazing. 2
sdrencure Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 Several of the replies in this topic refer to Book of Mormon elephants. By far the most thorough review of Book of Mormon elephants can be found at www.cureloms.com.
Zakuska Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Another Island in Alaska yields young Mammoth Remains: New woolly mammoth dated 5,725 bp on St Paul Island, Alaskahttps://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_2/j24_2_6-7.pdf Although it is believed that the last woolly mammoths vanished from Europe and Siberia about 12,000 years ago, some new discoveries reveal that a small group survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska until 3,750 B.C. Frozen, mummified mammoths were unearthed at the remote Russian Wrangel Island, where they existed until 1,650 B.C.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/woolly-mammoths/story?id=15648648 emains of a woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) were found in Qagnaxˆ Cave, a lava tube cave on St. Paul Island in the Pribilof Islands, 500 km west of the Alaskan mainland in the Bering Sea. Several dates converge on 5725 14C yr BP, making these the youngest mammoth remains discovered in North America, and among the few Holocene mammoths known. Genetic analysis of the cytochrome b gene and adjacent regions of the mitochondrial genome demonstrates that the Qagnaxˆ mammoth is highly derived, possessing several unique polymorphisms not found in other mammoths. However, while this is consistent with a recent insular isolation scenario, phylogenetic analysis suggests that the specimen represents a population whose isolation from other mammoths occurred at or well before the terminal Pleistocene submergence of the Bering Land Bridge. It is possible that it represents a member of a “land bridge subclade” of woolly mammoths that remained distinct from mainland Alaskan populations, but was not restricted to highland areas until the land bridge was submerged. Additional eastern Beringian, and particularly insular, mammoth DNA sequences are required to explore this possibility.Phylogeographic analysis of the mid-Holocene Mammoth from Qagnax Cave, St. Paul Island, Alaska. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248289948_Phylogeographic_analysis_of_the_mid-Holocene_Mammoth_from_Qagnax_Cave_St._Paul_Island_Alaska [accessed Oct 4, 2015]. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248289948_Phylogeographic_analysis_of_the_mid-Holocene_Mammoth_from_Qagnax_Cave_St._Paul_Island_Alaska Edited October 4, 2015 by Zakuska
Robert F. Smith Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Another Island in Alaska yields young Mammoth Remains: ............................................................................Carbon 14 dates averaging 5725 years bp = ca 3700 BC, which is why many scholars cannot see a final extinction before ca. 2000 BC, and possibly even later. With the Jaredites arriving ca. 3100 BC, we certainly have plausible overlap. Edited October 4, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 2
Rajah Manchou Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Not sure what constitutes evidence but the Malay model meets every requirement I've been able to identify, including plenty of real live elephants and 100+ other items including iron, silk, swords etc. https://www.evernote.com/l/AAipPZOLrFJHhLexHnH_T7xTsf0tGjEn2bQRecent DNA testing of tribes originating in the Malay archipelago has demonstrated high presence of T1 and J1 haplogroups, the markers most frequently associated with Assyrian and Babylonian exiles. The historical record and map also match up nicely. If we consider the possibility of a Book of Mormon based in the islands of the sea, almost all anachronisms are resolved, and the Book of Mormon begins to resemble an accurate historical text of the people that migrated east across the Pacific to settle the New World.
Sevenbak Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) I recall this find at 8,800 elevation near Snowmass village in Colorado:http://www.dmns.org/press-room/news-releases/snowmass-village-fossil-excavation-fact-sheet/"The Snowmass Village site is one of the most significant fossil discoveries in Colorado history.This discovery is very unique because there are no known sites in Colorado, and few in North America, that contain both mammoth and mastodon fossils in one location.The juvenile Columbian mammoth that was first uncovered in October appears to be the most complete mammoth fossil found at high elevation (8,870 feet) in Colorado. It is also the highest elevation at which mastodons and giant ground sloths have been found in Colorado.Not including the finds made in Snowmass Village, there have been 103 mammoth discoveries and only three mastodon discoveries on record in Colorado. There have only been four other giant ground sloth discoveries in Colorado.""The total number of animal species found at the dig site now totals five: Columbian mammoth, American mastodon, Ice Age bison, giant ground sloth, and the deer-like animal."At 8,800 feet elevation. Amazing.Utah has a mammoth find that is even higher. The Huntington Mammoth. 9000 feet, up above Fairview Canyon. Preserved nearly intact in a bog, mixed with logs and debris. The glacier fed runoff into the bog acted as a refrigerator. "At the excavation, it was so fresh that we thought we could smell rotting meat..." http://sanpete.com/downloads/Huntington_Mammoth.pdf Edited October 5, 2015 by Sevenbak
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Just how Accurate is C14 Dating anyway? "The lower leg lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (Natural History 1949) 'Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.' (Science 1963) 'A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago' (Antarctic Journal 1971) "One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) 'Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.' (Science 1984) "The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (Quaternary Research 1992)"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." (Anthropological Journal of Canada 1981) Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Just how Accurate is C14 Dating anyway? It would be a lot more convincing if you could cite something more recent than 30 years ago.
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Heres a good recent one: . Differences in the apparent age of as much as 12,000 years have been obtained between material in the 4–44 μ range and that exceeding 44 μ. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0079661165900212
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Heres a good recent one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0079661165900212 1963 is more recent? Progress in Oceanography, Volume 3, 1963, Pages 253-266 Edited October 5, 2015 by jkwilliams
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 My bad... Another good quote: "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." [Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; (see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:]
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 My bad... Another good quote: "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." [Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; (see also Diggings, August, 1990 p: ] Uh, that one is from 1970.
Gray Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 My bad... Another good quote: "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." [Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; (see also Diggings, August, 1990 p: ] I get some funny results when I try to google that quote. I would be cautious about assuming that it's genuine.
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Here is one from 2014: Implications for Radiocarbon (C-14) Ages for Dinosaurs – Data was presented in a Poster Session @ American Geophysical Union (AGU) Meeting in San Francisco Dec 17, 2014 and at the AOGS in Singapore August 5, 2015. This data suggest the following WAKE-UP CALLS.Anomalous, but consistent findings that various geological samples, including dinosaurs, thought to be 10’s of millions of years old, actually contain significant endogenous (original) 14C as reported by four different AMS & Conventional Beta labs. Such data suggests a much younger geologic column by a factor of 2000 x. The conclusions, implications and a major question for consideration are as follows: (1) The 65 to 150 Ma between dinosaurs & man apparently do not exist as dinosaur bones give ages ranging from 22,000 to 41,000 years on AMS sensitive to 60,000 yrs. (2) The 70 Ma between late Cretaceous & late Jurassic periods are non-existent for all fossils including wood & bones from TX to AK, & Eurasia as C-14 studies show.(3) Neanderthal, modern man & of course mammals coexisted with dinosaurs. (4) Now we know why soft, pliable tissue & collagen have survived in some dinosaur bones & why there are distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide – some survived.(6) Most studies suggest the demise of most dinosaurs could have been caused by impacts of asteroids and/or comets as suggested by other scientists but only 1000’s, not millions of years before the present. This means the risk factor for asteroid Earth impacts is 2000 x higher than NASA projections. Three other teams have confirmed which suggests that NASA must increase their asteroid/comet defense. (7) Modern lab, flume & field studies show that the ancient sediments were deposited quickly in rapidly moving waters, now rock in a world-wide cataclysm (s). http://www.sedimentology.fr/ ( The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History dinosaur exhibit, due to be redesigned & completed in 2019 should include C-14 & sedimentology studies. (9) By a study of the above facts alone, one can conclude by induction that evolution theory from a common ancestor has been falsified. “Abrupt Appearance” theory of origins is its logical replacement. Students in all schools have a right to know this. http://originality-of-species.net Q. Was the asteroid explosion over Southern Russia & the passage of a larger asteroid [city killer] only 17,000 mi from Earth a few hours later on 02/15/2013 mere coincidence or a warning from the designer of the universe that He has just about had it with us as we continue to defy His natural laws? director@kolbecenter.org www.kolbecenter.org hugoc14@aol.com for www.dinosaurc14ages.com Special Note: The above ages could be way too old as can be shown scientifically by scrolling down about ½ way on this Carbon 14 page. http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) More on that: Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html And some more: A remarkable find was published in the journal Nature in April 2013: "we report the discovery of a monotaxic embryonic dinosaur bone bed in Lower Jurassic strata near Dawa, Lufeng County, Yunnan Province, China". The "bone bed is characterized by the presence of completely disarticulated skeletal elements at various stages of embryonic development". "This discovery also providesthe oldest evidence of in situ preservation of complex organic remains in a terrestrial vertebrate." "There are no preserved nest structures or uncrushed eggs." "In contrast to previous studies of organic residues based on extracts obtained by decalcifying samples of bone, our approach targeted particular tissues in situ. This made it possible to detect the preservation of organic residues, probably direct products of the decay of complex proteins, within both the fast-growing embryonic bone tissue and the margins of the vascular spaces." "Previous reports of preserved dinosaur organic compounds, or 'dinosaurian soft tissues', have been controversial because it was difficult to rule out bacterial biofilms or some other form of contamination as a possible source of the organics. Our results clearly indicate the presence of both apatite and amide peaks within woven embryonic bone tissue, which should not be susceptible to microbial contamination or other post-mortem artefacts." -- Reisz, Robert R., Timothy D. Huang, Eric M. Roberts, ShinRung Peng, Corwin Sullivan, Koen Stein, Aaron R. H. LeBlanc, DarBin Shieh, RongSeng Chang, ChengCheng Chiang, Chuanwei Yang, Shiming Zhong. 11 April 2013. Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains. Nature, Vol. 496, pp. 210-214. doi: 10.1038/nature11978.Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said 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. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.Many dinosaur bones are not petrified. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone. Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone. Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies. Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make. In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters. Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded. That is, if they really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs.However, it has been hard to reach the public with the information. Despite being simple test results without any interpretation, they were blocked from presentation in conference proceedings by the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention, the American Geophysical Union in 2011 and 2012, the Geological Society of America in 2011 and 2012, and by the editors of various scientific journals. Fortunately, there is the internet. Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Here is one from 2014: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm Somehow I don't find a YEC web site particularly compelling. Do you?
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Somehow I don't find a YEC web site particularly compelling. Do you?So are you going to engage their data? How about the 30000 year old Triceratops bone? Mark Armitage and the triceratops hornMark Armitage served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge from January 2010 to February 2013. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in a Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica. The university claimed his appointment at had been temporary and claimed a lack of funding for the position. This was news to him, and contradicted prior statements and documents from the university. He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by California State University Northridge (CSUN).Mark Armitage has a MS degree in biology and has been a microscope scientist (microscopist) for 30 years. He was the president of the Southern California Society for Microscopy for several years. He has some 30 publications to his credit. Mark's micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven scientific journals, and he has many technical publications on microscopic phenomena in such journals as American Laboratory, Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin, Parasitology Research, Microscopy and Microanalysis, Microscopy Today and Acta Histochemica, among others. His career in teaching at educational institutions includes Master's College Azusa Pacific University and California State University Northridge.According to papers filed with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, when Mark Armitage interviewed for an opening at CSUN for a "regular" "part-time" microscopist in 2009 he told the panel that he had published materials supportive of creationism. William Krohmer, Manager of Technical Services and Safety, who would be Armitage's direct supervisor, was on the panel. The panel hired Armitage despite his creationist writings because of his exceptional qualifications. The position was Electron Microscopy Technician in the Department of Biology, working two ten-hour days per week. He was "permanent part-time" and was allowed to enroll in the full benefits package of the university.He ran the Microscopy Imaging Facility with its three electron microscopes, personally training students and faculty on their proper use. He was often praised for his work and accomplishments. The Biology Department bought a new confocal microscope that used high-powered lasers for imaging and was computer-driven. Armitage supervised the installation of the new microscope. He was assigned to be the only instructor on it, with responsibility for control and supervision of the instrument.In February 2012, he was asked to teach a full graduate course in Biological Imaging for the Biology Department. In March 2012, Dr. Steven B. Oppenheimer sent an email to staff saying that the two days per week that Armitage was working needed to be expanded in order to facilitate the growing demands of the microscopy lab.In June 2012, Dr. Ernest Kwok was made chairman of the committee overseeing the microscopy lab, and became Armitage's new supervisor.In the summer of 2012, Armitage responded to an invitation to participate in a search for dinosaur fossils in Glendive, Montana in the famous Hell Creek formation. He found the brow-horn of a triceratops; it was not petrified. Studying the horn at the CSUN lab, he discovered soft tissue in the supposedly 65-million-year-old (or more) fossil.While teaching students how to use microscopes in the lab that he directed at CSUN, Armitage engaged them in brief socratic dialogue about the possible age of the horn. One of Dr. Kwok's students was stunned by the discovery and implications of soft tissue in the triceratops horn, and told Dr. Kwok about it.On June 12, 2012, Dr. Kwok stormed into Armitage's lab and shouted, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!", and chastised Armitage's "creationist" projects, referring to the triceratops horn. Armitage reported this to the Biology Department chair, Dr. Randy Cohen, and to the manager of technical services for the Biology Department, William Krohmer. They both played down the event and told Armitage to forget it.Praise for Armitage's work continued from distinguished members of the Biology Department. In November 2012, a photo of the soft tissue in the triceratops horn was published on the cover of American Laboratory magazine. The former chair of the Biology Department, Dr. Oppenheimer, wrote a ringing endorsement of Armitage in a letter of recommendation.On February 12, 2013, the journal Acta Histochemica published a paper by Armitage describing the discovery of soft tissue in the triceratops horn. Acta Histochemica is a peer-reviewed journal of structural biochemistry of cells and tissue that welcomes advanced microscopical imaging; it has been publishing since 1954. The current editor of Acta Histochemica is a biology professor at CSUN who was a colleague of Armitage, the esteemed Dr. Steven B. Oppenheimer.On the day the paper was published, Dr. Kwok called a secret meeting of the committee overseeing the microscopy lab. Armitage had served on the committee for three years, but he was not invited. The committee decided to terminate Armitage.On February 19, 2013, William Krohmer told Armitage that there was a "witch hunt" being mounted against him, and advised him to resign. When he refused to resign, Krohmer told him he would be terminated. Armitage was fired on February 27, 2013. He was told that his job had only been a "temporary appointment".There is an interesting sidenote to this story. Hugh Miller, head of the Paleochronology group, obtained a bone sample from the triceratops horn Mark Armitage discovered. The sample was sent to the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia in 2012 to test for Carbon-14. As you can see, the bone was dated by them to 33,570 years before present. Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) So are you going to engage their data? Do you feel qualified to engage their data? Why or why not? Has their work been peer-reviewed? Have their results been confirmed and replicated? Edited October 5, 2015 by jkwilliams
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Its peer reviewed:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020 And the University is getting sued for firing him:http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281 Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Its peer reviewed: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020 And the University got sued for firing him: http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281 So, what we have is an apparent anomaly from Mark Armitage, who has no background in biology or archaeology, but is a young-earth creationist. Interesting, but not particularly compelling, unless you know of some corroborating evidence or replication of his results.
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) So, what we have is an apparent anomaly from Mark Armitage, who has no background in biology or archaeology, but is a young-earth creationist. Interesting, but not particularly compelling, unless you know of some corroborating evidence or replication of his results.He didn't send the bone for Carbon Dating. One of his collegeus did after he got wrongfully fired. Hugh Miller, head of the Paleochronology group, obtained a bone sample from the triceratops horn Mark Armitage discovered. The sample was sent to the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia in 2012 to test for Carbon-14. As you can see, the bone was dated by them to 33,570 years before present. Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 He didn't send the bone for Carbon Dating. One of his collegeus did after he got wrongfully fired. So, again, we have an apparent anomaly. What can we conclude on the basis of a single anomaly that is apparently hotly disputed? 1
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) So, again, we have an apparent anomaly. What can we conclude on the basis of a single anomaly that is apparently hotly disputed?There's not just a single anomaly. 2 Samples of that bone and soft tissue were radio carbon dated. one was 33,500 the other 41,010http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/01/cuerno-de-triceratops-datado-en-33-500-anos-3091698.html But also 22 other dinosaur samples have been sent in from Texas, Colorado, Arkansas, Montana and China and they all yield similar dates.http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2015/03/75ebe697435537b453cdb9f4aff3d098e81af642.jpg Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 There's not a single Anomaly. 2 Samples of that bone and soft tissue were radio carbon dated. one was 33500 the other 41010 http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/01/cuerno-de-triceratops-datado-en-33-500-anos-3091698.html But also 22 other dinosaur samples have been sent in from Texas, Colorado, Montana and China and they all yield similar dates. http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2015/03/75ebe697435537b453cdb9f4aff3d098e81af642.jpg I'm pretty sure "Before It's News" isn't a peer-reviewed site. I've known you a long time, Zakuska, and I've never understood why you think I should find random tidbits from questionable Internet sources to be compelling. Just in the last couple of days you've used carbon dating as proof that mammoths survived into Jaredite times at the same time you're insisting that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate. Am I supposed to believe carbon dating is accurate in the one instance or accept that carbon dating is not accurate?
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Here is a 15 minute presentation at the joint meeting of the Asia Oceanic Geosciences Society and the American Geophysical Union that was held on Aug. 13-17,2012 in Singapore: In which the 22 samples which all have been C14 dated since 1990 (Most in the past 8 years) to an average age of 33000 BP was presented. Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska
Recommended Posts