jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 And yet you refuse to accept a C14 dating of a 33,500 year old triceratops Horn obtained just last year using all the latest and greatest techniques in the field. It is rather telling. I think you misunderstand. I don't accept any evidence based on unverified research. I think that's wise, whereas you apparently chalk it up to willful blindness or something.
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) I just sent Hugo Miller of columbus ohio an email to inquire about the tricerotops bone sample he sent in for c14 dating, that came back as 33,500 bp. We'll see if he responds. Edited October 7, 2015 by Zakuska 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) I could say the same thing about you. You reject all these young dates because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. Yet its you who claims the scientific upper hand and to believe in the C14 Dating to a flaw. There is not enough carbon 14 in Dinosaur fossils, they've long since mineralized, to determine age by that method. We use other nuclear decay measurements for fossils. Yes there are flaws in any dating method. However we do cross check to maintain accuracy within established tolerances. They are not off by over a factor of 1,000.SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Edited October 7, 2015 by thesometimesaint
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 There is not enough carbon 14 in Dinosaur fossils, they've long since mineralized, to determine age by that method. We use other nuclear decay measurements for fossils. Yes there are flaws in any dating method. However we do cross check to maintain accuracy within established tolerances. They are not off by over a factor of 1,000. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Yes, and the dispute with Armitage et al. is that they are claiming to have found intact soft tissue on a dinosaur bone. As you mention, there are cross-checks to date specific samples. The issue with Armitage is that the sample comes from a known stratum that has been dated through the kinds of cross-checking you mention, so the persistence of soft tissue around mineralized bone would be quite an anomaly. Such a discovery would be essentially the holy grail of young-earth creationism. So, we have two choices with this anomaly: 1. Understand that this is a rather extraordinary anomaly and reserve judgment until it can be verified. 2. Accept it at face value and run with it. I vote for the former.
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) There is not enough carbon 14 in Dinosaur fossils, they've long since mineralized, to determine age by that method. We use other nuclear decay measurements for fossils. Yes there are flaws in any dating method. However we do cross check to maintain accuracy within established tolerances. They are not off by over a factor of 1,000.SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Not enough? Would you please explain to the readers then how the most intact Triceratops horn ever found to date not only contains enough C14 to measure but date it to 33,500 BP years ago? Thats well with in the supposed limits of C14 dating. The Triceratops brow horn was excavated in May 2012 and stored at the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. The Museum, which has since 2005 been in cooperation with the Paleochronology Group, a team of consultants in geology, paleontology, chemistry, engineering, and education, sent a sample of the outer portion of the Triceratops brow horn to Head of the Paleochronology Group Hugh Miller, at his request, in order to carry out Carbon-14 dating. Mr Miller sent the sample to the University of Georgia, Center for Applied Isotope Studies, for this purpose. The sample was divided at the lab into two fractions with the “bulk” or collagen break down products yielding an age of 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite yielding an age of 41,010 ± 220 years [uGAMS-11752 & 11752a]. Mr Miller told Ancient Origins that it is always desirable to carbon-14 date several fractions to minimize the possibility of errors which Miller requested and that essential concordance was achieved in the 1000's of years as with all bone fractions of ten other dinosaurs.http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/humans-walk-earth-dinosaurs-triceratops-horn-dated-33500-020159 Edited October 7, 2015 by Zakuska
Gray Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Not enough? Would you please explain to the readers then how the most intact Triceratops horn ever found to date not only contains enough C14 to measure but date it to 33,500 BP years ago? Thats well with in the supposed limits of C14 dating. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/humans-walk-earth-dinosaurs-triceratops-horn-dated-33500-020159 Before you claim that that happened, you'd need to independently verify that your claim is true.
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Before you claim that that happened, you'd need to independently verify that your claim is true. So your suggesting this is a fabrication? http://newgeology.us/UGAMS11752.jpg I'll email the good Dr. as well. I think while Im at it I'll email the Museum where the fossil is housed as well. Edited October 7, 2015 by Zakuska
Gray Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 So your suggesting this is a fabrication? http://newgeology.us/UGAMS11752.jpg I'm saying the finding doesn't seem to be verified.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I'm saying the finding doesn't seem to be verified. Exactly what I've been saying. Reserving judgment for an unverified finding is not the same as categorical rejection. The notion that they have a sample of soft tissue from a triceratops raises some warning flags with me, but until it's confirmed, this goes into the "food for thought" category. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Exactly what I've been saying. Reserving judgment for an unverified finding is not the same as categorical rejection. The notion that they have a sample of soft tissue from a triceratops raises some warning flags with me, but until it's confirmed, this goes into the "food for thought" category. Including we'd have to rewrite all the science books ever published in the last 150 years of so.SEE http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/accelerated_decay.html The presence of what appear to be red blood cells/soft tissue has been accounted for by the preservative effect of the overabundance of Iron in some sedimentary rock areas. That being said it is possible to falsify what we do presently know about C-14 and Dinosaurs, but it is a very hard thing to do.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Including we'd have to rewrite all the science books ever published in the last 150 years of so.SEE http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/accelerated_decay.html The presence of what appear to be red blood cells/soft tissue has been accounted for by the preservative effect of the overabundance of Iron in some sedimentary rock areas. That being said it is possible to falsify what we do presently know about C-14 and Dinosaurs, but it is a very hard thing to do. It will take more than a single unconfirmed find, I would imagine.
danielwoods Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Yes, and the dispute with Armitage et al. is that they are claiming to have found intact soft tissue on a dinosaur bone. As you mention, there are cross-checks to date specific samples. The issue with Armitage is that the sample comes from a known stratum that has been dated through the kinds of cross-checking you mention, so the persistence of soft tissue around mineralized bone would be quite an anomaly. Such a discovery would be essentially the holy grail of young-earth creationism.So, we have two choices with this anomaly:1. Understand that this is a rather extraordinary anomaly and reserve judgment until it can be verified.2. Accept it at face value and run with it.I vote for the former. Other researchers have previously found remnants of organic material in dinosaur bones, but in exceptionally well-preserved fossils, which are few and far between."Therefore we indicate that the likelihood of finding organic material in fossils is much higher than previously thought, at least at the microscopic scale," Mr Bertazzo said.It had previously been thought that protein molecules could not survive for longer than four million years. Mr Bertazzo said he was "totally blown away" at the team's breakthrough, but cautioned that further evidence was needed to confirm the nature of the structures."This was absolutely not what we were expecting to find at all. It actually took quite a while for us to be convinced of what we saw," he said. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-10/scientists-discover-red-blood-cells-collagen-in-dinosaur-bones/6533966 Two things. One it's not just soft tissue, but collagen tissue which is a complex molecule which has been found numerous times. Second, with the evolutionary bias these scientists didn't predict or expect these finds. Their conclusion is either a complex molecule like collagen can survive 75 million years, which would go against observable findings. Or something is askew with their dating assumptions and it's not actually 75 million years old. Either way, I'm in no hurry. We will wait and see.
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Two things. One it's not just soft tissue, but collagen tissue which is a complex molecule which has been found numerous times. Second, with the evolutionary bias these scientists didn't predict or expect these finds. Their conclusion is either a complex molecule like collagen can survive 75 million years, which would go against observable findings. Or something is askew with their dating assumptions and it's not actually 75 million years old. Either way, I'm in no hurry. We will wait and see. Add to that: It's not the first time such remnants have been found in dinosaur fossils, but co-author Susannah Maidment told BBC News: "All of the previous reports of original components of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils have tended to be in specimens that are really exceptionally preserved - one-offs, really, that require special pleading to explain how they got preserved." By contrast, the fossils in this study, which have been lying in the London Natural History Museum collections for more than a century, are largely in a poor state of preservation. "They're very scrappy, individual broken bones. I can't even tell you what dinosaur they come from," said Dr Maidment, who is from Imperial College London."If you're finding soft tissues in these kinds of fossils, maybe this kind of preservation might be more common than we realised, and might even be the norm." The structures appear to be genuine remnants of soft tissue; they are not fossilised. "Maybe this kind of preservation might be more common than we realised, and might even be the norm" - Dr Susannah Maidment, Imperial College London . http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33067582 Edited October 7, 2015 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) It will take more than a single unconfirmed find, I would imagine. I already showed you the earlier presentation in 2012 in Singapore (which has subsequently been Censored by the"Scientific" Community) of over 10 different Dino bones from all over the world tested and replicated by various labs to remove any doubts which have similair C14 dates as this Triceratop horn. Here that is again: This sums up the current situation nicely. While there is a possibility that the C-14 test results were a result of contamination or error, (even though the results were replicated and rigorous pre-treatments were carried out by the University of Georgia to control for this), or are perhaps due to some other factor not currently understood by science, it seems reasonable to expect scientists to attempt replication of such groundbreaking test results. Failure to investigate or even acknowledge such significant findings unfortunately suggests that some scientists are more interested in holding on tight to current perspectives, rather than seeking to advance knowledge and understanding in this field. Evolutionists currently seem content to bury their head in the sand and try their best to prevent this information from seeing the light of day. Edited October 7, 2015 by Zakuska 2
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I already showed you the earlier presentation in 2012 in Singapore (which has subsequently been Censored by the"Scientific" Community) of over 10 different Dino bones from all over the world which have similair C14 dates as this Triceratop horn. Here that is again: This sums up the current situation nicely. Evolutionists currently seem content to bury their head in the sand and try their best to prevent this information from seeing the light of day. Basically, you're telling us to accept their assertions of controls and replication at face value. I'll just say again that, if this isn't a one-off anomaly, no amount of head-burying will keep it from seeing the light of day. Repeated, verified results must be addressed, and those are the catalysts of paradigm change. If and when this find and any others like it are confirmed, then we have something to talk about. I know you think I'm just ideologically incapable of accepting evidence that doesn't fit my beliefs, but that's not the case. I've already accepted quite a lot of the evidence you've provided about mammoth fossils, for example. This one is just a bit more of an outlier and deserves a lot of caution.
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Evolutionists currently seem content to bury their head in the sand and try their best to prevent this information from seeing the light of day. LOL What a coincidence that Bigfood hunters say the same thing. Edited October 7, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 It appears that Scientists are already sequencing the trex and mastadon DNA (ie callogen) from some of these finds . Response to Comment on "Protein Sequences from Mastodon andTyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry" We sequenced six endogenous collagen peptides from Tyrannosaurus rex bone fragments using mass spectrometry. Five sequences match birds, but only two match amphibians, supporting dinosaur-bird relationships. Buckley et al. reinterpret and misinterpret our data and question sequence authenticity, but they used a suboptimal phylogenetic algorithm to analyze only a subset of reported sequences and they suggest analyses that are less sensitive and less specific than mass spectrometry. We disagree and use data to explain. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5859/33.4.abstract 1
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 It appears that Scientists are already sequencing the trex and mastadon DNA (ie callogen) from some of these finds . http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5859/33.4.abstract It's not the sequencing that is in dispute, at least not in this thread.
Bob Crockett Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) I already showed you the earlier presentation in 2012 in Singapore (which has subsequently been Censored by the"Scientific" Community) of over 10 different Dino bones from all over the world tested and replicated by various labs to remove any doubts which have similair C14 dates as this Triceratop horn. I've read the material about your horn, as well as some commentary from Christian creationists. It seems that for a number of reasons the conclusions aren't all that solid for that horn. And, I've also read the story of the biologist supposedly fired from CSUN over this. Apparently, he merely had a B.S. from Liberty University, which I don't consider a legitimate university, and he was just a technician. CSUN had every right to fire a microscopist who pretends to be an academician. His paper, however, was published in a peer reviewed journal, but it did not conclude anything about dates. [Also, it might make a difference to understand that CSUN is not a research institution, but a teaching institution. It is an overstatement to say this, but Cal States are teaching universities and U of Cals are research.] One thing is interesting about archaeology is that there are plenty of anomalies and anachronisms for some reason. I don't think the exception makes the rule when it comes to scientific principles. It strikes me that creationists like you are kind of like gun nuts who come out of the woodwork everytime there is a massacre. Common sense and thoughtful attention to peer-reviewed detail get cast aside. Edited October 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
Gervin Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Apparently, he merely had a B.S. from Liberty University, which I don't consider a legitimate university,Just curious about why it is not a legitimate university? As an attorney, you should do the ABA a favor and let them know that they are associating with a university that isn't legitimate (and no, I didn't attend).Liberty received Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation in 1980, which was most recently reaffirmed in 2006. Liberty has 60 accredited degree granting programs. The law school, which opened in August 2004, gained provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association in 2006 and was granted full accreditation in 2010. It received Level VI accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 2009. This is the highest classification from SACS and is reserved for colleges and universities that offer four or more doctoral degrees. Liberty is also accredited by: American Bar Association, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education,Aviation Accreditation Board International, National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education, Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs, Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs, Commission on Sport Management Education.
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Here is the Mark Armitage court docket: https://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/armitage-complaint.pdf Edited October 7, 2015 by Zakuska
Bob Crockett Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Just curious about why it is not a legitimate university? As an attorney, you should do the ABA a favor and let them know that they are associating with a university that isn't legitimate (and no, I didn't attend). It is just my opinion. At least I own up to it with my own name. I'll follow your advice and contact the ABA. Thanks. Edited October 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Just curious about why it is not a legitimate university? As an attorney, you should do the ABA a favor and let them know that they are associating with a university that isn't legitimate (and no, I didn't attend). Aren't you the Book of Mormon skeptic? Here is the Mark Armitage court docket: https://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/armitage-complaint.pdf Sure. The Earth is 6,000 years old. Congratulations.
Gervin Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 It is just my opinion. At least I own up to it with my own name. I'll follow your advice and contact the ABA. Thanks. I get that it's your opinion. I see that you use your full name when you post. But, counselor, you didn't answer the question.
Gervin Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Aren't you the Book of Mormon skeptic? Sure. The Earth is 6,000 years old. Congratulations. I don't see the connection to my question.
Recommended Posts