Carbon 14 and Dinosaur Bones | thebluetones.info
Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text. Press release “Dinosaur bones' Carbon dated to less than 40, years—Censored. Getting Graded: An expert on radiocarbon dating, long-time assistant . can often determine when a criminal business has cooked its books merely by doing a Fifth: Dinosaur bone showing 5pmc means that, because the 14c half-life is so. The researchers found plenty of C in their mosasaur—enough to Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. Textbooks and even children's books tout dinosaur history going back millions of years.
Decomposing collagen cannot be "repaired" by free carbon atoms happening upon the decomposition. Rather, the collagen must be manufactured within a living animal with its constituent carbon atoms into a " super-super-coil In addition to work already done documenting appreciable 14c levels even in contamination-resistant specimens, we recommend a few experiments including a couple proposed by RSR friend David Willis: The young earth model predicts the finding of significant quantities of carbon 14 throughout the bone.
The evolutionary model would predict no modern carbon in such a bone, but as a secondary assumption, if 14c is found, since any contaminating material would have to pass through the outer layers of the bone to get into the center, the contamination explanation would expect to measure generally decreasing percentages of 14c from the outside to the center of each individual bone.
A second experiment, beginning as above, would be to date a small diameter bone and a larger diameter bone from the same dinosaur. Getting the same dates would help rule out contamination because the smaller bone will have a larger surface to volume ratio which, if contamination were a significant factor, should result in higher percentages of modern carbon. A third experiment that could falsify contamination as a possible source of 14c involves: With the announcement that these reserves in Siberia contain diamonds that are "twice as hard as normal", these will be ideal for 14c dating because their natural hardness would further rule out contamination.
Also, evolutionary geologists claim that these diamonds were already ancient when, allegedly 35 million years ago, a meteor impacted above them. The evolutionary model predicts no carbon dead 14c. The young earth model predicts significant quantities of 14c measurable throughout the diamond. A fourth experiment that could falsify contamination as a possible source of 14c involves radiocarbon dating of allegedly million-year-old amber, by selecting pristine specimens, the condition of which may also help to rule out contamination.
At the 7th ICC Dr.
What happens if you date dinosaur bones using the carbon-14 method?
Dating bones in situ, and dating their surrounding matrix, will elimate various sources of possible contamination and provide significant additional data. Published by RSR on Aug. Consider then, the fossil remains of organisms that had lived near the surface but that have been long buried in ocean sediments.
If neutron capture were responsible for much of the unexpected 14c, then collectively, such ocean specimens, collectively, should have far less 14c than specimens excavated on the continents. Further, more analysis should be done on relevant specimens excavated from uranium minescomparing their radiocarbon percentages to similar in type and estimated date specimens gathered away from uranium mines.
Thus, marine deposit specimens and uranium mine specimens can function as control groups.
CARBON 14 DATING DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS
Regardless though, for an uncontaminated specimen like diamonds, pure collagen, dinosaur soft tissue, etc. Out of every trillion Carbon atoms in the atmosphere, only about one is 14c. Further, significant unknowns, both in the rates of 14c production in the atmosphere, and in the Earth's enormous geologic upheaval in the past, could have altered the 1,,to-1 ratio. Henry Richterthe NASA scientist who launched our first satellite, oversaw development of the scientific equipment used on the first lunar missions, and who played an important role in the early discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt.
By the way, Dr. Though it may be an extremely negligible source, of the various emissions from radioactive decay alpha particles, beta particles, etc. If you know of a web page where this is described, please email that link to Bob kgov. Also, as only widely recognized inlightning can produce 14c. We have a young earth! Long-term, authoritative, and worldwide measurements show that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly as NASA's data shows is also true of Mercury.
Our planet's more powerful magnetic field in the past better shielded Earth from cosmic rays, resulting in less Carbon production. This means that carbon ages of specimens from past millennia and even from only centuries ago need to be adjusted downward. Sanderson was amazed in to find that there was an accurate representation of the American dinosaur Brachiosaurus, which was almost totally unknown to the general public at that time.
Sanderson wrote about the figurine in the Julsrud collection. It is about a foot tall. The point is it is an absolutely perfect representation of Brachiosaurus, known only from East Africa and North America.
There are a number of outlines of the skeletons in the standard literature but only one fleshed out reconstruction that I have ever seen.
This is exactly like it. InArthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr.
The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2, B. In a letter dated September 13,addressed to Mr. Young, Dr Rainey said: Now after we have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the dependability of the thermoluminescent method.
I should also point out, that we were so concerned about the extraordinarily ancient dates of these figures, that Mark Han in our lab made an average of 18 runs on each one of the four samples.
Hence, there is a very substantial bit of research in these particular pieces All in all the lab stands on these dates for the Julsrud material, whatever that means in terms of archeological dating in Mexico, or in terms of 'fakes verse's authentic' pieces.
They asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old. A thermoluminescent technician admitted that no other ceramics existed, in his experience, that produced regenerated light signals, and no other thermoluminescent dating of ceramics had ever been done by utilization of a regenerated light signal. In short, the excuse was a hocus pocus, laboratory trick to avoid the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs and man lived together.
John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures. Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud-type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro, and inin Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Bortulot determined the pieces' upper limit age to be 2, years old, thus, invalidating the Masca report which claimed the objects were made thirty to one hundred years ago. John Tierney took a half dozen samples of Julsrud ceramics of different clay composition to a team of experts at Ohio State University.
They consisted of Dr. Caley among the world's most respected archaeological chemistsand Dr. Ehlers mineralogist in the geology department at Ohio State University.
The team reported that they could not believe the artifacts were made in modern times, nor could they believe they were made by some amateur who tried to perpetuate a fraud. Upon my notifying them that they had authenticated Julsrud artifacts, they lapsed into a profound and apparently permanent silence.
Video released the program "Jurassic Art", which contained an Acambaro segment that was originally supposed to have been part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man. Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples of Julsrud-type ceramics a human figure and a dinosaur figure to an independent Carbon laboratory.
Startling results came back. Steede tap danced around the implications, embarrassingly embracing the human figurine as credible, while waltzing past the dinosaur figurine, claiming the laboratory test must not have given a true reading. In reality, the dinosaur figurine created too much tension for orthodox science and Steede had to find an out. The solution was simple. He discarded the dinosaur date.
The Japanese company Nissi sponsored a television crew to go to Acambaro and produce a program for Japanese T. The program entitled "Did the Ancients See Dinosaurs? There is a stunning moment in the program as the Japanese narrator is looking over an animal figurine, and he holds it up next to his Japanese book on dinosaurs.
Amazingly, the Julsrud dinosaur figurine matches the color drawing of an Amargasaurus cazaui in the Japanese dinosaur book. The narrator quickly picks up another dinosaur figure and thumbs through the dinosaur book.
This figure is very similar to the Saurolophus osborni as drawn in the Japanese dinosaur book. The narrator ponders the perplexing problem that ancient people about 4, years ago must have seen dinosaurs because they could not have known what they looked like by merely seeing their skeletons in the ground.
The narrator points out that when modern man, such as Sir Richard Owen, found dinosaur skeletons, the first life-sized models of Megalosaurus, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus made from them were ridiculously inaccurate. Individual censorship on YouTube - "NaturaLegion" A YouTube video by an arrogant evolutionist calling himself "NaturaLegion" ridicules the work of the Paleochronology group, including this webpage.
I posted comments that he at first answered and then removed when he saw they demolished his position. They are reproduced below. The video is at https: My email is on the webpage, and he could have inquired any time but chose not to.
No shellac or other preservative was on any of them. We have successfully used this technique to prepare and date samples of bone and of tooth enamel and dentin, with varying degrees of preservation condition, and from time intervals ranging from a few hundred Carbon years to greater than 40, Carbon years. Cherkinsky and Christine Chataigner again explain this method in Radiocarbon journal,Vol 52, Nr.
Collagen tends to undergo microbiological decomposition, hydrolysis, dissolution, and denaturizing over archaeological and geological timescales, so that only in exceptional conditions, such as burial in permafrost, is collagen found to survive without significant changes into Pleistocene.
Survival is usually far shorter for the bones buried in warmer regions.
Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones? | eNotes
In practice, pretreatment works quite well to remove skin cells and other contaminants encountered during excavation, transport, and handling. Be sure and subscribe to all the rest! Where mainstream paleontologists disagree with creationists is in the best explanation for the discovery: Just let me know if you would like to learn what data is actually out there in the research literature, instead of just reading whatever creationist organizations and websites tell you about it.
They did claim to have found--and carbon-dated--collagen, no?
Why don't we use radio carbon dating for dinosaur bones?
If their claims of discovering and carbon-dating dinosaur collagen are not relevant to their conclusions, why bring it up? As for the bioapatite In response to your references to an Alexander Cherkinsky article, separating diagenetic from bioapatite carbonates is only part of the problem. Carbonates are only one of many potential sources of exogenous carbon, and other sources are not as easily removed by treatment with acetic acid.
This is something I already point out in the video: In most instances, the material being carbon-dated is much more well-preserved than the fragments of who-knows-what obtained from dinosaur fossils. When wood, fabrics, leather, human bones and teeth are carbon-dated, we already have a multitude of independent evidence that gives us some idea of about how old these items are. Radiocarbon dating just helps us zero in on a more precise estimate. In the case of dinosaur fossils, Hugh Miller and his group of creationists claim to have obtained radiocarbon dates on endogenous sources of carbon But regarding the source of the radiocarbon signal detected, all they have are unverified claims.
Call BS all you want. You have only unverified claims with no supporting evidence. More crap from "NatuaLegion". We have numerous reports in hand from respected Accelerator Mass Spectrometry labs providing Carbon test results on dinosaur BONE in the twenty to thirty thousand radiocarbon year range, well below the 55, year acceptable detection limit.
And "NatuaLegion" has, well QED Regarding origin of life research, Dr. Harold examined at length the current state of origin-of-life research in a chapter titled "Ultimate Riddle - Origin of Cellular Life" in his book "In Search of Cell History: If the ratios are in equilibrium, then this would be a safe assumption.
They can only solve their equations if they assume that the production rate of carbon to carbon in the upper atmosphere is constant. In order for the two to be produced in equilibrium, the atmosphere would have to have been stable for 50, years or more. Evolutionists assume this to be true. Libby, who discovered the method, wrote: March 4, ] But if there were any kind of recent catastrophe — such as a global flood, for example — the atmospheric ratios of the two carbon atoms would probably have changed over time, and would still be changing even now.
In fact, we know the ratios are changing now, and have been over time. But some scientists have applied carbon dating to dinosaur bones.
If we apply the standard assumptions that scientists typically apply when using carbon dating, we come up with these simple results: If this is not correct, it could mean the dating method is flawed because the assumptions are wrong, and all dates gathered using the method are suspect. It could also mean the bone specimens were contaminated which is highly unlikely. In this particular case, the dinosaurs were dated to between 10, and 25, years old.
But since the age predicted by the method is wrong i. But the differences arise because of the underlying presuppositions about the past of the two groups.
The museum curator from whose museum the dinosaur bone samples were taken was outraged.