Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material | cutefroggy.me

1. Rate of Decay

dinosaur fossils carbon dating

Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. As little as years ago mainstream English speaking scientist did not believe that stones fell from the sky contrary to all the anecdotal evidence over the past centuries. Though it may be an extremely negligible source, of the various emissions from radioactive decay alpha particles, beta particles, etc. For example in their conclusion they write about their specimens as, "dinosaur vessels", that their research provides "robust support to the identification of these New information found in Laetoli Tanzania. That issue has not been resolved but has been largely superseded by the recognition that neither of them, by itself, can take one far along the road to life.

LATEST NEWS ON ASTEROIDS

The Pope Claims to be God on Earth. A further example from a lava flow off the coast of Hawaii shows similar discrepancies. 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. The committee decided to terminate Armitage. Both mathematical analysis of the data, and the nature of some of the specimens, indicate that contamination does not solve the radiocarbon problem for old-earth geologists.

Just as forensic accountants can often determine when a criminal business has cooked its books merely by doing a Benford statistical analysis of the numbers, so too mathematicians have demonstrated that statistical analysis can indicate whether scientific data is likely a result of measurement errors.

So evolutionists typically claim that all this 14c results from contamination, but statistical analysis indicates that when plotting erroneous dates as from contamination , the data should fit a normal curve. However, it does not. Regarding the results from the ten dinosaurs dated as above , of course, bacteria do not make collagen.

And if the 14c came from contamination, for example, one would not expect the contamination to so equally affect the bioapatite and the collagen. The above paper indicates that where sampled, the ground area has decreasing 14c with distance from the dinosaur bone, indicating that modern carbon is leaching out of the bone which is not problematic , but, most significantly, not seeping into the bone.

Dinosaur bone showing 5pmc means that five percent of the carbon in the bone needs to be replaced with modern carbon, which high level of contamination would very possibly be detectable. Dinosaur bone showing 5pmc means that, because the 14c half-life is so brief, 5, years, if the radiocarbon is from contamination that occurred 6, years ago, a full five percent, i.

See below, 42 minutes into Paul Giem's presentation. Thus, where researchers find both soft tissue and 14c, especially in small bones as with the mosasaur , the claim that the biological tissue is dinosaurian and is not contamination works exactly against the claim that the 14c is from contamination. The inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, Dr.

Walter Libby, stated in the journal Science, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age. Here's our RSR explanation of why this is. Because new carbon atoms will not replace original carbon atoms in the collagen molecule.

As a result of decomposition, to the extent that original carbon atoms were falling out of the tissue so to speak , then to that extent you would no longer have collagen; rather, to that extent you would have humic acid.

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. 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 mines , comparing 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.

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 Richter , the 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 in , lightning 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. So apart from adjustment for the exponentially decaying magnetic field, specimens are therefore younger than their radiocarbon age indicates. For, living with a stronger field, plants and animals absorbed less radiocarbon. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.

Carbon comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the Flood, then the small amount of carbon would have mixed with a much larger carbon reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.

It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted. Many examples from literature show that the zero-reset assumption is not always valid. Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto Auckland, New Zealand was found to have a potassium age of , years, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon method to be less than years old.

A further example from a lava flow off the coast of Hawaii shows similar discrepancies. If dated with the carbon method, the flow appears to be less than 17, years old, but dating with the potassium argon method gives dates of , to 43 million years.

A rock sample from Nigeria was dated at 95 million years by the potassium-argon method, million years by the uranium-helium method, and less than 30 million years by the fission-track method. If the clock is not set to zero when a deposit forms, then there can be no starting point from which to calculate the age of a deposit.

It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system—no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed. No scientist can guarantee that any sample can be considered a closed system unless it was isolated from its environment when it was formed.

Elements can be transported into a sample or leach out of a sample. Scientists will reject theories about the age of the earth that do not conform to the norm.

They will argue that the clock was not reset if the age is too old, or that isotopes were selectively removed if the age turns out to be too young.

In the study on the Hawaii lava flow cited above, it was argued that entrapment of excessive amounts of argon gas had made the samples appear older than they were. Radiometric dating techniques are thus based on sound scientific principles, but rely on so many basic assumptions that Bible believers need not have their faith shattered by data derived from these techniques.

What do rock layers on the Earth's crust tell us about our origins and the age of the earth? For more on this subject, see the video Bones in Stones. McDougall Polach and J. A form of carbon found in organic materials and the basis of the carbon dating method. It seems your browser is out of date. Please update your browser to view this webpage properly. Click here for more information. Radiometric dating is a technique used to date materials using known decay rates.

Are radiometric dating methods accurate? A Basis for Conflict Downloadable 84kB. Help us reduce the maintenance cost of our online services. Because your computer is running an older version of internet browser, it no longer meets the features of modern websites.

You can help Amazing Discoveries reduce costs by upgrading or replacing your internet browser with one of the options below. We thank you in advance for partnering with us in this small but significant way. All methods of radioactive dating rely on three assumptions that may not necessarily be true: Rate of Decay It is assumed that the rate of decay has remained constant over time. A Basis for Conflict. Is there evidence for Creation science?

How does it compare to evolution? The following articles give insight in to these questions and more. Can we understand the age of the earth by the rocks?

What theory does the evidence support? Soft Rock Evidence for Rapid Washout. What does the fossil record show us? Is it all random or a defined science that we can understand? Where does evolution fit? Uncover mysteries in the history of the Earth. As we study the genome, the molecule, and the atom, we see a vast network of intricate systems beyond our understanding.

Were these systems really formed by chance? Is the Gastraea Hypothesis Viable? How did this world change from the perfection depicted in Genesis to a world full of thorns, thistles, parasites, and death? If God made everything perfect, how could it have all been so changed?

Archaeology and the Bible. Archaeology and prophecy have proven the Bible to be true. But what's so special about the Bible that makes it a point of so much controversy? Music is a powerful emotional motivator that crosses cultural and language barriers.

Its message can be understood by every culture and people across the planet. The Bible and Rock Music: The Rock Industry Condemns Itself. Hollywood and the Movies.

What is the system of worship found most often in our society? Does it glorify God? Brain Closed—Please Come Again. Is your brain hibernating?

The Dangers of Television. Beware of the television's abilities to hypnotize, alter moods, and even cause depression.

Imsges: dinosaur fossils carbon dating

dinosaur fossils carbon dating

Bioapatite is a major component of the mineralised part of bones.

dinosaur fossils carbon dating

We employed antibodies raised against avian feathers, which comprise almost entirely of beta-keratin, to demonstrate that fossil tissues respond with the same specificity, though less intensity, as those from living birds.

dinosaur fossils carbon dating

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million most popular dating site in italy old, the news is stunning - and more than some daying tolerate. Does it contain truth? When the authors inquired, they received this letter: In the collection, that now numbered dinosaur fossils carbon dating 20, objects, not one dinosaur fossils carbon dating be found to be a duplicate of another. Click to see where it had been on the Conference website. But as late asso many evolutionists whom we talk to at RSR: The authors found bacterial biofilm and other structures that visually looked similar superficially to the structures found in the soft tissue findings.