Updating The Theory of the Earth

ddubois · Sep 26, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Why would there even be any organic carbon left to date?

There shouldn't be any organic carbon at all if indeed the dinosaur dating at 65 million years plus is correct. That is entirely the point. Young Earth Creationists tend to see the presence of carbon as confirmation of their beliefs. Old earth believers (like you) tend to believe carbon dating of dinosaurs (or coal or diamonds or many other things) has got to be a mistake.

Paul of Eugene OR · Sep 27, 2015

ddubois said:
There shouldn't be any organic carbon at all if indeed the dinosaur dating at 65 million years plus is correct. That is entirely the point. Young Earth Creationists tend to see the presence of carbon as confirmation of their beliefs. Old earth believers (like you) tend to believe carbon dating of dinosaurs (or coal or diamonds or many other things) has got to be a mistake.

Well if a dinosaur bone has been fossilized at all . . . with calcium carbonate replacing organic bone material . . . you wouldn't be dating the dinosaur's carbon alone, you'd be dating the intruded carbon as well.

ddubois · Sep 27, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Well if a dinosaur bone has been fossilized at all . . . with calcium carbonate replacing organic bone material . . . you wouldn't be dating the dinosaur's carbon alone, you'd be dating the intruded carbon as well.

Actually, from what I understand, they were pretty careful to look at different sections of the bones, some that was collagen -- no petrification- and some that was at least partly petrified, and both sections showed up with carbon 14. Here is an extract from the website http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm.
"Summary of supporting evidence for accuracy and reliability for the significant presence of C-14 in dinosaur bones and therefore young RC ages

Short Summary: The most obvious scientific justification for accepting the RC ages for dinosaurs in the thousands of years is the concordance of RC ages between bone collagen and bone bio-apatite. If the date for a particular specimen is questionable or controversial RC dating labs recommend that the C-14 testing be repeated on several fractions using AMS and/or on larger samples using both AMS and conventional C-14 methods. We have made such repetitive tests and we obtain dates in the 22,000-33,000 range for dinosaur bones each time a different dinosaur bone or portion of the bone was tested for C-14. For example: Triceratops collagen was 30,080 ± 200 using AMS and 33,830 +2910/-1960 using the conventional method with a large sample (See Table 1).

Collagen and soft tissue were detected in dinosaur bones which is "exceptional preservation" and should not be there after so long a time period as 65 M years.39

Harvard scientists have confirmed that proteins from the collagen detected in the famous T-Rex (2005) was definitely collagen as determined by sequencing the fraction. Thus there is no reason to believe that what our lab has extracted is NOT collagen.40

Collagen, inside Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones was tested successfully for C-14. Collagen from a second Triceratops femur bone from Montana likewise contained collagen and C-14 in 2008. 41

Bio-apatite was also successfully tested for AMS C-14 after careful pretreatment w/HAc (acetic acid) to remove possible old and young CaCO3 contamination.

Bone collagen and bone bioapatite and/or total bone organics gave concordant C-14 dates after careful extraction and purification of those fractions as noted in Table 1.

W. Libby, who received the Nobel Prize for his C-14 research showed there is no possible way that bone collagen can be contaminated.42

T. Stafford's data has shown that weak acid insoluble collagen and total Carbon, HAc and alkali treated Domebo Mammoth bone agreed within about 5% of the most expensive purification treatment methods for obtaining the oldest RC ages. 43

Collagen content for the Triceratops femur was same as that for Kennewick man's first metatarsal, namely 0.3% as shown by F. P. McManamon. 44 The former gave an RC age of 30,890 ± 200, the latter 8,410 ± 40 years BP. Collagen was extracted from the dinosaur femur and purified by the widely used "Modified Longin method" (weak acid insoluble collagen method).

Crushed bone containing bio-apatite was treated with mild HAc (acetic acid) to remove surficial carbonates that could give false younger or older ages before the final dilute HCl treatment to evolve CO2 for testing. Bio-apatite is calcium carbonate that replaces bone calcium phosphate during the life of the dinosaur or other animal.

In essence RC dating methods could give major false old RC ages rather than false young RC ages because labs have eliminated sources of major young contamination. Also, we really don't know the actual C-14 concentration during the period when dinosaurs and some magafauna lived together. In other words the ratio of formation of cosmogenic C-14 is not known in the past. But, major young contamination is most unlikely. Why? RC laboratories have mastered the techniques of removing young or old humic acids with alkaline pre-treatments or acetic acid pre-treatments under vacuum for young or old surficial calcium carbonates. So, young contamination is most unlikely for dinosaur and megafauna bones.

Of course the most important point or results of this research is that there are measurable amounts of C-14 in samples supposedly free of C14. Calculated RC dates are not absolute dates but they do correspond to the official C14 procedures as noted above. It can then be argued that it is far more probable that the atmosphere could have been much more depleted of C-14 content 1000's of years ago compared to today's content. Why? Because the protective quality of a much stronger magnetic field strength 1000's of years ago could have caused a much lower rate of C-14 formation compared to the current rate. In other words a half life of 1400 years implies a stronger magnetic field 1000's of years ago which would have inhibited the formation of C-14 in the upper atmosphere; this could make the dinosaurs and many megafauna seem much older than reality."

amanuensis63 · Sep 27, 2015

ddubois said:
Bio-apatite was also successfully tested for AMS C-14 after careful pretreatment w/HAc (acetic acid) to remove possible old and young CaCO3 contamination.

Can someone explain something to me? Since the mineral apatite has no carbon itself (it's a Calcium Phosphate) I'm curious where the original carbon resides? But if one treats something with acetic acid which DOES have carbon in it how does one ensure that one is not further contaminating the 14-C in the apaptite?

Bio-apatite is calcium carbonate that replaces bone calcium phosphate during the life of the dinosaur or other animal.

Apatite is not Calcium carbonate. I am uncertain why they would say this. While a bioapatite may be replaced by calcium carbonate, it is itself NOT calcium carbonate.

So, young contamination is most unlikely for dinosaur and megafauna bones.

All this talk of pre-treatment with acetic acid scares me as a possible and likely source of 14-C contamination. I'm curious how they avoid it.

ddubois · Sep 27, 2015

amanuensis63 said:
Can someone explain something to me? Since the mineral apatite has no carbon itself (it's a Calcium Phosphate) I'm curious where the original carbon resides? But if one treats something with acetic acid which DOES have carbon in it how does one ensure that one is not further contaminating the 14-C in the apaptite?

Apatite is not Calcium carbonate. I am uncertain why they would say this. While a bioapatite may be replaced by calcium carbonate, it is itself NOT calcium carbonate.

All this talk of pre-treatment with acetic acid scares me as a possible and likely source of 14-C contamination. I'm curious how they avoid it.

I'm not a chemist, and so can't myself give you an answer to your question. All I can do is look on the internet. Apparently it is accepted to do carbon dating with bone bio-petite, and use acetic acid to wash. Here is the summary from one example I found:

"Radiocarbon Dating of Bone Apatite by Step Heating

Todd A. Surovell

Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721

Many advances have been made in radiocarbon dating of bone organics, but research on 14C dating of bone inorganic carbon has lagged significantly behind. Using mammoth bone, enamel, and tusk from the Dent and Murray Springs Clovis sites, experiments with the Haas and Banewicz technique of bone apatite dating by step heating demonstrate that accurate radiocarbon ages can be produced from bone apatite carbonate. Furthermore, preliminary findings suggest a correlation between the degree of apatite contamination and the slope of temperature-age spectra, providing a possible means of independently evaluating the accu- racy of radiocarbon dates produced by this method. 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc."

Loudmouth · Sep 28, 2015

ddubois said:
There shouldn't be any organic carbon at all if indeed the dinosaur dating at 65 million years plus is correct. That is entirely the point. Young Earth Creationists tend to see the presence of carbon as confirmation of their beliefs.

How do they differentiate between organic carbon and inorganic carbon? You do realize that carbonates can serve as an inorganic source of carbon in fossils, right?

ddubois · Sep 28, 2015

My quote was in response to your "Why would there even be any organic carbon left to date?" (italics mine) from #240. So I would think the "they" in "how do they differentiate..." appears to mean old earth believers like yourself. So why are you asking me? This seems like an attempted distraction. The point is that there shouldn't be measurable C14 in something that was legitimately 65 million years old.

amanuensis63 · Sep 29, 2015

ddubois said:
I'm not a chemist, and so can't myself give you an answer to your question. All I can do is look on the internet. Apparently it is accepted to do carbon dating with bone bio-petite, and use acetic acid to wash. Here is the summary from one example I found:

"Radiocarbon Dating of Bone Apatite by Step Heating

Todd A. Surovell

Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721

Many advances have been made in radiocarbon dating of bone organics, but research on 14C dating of bone inorganic carbon has lagged significantly behind. Using mammoth bone, enamel, and tusk from the Dent and Murray Springs Clovis sites, experiments with the Haas and Banewicz technique of bone apatite dating by step heating demonstrate that accurate radiocarbon ages can be produced from bone apatite carbonate. Furthermore, preliminary findings suggest a correlation between the degree of apatite contamination and the slope of temperature-age spectra, providing a possible means of independently evaluating the accu- racy of radiocarbon dates produced by this method. 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc."

So it appears that the carbonates are enclosed within the apatite crystals according to the article. Thanks.

ddubois · Sep 30, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
I would be interested in their reply!

I was not able to contact ICR for a rebuttal to your simile of helium leakage being like water going through a sponge, but I did stumble across their Insight No. 366 magazine (December 2003) which I think partial addresses your concern. I couldn't find it on the internet but the relevant passage says the following:
"Our measurements show that the Helium concentration was about 300 times higher in the zircons that in the surrounding biotite. This confirms that Helium was diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around.... The total amount of Helium in the biotite flakes (which are much larger than the zircons) is roughly equal to the amount the zircons lost."

Armoured · Sep 30, 2015

ddubois said:
There shouldn't be any organic carbon at all if indeed the dinosaur dating at 65 million years plus is correct. That is entirely the point. Young Earth Creationists tend to see the presence of carbon as confirmation of their beliefs. Old earth believers (like you) tend to believe carbon dating of dinosaurs (or coal or diamonds or many other things) has got to be a mistake.

Except no one carbon dates dinosaurs.

Loudmouth · Oct 1, 2015

ddubois said:
I was not able to contact ICR for a rebuttal to your simile of helium leakage being like water going through a sponge, but I did stumble across their Insight No. 366 magazine (December 2003) which I think partial addresses your concern. I couldn't find it on the internet but the relevant passage says the following:
"Our measurements show that the Helium concentration was about 300 times higher in the zircons that in the surrounding biotite. This confirms that Helium was diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around.... The total amount of Helium in the biotite flakes (which are much larger than the zircons) is roughly equal to the amount the zircons lost."

There is a bit of a double standard when it comes to helium and zircons. Creationists have long argued that radiometric dating can't be trusted because no one can prove that the daughter or parent isotope hasn't moved in or out of the rock. So what do they do when they develop their own method for dating rocks? They choose an element that is known to move in and out of rocks in a temperature dependent manner.

On top of that, they are trying to argue for faster rate of decay which would have massive consequences across the entire universe. The increase in heat caused faster decay rates would turn the Earth into molten slag. How do they solve this problem? They claim that God would use a miracle to get rid of the heat. If they are going to invoke miracles to get rid of the heat, why not invoke miracles for the presence of the helium, too?

ddubois · Oct 1, 2015

Armoured said:
Except no one carbon dates dinosaurs.

It is probably true that the vast majority of those wishing to date a dinosaur would not use carbon-dating. However, to say no one does it though is not true, which you can see if you look on the internet. For example, at
Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft ...
https://www.icr.org/article/6084

The creationist scientists wish some of the mainstream scientists would carbon date a dinosaur as carefully as they try to do it, to show the carbon dating of dinosaurs, particularly dinosaur soft tissue, really does produce an unexpectedly low age, and it shouldn't be attributed to mistakes. However, there is a probably a lot to lose for someone brave enough to try it or allow it to be done at a mainstream institution, so they may not see that happen as soon as they would like.

ddubois · Oct 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
On top of that, they are trying to argue for faster rate of decay which would have massive consequences across the entire universe. The increase in heat caused faster decay rates would turn the Earth into molten slag. How do they solve this problem? They claim that God would use a miracle to get rid of the heat. If they are going to invoke miracles to get rid of the heat, why not invoke miracles for the presence of the helium, too?

Those following the old earth paradigm tend to push the processes they cannot demonstrate (like life from non-life) billions of years in the past, as if enough time will explain what cannot now be explained. Those following the young earth paradigm do not have that luxury. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the weight of evidence favoring a young earth will continue to grow, and that through computer modeling and/or careful observation and measurement of catastrophic processes we see around us like the Mt. St Helens eruption and subsequent flood, they will be able to put together a comprehensive theory to plausibly answer all reasonable objections. I think they have already come a long way since the 1960's. I just recently looked again at their pamphlets on Mt. St. Helens, Yosemite, caves, ore-flood atmosphere, flora and fauna, landscapes, ice cores, and helium, among others.

Jimmy D · Oct 2, 2015

ddubois said:
I am hopeful that the weight of evidence favoring a young earth will continue to grow

Sorry, I haven't read through this thread, are you saying that there's a weight of evidence that favours a young Earth?

ddubois said:
I think they have already come a long way since the 1960's

I was under the impression that Geologists had abandoned these young Earth ideas in the 19th century?

Loudmouth · Oct 2, 2015

ddubois said:
Those following the old earth paradigm tend to push the processes they cannot demonstrate (like life from non-life) billions of years in the past, as if enough time will explain what cannot now be explained.

Then when should abiogenesis have occurred according to the evidence in biology and geology?

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the weight of evidence favoring a young earth . . .

None of the evidence you have presented has stood up to investigation. What weight are you talking about?

and that through computer modeling and/or careful observation and measurement of catastrophic processes we see around us like the Mt. St Helens eruption and subsequent flood, they will be able to put together a comprehensive theory to plausibly answer all reasonable objections.

The flood after the Mt. St. Helens eruption is one the better disproofs of a young earth and a recent global flood. If you think I am wrong, then show me a canyon with vertical sides hundreds of feet high, and a single meandering river bed.

What we did see with that flood is braided stream with canyon walls that slumped before they got to 100 feet.

ddubois · Oct 2, 2015

Jimmy D said:
Sorry, I haven't read through this thread, are you saying that there's a weight of evidence that favours a young Earth?

I was under the impression that Geologists had abandoned these young Earth ideas in the 19th century?

I believe there is substantial evidence the favors a young earth. Most of those I interact with on this site apparently don't agree, largely because as you say the young Earth ideas were substantially abandoned by most geologists about 1850.

Nevertheless, I believe substantial work has been done in the last 50 years, pretty much outside the mainstream establishment that mostly refuses to consider it on its merits, which may well eventually overturn the old earth chronology. For me, the most exciting development is the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, along with its carbon dating to a relatively young age. But there is much much more.

ddubois · Oct 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Then when should abiogenesis have occurred according to the evidence in biology and geology?

The chronology for mainstream biology and geology currently rely on radiometric dating which has recently been drawn into question. At the moment, I would consider the evidence of mainstream biology and geology with skepticism.

None of the evidence you have presented has stood up to investigation. What weight are you talking about?

Looking at reality through your lens, your response is understandable. I'm sure though that the scientists who carbon dated the dinosaur fossils would disagree with you. I communicated with one recently and I'm sure he would love to have one of the mainstream scientists check his work.

The flood after the Mt. St. Helens eruption is one the better disproofs of a young earth and a recent global flood. If you think I am wrong, then show me a canyon with vertical sides hundreds of feet high, and a single meandering river bed.

I do think you are wrong, but I don't understand your point.

What we did see with that flood is braided stream with canyon walls that slumped before they got to 100 feet.

I am not a geologist. Please explain your point.

Loudmouth · Oct 5, 2015

ddubois said:
I am not a geologist. Please explain your point.

In the previous post, you wrote:

"Those following the old earth paradigm tend to push the processes they cannot demonstrate (like life from non-life) billions of years in the past, as if enough time will explain what cannot now be explained."

The real reason that biologists put the origin of life billions of years in the past is the fossil evidence, not because they need an excuse.

Also, if you don't understand how geology works why would you believe there is evidence for a young Earth?

Loudmouth · Oct 5, 2015

ddubois said:
I believe there is substantial evidence the favors a young earth. Most of those I interact with on this site apparently don't agree, largely because as you say the young Earth ideas were substantially abandoned by most geologists about 1850.

They were abandoned because they were falsified.

Nevertheless, I believe substantial work has been done in the last 50 years, pretty much outside the mainstream establishment that mostly refuses to consider it on its merits, which may well eventually overturn the old earth chronology.

YEC's refuse to present it to real geologists. They don't submit their work to real scientific journals. They don't present their work at geology conferences. It is the creationists who refuse to have their work considered by real scientists.

For me, the most exciting development is the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, along with its carbon dating to a relatively young age. But there is much much more.

We have already covered the carbon dating. Anything else?

Dr GS Hurd · Oct 5, 2015

amanuensis63 said:
Can someone explain something to me? Since the mineral apatite has no carbon itself (it's a Calcium Phosphate) I'm curious where the original carbon resides? But if one treats something with acetic acid which DOES have carbon in it how does one ensure that one is not further contaminating the 14-C in the apaptite?

Apatite is not Calcium carbonate. I am uncertain why they would say this. While a bioapatite may be replaced by calcium carbonate, it is itself NOT calcium carbonate.

All this talk of pre-treatment with acetic acid scares me as a possible and likely source of 14-C contamination. I'm curious how they avoid it.

Bioapatite is a meta-stable calcium mineral that fairly rapidly breaks down (tens of thousands of years in neutral ground water). A common mechanism is the replacement of the PO(4) by CO(3). Regarding the use of bone for radiocarbon dating, the mineral components whether calcite, or apatite are avoided because they both exchange carbon from ground water CO2, or CO3. Apatite is more resistant to this flaw than calcite. This leads to a very interesting dating method as apatite in tooth enamel retains uranium at deposition, but not thorium. Following the development of high quality Mass spectrometry (MS) analysis, the U/Th ratio in tooth enamel became a highly accurate (if expensive) dating method.

The carbon from bone used in C14 dates is obtained from collagen, and osteocalcin AKA bone protein. You still need to have a careful lab procedure to eliminate bacteria, fungi, and humic acid contamination. (And roots, and other obvious contamination).

Updating The Theory of the Earth

Active Member

Finally Old Enough

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

So is America great again yet?

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency