Updating The Theory of the Earth

[RickG]

I believe those doing the carbon dating did it correctly, but I am not an expert. Following is an extract from some material from a chemist who was involved in the dating, which may be helpful:

...modern sources of C-14, viz.: bacteria (biofilms), fungus, humic acids that invade fossil bones, wood etc. that could give false young ages are most unlikely, as long as the lab pre-treatments are performed as required. So the C-14 (RC) ages obtained for dinosaur bones and other fossils are really the maximum possible ages but not the real ages for some reasons already noted [Non-equilibrium state of C-14 production; earth’s electromagnetic field decreasing with time allowing increase in C-14 production over time etc. thus giving older ages than reality for dinosaurs]...
TIDE IN – DIRT OUT, RIGHT? I’m sure most of you have heard of that old Tide TV ad. Well, RC laboratories have mastered the techniques of removing young or old humic acids, biofilms etc. with alkaline pre-treatments just like when we wash our clothes. Most fossil materials can so be pre-treated successfully...
C-14 labs normally use hot dilute sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide over several hours and will even repeat the treatments if dark solution colorations persist. According to one Lab contact, Russian research 20 some years ago has shown that the RC ages do not change significantly after the second or third caustic wash and rinses. The C-14 ages we obtain are based on accepted procedures. Also, bacteria feed on the fossil they invade so have the same age as their host.[Bones containing biofilms apparently in the Kaye study were not pretreated]: "Bridged trails observed in biofilms indicate that a previously viscous film was populated with swimming bacteria. Carbon dating of the film points to its relatively modern origin.”]...
YOUNG OR OLD ABSORBED CALCIUM CARBONATE vs. CALCIUM CARBONATE FRACTION OF BONE BIOAPATITE – Contamination #1b

The vinegar pre-treatment: When calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite is to be tested for C-14 content hot dilute weak acetic acid [vinegar] is used to remove old or young burial absorbed calcium carbonates as carbon dioxide under vacuum. This will ensure that absorbed old or young carbonates do not contaminate the crushed bone samples. Such carbonates can be absorbed on the surface or interior of fossils during the burial period in clay, limestone, sandstone etc.

The hydrochloric acid pre-treatment: A hot dilute strong acid like hydrochloric acid is then used to remove the calcium carbonate fraction of the bioapatite from the same bone specimen as carbon dioxide and collected under vacuum for C-14 dating. This calcium carbonate has replaced some of the calcium phosphate during the life-time of the dinosaur and therefore gives a reliable C-14 date as good as bone collagen and amounts to about 0.65% of the bone unless completely degenerate. Concordant RC ages among bone fractions like collagen, total organics and CO3 of the bone bioapatite are conclusive proof that the C-14 age is accurate and contamination has been eliminated even though the residual collagen content of some dinosaur bones appear to be no more than about 0.1 to 0.35 % although originally about 30% [Labs generally like to C-14 date bones containing at least 3% -7% collagen content based on my understanding]....
BUT WHAT ABOUT INVASIVE “OLD” OR “DEAD” CARBON [SUPPOSEDLY CONTAINING LITTLE OR NO C-14] TAKEN IN BY PLANTS AND ANIMALS DURING THEIR LIFE TIME BY EATING, DRINKING OR INHALING “OLD” CARBON SOURCES? Contamination # 2

Laboratories can eliminate most young C-14 sources by alkali and acid pre-treatments but can NOT eliminate old carbon contamination ingested during the life time of the plant/animal; thus both live and fossil plant and animal life can give much older ages than reality. This has been proven by both lab and field studies of living plants. Thus the C-14 ages for some living plants appear very ancient as shown by the following examples:

A living tree growing next to a German airport as a result of consuming old carbon dioxide from engine exhausts gave 10,000 RC years BP as reported by B. Huber [1]....

ddubois, SERIOUSLY. Do you wish to understand the problems with the examples you are giving, or do you just want to rant on with examples of misapplied, whether through ignorance or purposely performed by people who want to promote a young earth? Did you read my response to you concerning "In Situ" 14C? Look here's the facts.

1. The half life of 14C is well known (5730). It is useful mostly up to 40,000 years.
2. Dinosaurs and fossils outside that range are dated by the age of the strata they are contained in, not by dating the fossil itself.
3. There are no dinosaur fossils in strata younger than 65 Ma.
4. What would be the purpose of radiocarbon dating a dinosaur fossil?
5. In Situ radionuclides do exist and can contaminate samples, which is more than obvious to those of us who have the background and/or experience to recognize it.
6. Do you really think the greater scientific community, especially those of geochronologers/geochemists, don't know what they are doing?

 

[ddubois]

ddubois, SERIOUSLY. Do you wish to understand the problems with the examples you are giving, or do you just want to rant on with examples of misapplied, whether through ignorance or purposely performed by people who want to promote a young earth? Did you read my response to you concerning "In Situ" 14C? Look here's the facts.

1. The half life of 14C is well known (5730). It is useful mostly up to 40,000 years.
2. Dinosaurs and fossils outside that range are dated by the age of the strata they are contained in, not by dating the fossil itself.
3. There are no dinosaur fossils in strata younger than 65 Ma.
4. What would be the purpose of radiocarbon dating a dinosaur fossil?
5. In Situ radionuclides do exist and can contaminate samples, which is more than obvious to those of us who have the background and/or experience to recognize it.
6. Do you really think the greater scientific community, especially those of geochronologers/geochemists, don't know what they are doing?

RickG -- I will respond a) to your introductory statement, and b) to your 6 points:

a) You and I both identify ourselves as Christians. I expect nonbelievers to distrust my motivations and my zeal for truth. I hope that Christians would at least give me the benefit of the doubt until I show myself unworthy of their trust. What have I said, that you question my desire to understand or that you accuse me of ranting?

b) 1. close enough -- per Wikipedia,
"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples."
2. I understand that is the standard mainstream position
3. Ditto. Though just because it is now the mainstream position doesn't mean it will always be. Have you looked into any of the contrary evidence that has recently come to light?
4. The purpose of carbon dating a dinosaur fossil is to find evidence for an hypothesis which is contrary to the standard mainstream position.
5. The response I sent you earlier acknowledges the problem of contamination.
6. In 1850, the greater scientific community didn't believe in meteorites; in 1900, it didn't realize the implications of relativity and quantum theory; in 1950, it didn't know about space travel or modern computers; in 2000, it didn't know about soft tissue existing in dinosaur fossils. Do I think the greater scientific community can be wrong or ignorant? Yes.

 

[RickG]

RickG -- I will respond a) to your introductory statement, and b) to your 6 points:

a) You and I both identify ourselves as Christians. I expect nonbelievers to distrust my motivations and my zeal for truth. I hope that Christians would at least give me the benefit of the doubt until I show myself unworthy of their trust. What have I said, that you question my desire to understand or that you accuse me of ranting?

Perhaps Gish Gallop would be more descriptive. That is you list a number of independent claims by the creation science community which are impossible to address properly in a single response. I would suggest focusing on one concern at a time and not introducing any others until the concern is resolved. Also, understand that my view points and responses are not based on just my opinion or ideas, rather academic training and experience. I have an M.S. in Physical Earth Science, and more than 25 years experience as a research chemist. I am quite familiar with numerous dating methods, both radiometric and non radiometric.

1. close enough -- per Wikipedia,
"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples."

The I gather you have no problem with that.

2. I understand that is the standard mainstream position

It is not a position. It is the only way to date fossils beyond the radiocarbon limits.

3. Ditto. Though just because it is now the mainstream position doesn't mean it will always be. Have you looked into any of the contrary evidence that has recently come to light?

Yes I have looked extensively into the contrary evidence. It amounts to nothing more than misrepresentations, deceptions. One thing that I did not mention earlier is that there are a few cases where fossils have eroded out and been washed onto younger strata, of course which is more than obvious when one can follow the trail back to the original deposits.

4. The purpose of carbon dating a dinosaur fossil is to find evidence for an hypothesis which is contrary to the standard mainstream position.

Think about it, the strata they are contained in is 65 Ma years beyond the range of carbon dating. Do dinosaurs have a time machine?

5. The response I sent you earlier acknowledges the problem of contamination.

Yes contamination is recognized. Why doesn't the creation science community recognize it in the numerous examples presented in their literature? Can you provide an example in the creation science literature where they describe the process where they checked and accounted for it?

6. In 1850, the greater scientific community didn't believe in meteorites; in 1900, it didn't realize the implications of relativity and quantum theory; in 1950, it didn't know about space travel or modern computers; in 2000, it didn't know about soft tissue existing in dinosaur fossils. Do I think the greater scientific community can be wrong or ignorant? Yes.

That is a description of unknowns due to the lack of proper instruments and understanding to know those things. That is not the case with respect to the numerous radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods, tools, and understand we currently have, and are continuously improving and developing.

 

[Loudmouth]

I get that the varies the tree rings appear to synch up with the currently mainstream accepted carbonating techniques. I was not making a claim of circular reasoning about the frequently reproduced chart showing the apparent agreement. I have different counterarguments for that.

My circular reasoning statement applied to the following statement Loudmouth made earlier (see #33):
"Your proposed modification [that the ratio significantly changes] is not supported by the data. We have organic and inorganic samples from that time period, and the ratios from that time period were nearly the same as now."

When he said he had organic and inorganic samples from that time period, he was referring to a time period dated by the carbon dating technique assuming little or no variation in the C12/C14 ratio.

False, I am referring to annual ice rings, for one. The age of the ice layer is independently determined. We don't use carbon dating to date the ice layer. Those ice layers contain atmosphere from that period in time. Speleothems are also inorganic, but I think they require calibration from tree rings and lake varves.

Also, tree rings and lake varves are annual, so we can count backwards just by counting the rings and layers. No carbon dating is used.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear Loudmouth, you make 5 points which I will respond to in order:

1. I think you make a good debating point here. Your chart does appear to show a synchronicity between carbon dating (with assumed constant C14/C12) and other mainstream accepted dating methods. However your chart goes back 50,000 years and I am very suspicious of tree rings even more than 5000 years, and I know there can be multiple tree tree rings and I know there can be multiple ice layers.

Extra rings in the species of trees used are extremely rare. In fact, in the bristlecone data, missing rings are more common. If you are going to make these claims, then you need evidence that there was a world wide synchronicity between different continents that would cause the same extra rings at the same time. This also has to synch up with lake varves and ice layers on completely different continents.

You can raise a legitimate objection that even so, how could they all agree? I haven't studied the science enough to give a firm answer, but I know human nature -- frequently people see what they expect to see, and reject what doesn't make sense to them. I suspect there are a number of outliers that simply don't appear on your chart and that some of the dating methodologies were chosen so as to synchronize with other accepted dating methodologies. Certainly not a strong rebuttal, but the best I can do at the moment.

Frequently, people make up non-existent data to try and counter very real data. However, that isn't how science works.

If creationists disagree with the data, then they are free to go collect their own. The lakes, forests, ice layers, and stalagmites are all still there.

2. Another good debating point, supplementing your first. Counting tree rings, lake varves, and ice layers would appear to be independent of the C14/C12 ratio. Although now that I think of it, it is at least possible that the same event which could increase the C14/C12 ratio could also multiply the number of apparent lake varves and ice layers. Again, not a strong rebuttal.

How is it possible? The lake varves use diatom and clay deposits to mark summer and winter. A massive flood is not going to produce alternating layers of fine diatoms and fine clay particles, and it certainly isn't going to sort insect and leaf debris by its 14C content.

Ice layers use oxygen and hydrogen isotopes to mark annual events. More heat in the summer allows for the evaporation of water that carries heavier isotopes, so you get an alternating signal of heave and light isotopes. A flood would just remove the ice.

3. To me, your "They can't even show that they are dating actual organic tissue." seems weak. If "they" means the group that presented in Singapore, it seems to me you are being unjustifiably dismissive. From what I read, more and more different groups are using accepted standard carbon dating methodology on supposedly millions of years old material and getting young ages.

You should get young ages with 14C dating on fossils that are millions of years old. That's the whole point. As others have mentioned, in situ 14C production and contamination produces a background that limits the age range that 14C can be used for. Other standard dating procedures measure the production of daughter product which makes them more accurate as a rock gets older. 14C is just the opposite. It measures the disappearance of the parent isotope. This means that it becomes less accurate for older samples as the parent isotope disappears.

4. I was quoting from a probably mainstream geologist article reporting on the internet in reaction to the 2012 Singapore creationist presentation. You appear to be attributing his statements to me. It seemed to me his statement that "Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date." is just what you would have said. I understand the mainstream position to be that the geological 65 million year date should synchronize with the date from any other method.

No mainstream geologist would ever state that 14C dates should synchronize with zircon U/Pb dates of millions of years. None.

5. Again you appear to be attributing a mainstream geologist statement to me.
It sees to me his statement that "After millions of years of being buried, there should be no Carbon 14 left." is compatible with the mainstream position.

No, it isn't. RickG discusses that as well.

No carbon 14 under even the most advanced methodology is supposed to be discernible after more than about 100,000 years, from what I've read. Isn't that true?

The assumption you are making is that a 10 million year old fossil will have no 14C. They will. The same processes that produce 14C in our upper atmosphere can also produce 14C in fossils. Also, 14C from the air can bind to the fossil once it is unearthed, not to mention 14C that contaminates the extraction and detection equipment.

 

[ddubois]

Yes contamination is recognized. Why doesn't the creation science community recognize it in the numerous examples presented in their literature? Can you provide an example in the creation science literature where they describe the process where they checked and accounted for it?

You clearly have much more expertise in earth science than I do. Perhaps you would be willing to share some of it with me. Following your suggestion, I will try with you to restrict myself to one concern at a time, and so I will just focus on one of your statements. Could you please analyze what I sent you that prompted your earlier response (#281 above) and show me how it would need to change to be an example of the creation science community recognizing contamination? (it was extracts taken from a single document that had been e-mailed to me; to save you reading time, I had deleted some of what I thought was not relevant or overly euphoric.)

 

[ddubois]

No mainstream geologist would ever state that 14C dates should synchronize with zircon U/Pb dates of millions of years. None.

Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 ...
www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371497
DP Review
Jan 22, 2013 - Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date. After millions of ...

This quote was from a Melbourne, Australia person identified as PhilPreston3072 who says he is a scientist and who believes in evolution. Evidently not a mainstream geologist though. My mistake. Though yours too, in attributing what he said to me. I wouldn't never have said what he said. In my earlier response (#270), I was deliberately trying to present from what I thought was a mainstream rather than a creationist source, to be more credible to you.

 

[ddubois]

You should get young ages with 14C dating on fossils that are millions of years old. That's the whole point. As others have mentioned, in situ 14C production and contamination produces a background that limits the age range that 14C can be used for. Other standard dating procedures measure the production of daughter product which makes them more accurate as a rock gets older. 14C is just the opposite. It measures the disappearance of the parent isotope. This means that it becomes less accurate for older samples as the parent isotope disappears.

This statement appears to assume that no measures can be taken to effectively remove the contaminating 14C coming after the death of the dinosaur. Extensive measures have in fact been taken by creationists in at least some cases to eliminate contaminants (see my discussion with RickG). Why are you so confident that they haven't succeeded?

 

[RickG]

You clearly have much more expertise in earth science than I do. Perhaps you would be willing to share some of it with me. Following your suggestion, I will try with you to restrict myself to one concern at a time, and so I will just focus on one of your statements. Could you please analyze what I sent you that prompted your earlier response (#281 above) and show me how it would need to change to be an example of the creation science community recognizing contamination? (it was extracts taken from a single document that had been e-mailed to me; to save you reading time, I had deleted some of what I thought was not relevant or overly euphoric.)

I'll be glad to analyze it, but do you have a link to the original document? What you consider not relevant of overly euphoric my be very important. I also need to see there citations. There are countless instances in the creation science literature where the author(s) will cite literature claiming it either supports their position or they used data from it, which when reviewed is found not to. Does the document provide any data sets or sources for data? Thanks.

 

[ddubois]

I'll be glad to analyze it, but do you have a link to the original document? What you consider not relevant of overly euphoric my be very important. I also need to see there citations. There are countless instances in the creation science literature where the author(s) will cite literature claiming it either supports their position or they used data from it, which when reviewed is found not to. Does the document provide any data sets or sources for data? Thanks.

Unfortunately I did not have a link and do not know how to create one even with a URL address. I don't think you want me to reproduce the original document, in full, here, though I can. Apparently it was a PowerPoint presentation, with just 3 citations, perhaps not what you were looking for. There is perhaps a better example for creationists addressing contamination, with tons of citations, at C-14 Dating - ScienceVsEvolution.org. I checked and it came up third when I used the title in a Google search.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 ...
www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371497
DP Review
Jan 22, 2013 - Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date. After millions of ...

That was written by some random guy on a website. Why would you ever think that a random person on the internet speaks for the field of geology? Why would you go to "Digital Photography Review" to learn about the view of mainstream geologists?

 

[Loudmouth]

This statement appears to assume that no measures can be taken to effectively remove the contaminating 14C coming after the death of the dinosaur.

It isn't assumed. It is observed. One of the basic features of almost all scientific methodologies is background.

Extensive measures have in fact been taken by creationists in at least some cases to eliminate contaminants (see my discussion with RickG). Why are you so confident that they haven't succeeded?

How are you able to remove the 14C that was created in situ? How were the creationists able to differentiate between nitrogen that had been converted to 14C in the sample by local radiation and 14C that had been created in the atmosphere and then fixed into the tissue during the organisms lifetime?

 

[RickG]

Unfortunately I did not have a link and do not know how to create one even with a URL address. I don't think you want me to reproduce the original document, in full, here, though I can. Apparently it was a PowerPoint presentation, with just 3 citations, perhaps not what you were looking for. There is perhaps a better example for creationists addressing contamination, with tons of citations, at C-14 Dating - ScienceVsEvolution.org. I checked and it came up third when I used the title in a Google search.

Thanks for the linked source. Toward the end of the paper is a section where they show 6 objections and rebuttals. I think probably the best way for me to respond is to address both the objections and rebuttals. I will put in quotes so my responses will not be confused with the objections and rebuttals.

(1) OBJECTION: "A possible reason for radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones is that collagen contains nitrogen atoms as well as carbon and hydrogen. Irradiation from the Uranium atoms in the soil surrounding the dinosaur femur bones or absorbed in the dinosaur bones through the action of water percolating through the bones could continually over millions of years keep changing the existing nitrogen into C-14.49

REBUTTAL: Bone bio-apatite, which is calcium carbonate, has NO nitrogen yet the RC age for the same bone is concordant with the RC age for the bone collagen. A similar objection has been raised for C-14 in coal and diamond (1) as analysis shows there is sometimes a small percentage of nitrogen: This objection has been refuted by other scientists because the radiation flux and cross section of nitrogen atoms would be too small for radiation from uranium sources to change nitrogen into C-14.

True, Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) contains no "N" in its formula. However, pure CaCO3 does not exist in nature, there will be numerous other contanimants, including nitrogen which is the most abundent gas on Earth. The chemical process of 14C being converted into 14C in the presense of Uranium and Thorium is well known. Also, they don't date the calcium carbonate, rather the collegan. As for coal and diamond having 14C, yes it can, but it is "in situ" 14C. Also, another fact not recognized in the paper is that no one has ever broken open a dinosaur bone and found collagen or any soft tissue for that matter. The soft tissue is not revealed until the minerals which incapsulate it are dissolved.

(2) OBJECTION: "Modern bacteria and fungi could infiltrate the femur bones to give a young date."50

REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones.

Objection 2 is true, that can happen, especially since the sample tested was in a museum for quite a while before the sample was obtained. As for the rebuttal, they have it backwards. For bones, Longin's technique [1971, Nature 230(5291)241] is used to remove the apatite fraction in acid, and then hydrolyze the bone collagen which remains as the desired sample.

(3) OBJECTION: "The radiocarbon dating method is not applicable for samples >50,000 years."51

REBUTTAL: C-14 dating of dinosaur fossil bones from Western United States showed that they are far younger than even 50,000 RC years. The critic who said the above is assuming that dinosaurs are 65 M years or older because of a commitment to the false assumptions of 17 to 19th century stratigraphy and alleged correlation with radiometric dating. Because of their faith in evolutionary philosophy such critics have never bothered to even repeat the C-14 testing to see if the anomalous dates are correct. That attitude is unscientific and regrettable coming from a top scientist in a major field of science.

Again the objection is solid. You just don't radiocarbon date fossils contained in rock strata already dated and known to be millions of years old. Concerning their rebuttle, again, another misdirection. Yes, certain layers of strata were identified in the 17th to 19th centuries, but they had no way of dating them until recently. The rebuttal assumption is they are fitting radiometrically obtained dates to meet 17th-19th presumed dates by people who had no way of dating anything.

(4) OBJECTION: "The carbon isolated from the dinosaur bones had no chemical relationship to bone protein or flesh."52

REBUTTAL: This objection is based on the writer's belief in long ages of millions and billions of years. The discovery of bone collagen and soft tissue and C-14 dating of the collagen negated that assumption.53 Of course he wrote this in 1992 so in all fairness he can not be faulted for his acceptance of mainstream assumptions of that period. Nonetheless such negativity is of no value to any rational scientific evaluation of anomalous data. Unfortunately that attitude is still prevalent to this day. The discoverers of collagen (anomalous chemicals) in the T-Rex femur bone should have sent a sample to a RC dating lab to test for C-14 but perhaps they were fearful that they would be the first among mainstream scientists to discover why there was collagen: The bones might be only thousands of year old, not millions.

The objection again is true, the paper does not describe how carbon isolated for the dinosaur bones quantified as being related to it. And one again, the rebuttle they give doesn't even apply to the objection. And if they are so adamant about the earth being only 6,000 years old, why are they so happy with 14C dates of 30 to 40 Ky.

(5) OBJECTION: "The use of expensive chemical and physical tests and equipment and learned testimonials are irrelevant to interpreting the data."54

REBUTTAL: This statement naturally follows from a firm belief in biological evolution and long ages and must be ignored in favor of research by unbiased scientists who will test for C-14 in dinosaur bone collagen and soft tissue from the Western United States; thousands of the bones sit untested in dozens of museums. By testing for C-14 they will then know if these anomalous RC ages are valid. Furthermore since there are fossil human-like footprints with dinosaurs in alleged 100 M year old Cretaceous limestone 55/56 and distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide 57 it is paramount that scientists test for C-14 in dinosaurs world-wide to see if C-14 in dinosaur bones is a world-wide phenomenon. Truth in science emerges in experimentation and keen observations.

The objection is spot on. Remember where I pointed out above where they said their sample was pretreated with an alkaline solution? That is wrong, an acid solution is used in pretreating bone/collagen. Looking at their rebuttal, again, nothing stated there has anything to do with the objection.

(6) OBJECTION: Because of radiometric dating of volcanic material in many strata of the geologic column, the demise of the dinosaurs was extended from an assumed 12 million years by S. Hubbard58 in 1924 to 65 million years in the 1990's in the Colorado Hell Creek Cretaceous formation by G. B. Dalrymple.59


REBUTTAL: Both time periods are 480 to 2600 time greater than that with direct C-14 dating of the dinosaurs and other fossils from Texas to Alaska. Other examples include: (a) In RC dating the fossil human-like footprint impressions in Mexico S. Gonzalez et al. obtained ages of about 27,000 to 40,000 RC years for shells etc.60 But Renne et al. used K/Ar and Ar/Ar on volcanic material obtained dates of 800,000 and 1,300,000 years61 respectively or about 300 to 480 times greater than that for C-14. (b) For the distinct and pristine fossil human footprints in Texas, in the United States, the alleged geologic age is 108,000,000 years or 2900 times older than that obtained for two RC dates of ~37,500 RC years for carbonized wood in the clay between the limestone strata. 62

Both are pretty much the same as objection and rebuttal (5).

Outside of this paper I was able to find additional information concerning the lab performing the tests. It was the University of Georgia radiocarbon lab that performed the test. Supposedly, samples sent to them were not identified as dinosaur collagen, and frankly, there is no way the UGA radiocarbon lab or any radiocarbon lab on this planet would even accept a sample identified as dinosaur collagen, much less date it. Also, the paper did not describe how they extracted the collagen. Did they just send the lab some bone collagen misidentified.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

One example of the "Dino meat radiocarbon" sham is; Miller, H. R. "DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS-same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna." Another using essentially the same "data" is "Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen." by Josef Holzschuh, Jean de Pontcharra, Hugh Miller.

This was the direct source for the "POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS AND REBUTTALS" mentioned above.

The common links are Hugh Miller, and the fossil from the property of a Mr. Otis Kline. Mr. Kline is also the director of the creationist Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, MT.


Hugh R. Miller is the "Head of the Paleochronology Group" of Ohio that submits supposedly dinosaur bones for C14 dates. The "research article" also reveals that the "private ranch" where the Armitage&Anderson specimens were collected is owned by creationist Otis Kline. What a nice daisy chain.

The Mark Hollis Armitage, and Kevin Lee Anderson paper on so-called dinosaur "soft tissues" is the 2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" which was actually published in a legitimate (if minor) journal: Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Here are some photos of the "lab" technique, and field work used by Hugh Miller, et al.

Image "d" is all that passed as a geological section. They wrote, "shows the typical terrain for this area of the Montana Badlands which is a dinosaur graveyard." What it really shows is that there is a lot of erosion exposing fossils to relocation, and chemical alteration.

I also thought that their phony "clean" methods using a "specially cleaned saw," and plastic gloves was particularly amusing. Look at them drag a "specially cleaned saw" through plaster, wood, burlap, and who knows what else through their fossil.

 

[Loudmouth]

I also thought that their phony "clean" methods using a "specially cleaned saw," and plastic gloves was particularly amusing. Look at them drag a "specially cleaned saw" through plaster, wood, burlap, and who knows what else through their fossil.

That is bad. I don't deal with fossils and even I know not to do that.

 

[ddubois]

That was written by some random guy on a website. Why would you ever think that a random person on the internet speaks for the field of geology? Why would you go to "Digital Photography Review" to learn about the view of mainstream geologists?

You attributed something to me that I didn't say, and I think it would have been a nice thing to do for you to admit that.

Instead, you seem to be blaming me for poor judgment in my choice of mainstream believers to introduce the 2012 Singapore paper. I admit I picked the first apparently mainstream guy I could find, and I didn't notice until later what DP stood for. I was not looking to learn about the view of mainstream geologists. (From this forum, I already have a pretty clear idea of that.) I was just looking for a mainstream guy to introduce the paper to you, as an indication that it had been seen and responded to by mainstream guys outside of those who decided to delete the abstract from the AOGS website on the grounds "it had to be in error".

 

[ddubois]

Thanks for the linked source. Toward the end of the paper is a section where they show 6 objections and rebuttals. I think probably the best way for me to respond is to address both the objections and rebuttals. I will put in quotes so my responses will not be confused with the objections and rebuttals.

Objection 2 is true, that can happen, especially since the sample tested was in a museum for quite a while before the sample was obtained. As for the rebuttal, they have it backwards. For bones, Longin's technique [1971, Nature 230(5291)241] is used to remove the apatite fraction in acid, and then hydrolyze the bone collagen which remains as the desired sample.

Thank you for your analysis. I am still curious though, after your analysis if you still think the creation science community fails to recognize contamination, and if so, what would they need to do to satisfy you?

I did have a question also about your analysis of the paper's rebuttal to Objection 2, "REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones."

You said "As for the rebuttal, they have it backwards. For bones, Longin's technique [1971, Nature 230(5291)241] is used to remove the apatite fraction in acid, and then hydrolyze the bone collagen which remains as the desired sample."

As I understand it, C14 labs use both acid and alkaline solutions in cleaning. The authors of the paper are simply stating that the C14 labs are claiming that the alkaline portion of the cleaning removes modern bacteria contaminants. The C14 labs are not the same entity as the authors of the paper. Are you suggesting that the C14 labs are wrong in their claim or that they didn't really make the claim? Elsewhere in the paper the authors say they use Longin's technique for extracting collagen (with acid, as you say). So how do the authors of the paper have their rebuttal backwards?

 

[RickG]

Thank you for your analysis. I am still curious though, after your analysis if you still think the creation science community fails to recognize contamination, and if so, what would they need to do to satisfy you?

Miller, et al did not do the testing themselves, they sent it to the University of Georgia Radiocarbon lab. They did not identify for the lab precisely what they sent, or at best called it collagen. The reason they didn't identify it properly is that no radiocarbon lab on earth is going to date anything they know to be at the very least 1.3 million times beyond the limits of the procedure.

I did have a question also about your analysis of the paper's rebuttal to Objection 2, "REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones."

There are numerous different chemicals/solutions that can used in the pretreatment process. However, what is used is specific to what is being tested. Using the wrong cleaning solutions can cause invalid results. Here is what is used specifically for collagen.

For bones, we modify Longin's technique [1971, Nature 230(5291)241] to remove the apatite fraction in acid, and then hydrolyze the bone collagen which remains as the desired sample.

Source: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/ams/education/pretreat.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v230/n5291/abs/230241a0.html​

You said "As for the rebuttal, they have it backwards. For bones, Longin's technique [1971, Nature 230(5291)241] is used to remove the apatite fraction in acid, and then hydrolyze the bone collagen which remains as the desired sample."

As just stated above along with a link stating so and the original source describing the procedure. After the acid solution removes contaminants.

As I understand it, C14 labs use both acid and alkaline solutions in cleaning. The authors of the paper are simply stating that the C14 labs are claiming that the alkaline portion of the cleaning removes modern bacteria contaminants. The C14 labs are not the same entity as the authors of the paper. Are you suggesting that the C14 labs are wrong in their claim or that they didn't really make the claim? Elsewhere in the paper the authors say they use Longin's technique for extracting collagen (with acid, as you say). So how do the authors of the paper have their rebuttal backwards?

The authors of the paper appear to demonstrate their lack of knowledge in pretreating samples for radiocarbon dating. What solutions are used is dependent upon what the specific sample material is. They did not properly identify the material sent to the lab. As for my saying they had it backwards I was responding specifically to the Rebuttal of the objection, where they specified cleaning in an alkaline solution. An alkaline solution would be used to neutralize the acid solution, therefore, their description of the process was in reverse.

 

[RickG]

Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 ...
www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371497

"ddubois", a question for you. The whole basis of suggesting dinosaurs lived 30 to 40 thousand years ago is to demonstrate a young earth, 6 to 10 thousand years old. Do you not see a problem with that analogy?