Updating The Theory of the Earth

[ddubois]

"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?

I have given what I understand to be the proposed young earth explanation for the apparent inconsistency earlier in this thread. Simplified, it is that in the past, the C14/C12 ratio was much lower, giving inflated ages from carbon dating.

 

[ddubois]

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 don't think you answered my question, which was "...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?"

 

[ddubois]

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.

I find your argument hard to follow. Let me try to compare it with what the authors actually said and what they said sounded like to me, and then maybe you can tell me where I am misunderstanding:

(1) In the body of the paper: "The modified Longin method by Kh. A. Arslanov et al.,36 and C. H. Sullivan et al.37 was used for extraction of collagen for both dinosaur femur bones; it combines two methods of purification as follows as described by Arslanov et. al. "The bones were mechanically cleaned and washed, then pulverized and treated at low temperature (4-6 C) by 2-3 fresh solutions of 0.5-1.0 N HCl for a few days (depending on preservation condition) until mineral components dissolved completely. We washed the collagen obtained in distilled water until no Calcium was detectable. We then treated the collagen with 0.1 N NaOH at room temperature for 24 h, and washed it again in distilled water until neutral. We treated the collagen with a weak HCl solution (pH = 3) at 80 – 90 C for 6-8 h. Finally, we separated the humic acid residue from the gelatin solution by centrifugation, and the solution was evaporated. Benzene was synthesized from the dried gelatin by burning in a "bomb" or by dry pyrolysis, using the standard methods ----."38"

(2) In the 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."

It sounds to me like (1) says that when they were dealing with collagen, they or their lab first applied acid, then alkaline solution, and (2) says that the alkaline solution was designed to remove the bacteria contaminants.

If I am right, that leaves at least two questions I hope you can answer:
(1)How did you get that they didn't notify their lab that the material was collagen?
(2)How did you get that they or their lab were performing or saying they were performing the purification in the wrong order?

If I am wrong, please explain how I am wrong.

 

[RickG]

I have given what I understand to be the proposed young earth explanation for the apparent inconsistency earlier in this thread. Simplified, it is that in the past, the C14/C12 ratio was much lower, giving inflated ages from carbon dating.

However, your idea that inflated ages are caused by a varying ratio of 14C/12C does not hold water by the simple fact that those varying ratios are known and measured, therefore providing a calibration curve which corrects for those variations. Do you not see this?

 

[RickG]

I don't think you answered my question, which was "...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?"

The fact is that the sample(s) sent to the University of Georgia radiocarbon labs was misrepresented. It is not even known that the sample sent was actually collagen, much less from a dinosaur. Do the provide a description of how they extracted the collagen? The UGA radiocarbon lab certainly did not. If they wish to verify their integrity, then this process needs to be openly performed from start to finish. Will they do this? What do they have to hide?

 

[RickG]

I find your argument hard to follow. Let me try to compare it with what the authors actually said and what they said sounded like to me, and then maybe you can tell me where I am misunderstanding:

Certainly.

(1) In the body of the paper: "The modified Longin method by Kh. A. Arslanov et al.,36 and C. H. Sullivan et al.37 was used for extraction of collagen for both dinosaur femur bones; it combines two methods of purification as follows as described by Arslanov et. al. "The bones were mechanically cleaned and washed, then pulverized and treated at low temperature (4-6 C) by 2-3 fresh solutions of 0.5-1.0 N HCl for a few days (depending on preservation condition) until mineral components dissolved completely. We washed the collagen obtained in distilled water until no Calcium was detectable. We then treated the collagen with 0.1 N NaOH at room temperature for 24 h, and washed it again in distilled water until neutral. We treated the collagen with a weak HCl solution (pH = 3) at 80 – 90 C for 6-8 h. Finally, we separated the humic acid residue from the gelatin solution by centrifugation, and the solution was evaporated. Benzene was synthesized from the dried gelatin by burning in a "bomb" or by dry pyrolysis, using the standard methods ----."38"

As I have previously pointed out. The radiocarbon lab is not the one who is going to extract the collagen. They will only pretreat it with chemicals based on what information is provided to them. Do you understand that in the original fossilized form that there is no soft tissue. Any soft tissue, if there, which is extremely rare, must be exposed by dissolving the fossils material (rock) first. Radiocarbon labs do not date rock because that material is inorganic.

(2) In the 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."

I thought I explained that quite clearly as well as providing a source describing what chemicals are used for specific types of samples. Yes, an alkaline solution is used first on some samples to remove bacteria, but not with collagen. It appears to me that the paper, and specifically the objection(s) which my comments are based on, only described a generalization of the process, which is not only misleading, but threw up a red-flag for me.

It sounds to me like (1) says that when they were dealing with collagen, they or their lab first applied acid, then alkaline solution, and (2) says that the alkaline solution was designed to remove the bacteria contaminants.

I gather that description is from the links I provided. In that particular process, the acid would be used to remove contaminants, then distilled water would be used to rinse the sample times, then a weak alkaline solution would be used to neutralize any remaining acid. After that it would be rinsed with distilled several times more. Also understand that the chemicals used, including the distilled water would be of a very high grade certified solution to insure no contamination is introduced by them.

(1)How did you get that they didn't notify their lab that the material was collagen?

I don't know what they identified it as. But one thing for sure is I know they made no indication that it was dinosaur collagen. As I said before, there is not a radiocarbon lab on this planet that will process and date anything identified as dinosaur soft tissue because it is out the range of carbon dating. This is based on my professional experience as a chemist and understanding of radiocarbon dating and academic education in numerous dating methods.

(2)How did you get that they or their lab were performing or saying they were performing the purification in the wrong order?

They only mentioned in the rebuttal an alkaline solution. That is a red-flag to me that they know very little about the pretreatment processes used in radiocarbon dating for that specific type sample. If they wish to be honest and up front with their claims, then let them provide us with the document number on their "test results sheet" sent to them by the UGA lab and compare it with the copy in the UGA lab files. Then we can see how they actually described the sample(s) and how UGA processed them and dated them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This thread title comes from Georges Cuvier's essay (book) translated into English in 1813 on the internet. It is very readable discussion by the guy who first discovered dinosaurs, although they were so named by one of his followers, Richard Owen. Both he and Owen disagreed with intraspecies evolution. Cuvier believed in multiple extinction events.

I am trying to cobble together an understanding of what extinction events would be compatible with young earth beliefs. My current (very tentative) hypothesis is that there may be four:
1. An early flood (book of Jasher),
2. Noah's flood between 3000-3300 BC, relying on the Septuagint, ("Permian-Triassic" extinction, supposedly 250M yrs ago?),
3. Flood from melting glaciers and resulting lakes (possibly reflected in Chinese myths about emperor Yu who tamed great floods about 2500BC),
4. Series of volcanic and meteoric events, including the tsunami that nearly wiped out the Minoans around 1550 BC ("Cretaceous", supposedly 66M yrs ago -- I'm thinking we still had dinosaurs around until then, as reflected in the book of Job and many temple inscriptions).

(I'm buying into the theory that the C12/C14 ratio has significantly changed over time, particularly at Noah's flood, but also with some of the other extinction events.)

If anyone who reads this knows of a similar theory of placing extinction events in a young earth format, or of knowledgable people who would be willing to talk with me about how best to develop such a theory, I would be grateful to hear about it.

(This is my first attempt at using this forum. I am a retired pension actuary who has been looking into this and related topics off and on for 24 years now.)

- ddubois at davidhdubois@sbcglobal.net

Or we just accept that when the Bible says the earth is ancient it meant that?

That we stop translating "hayah" as was, instead of the "became" it really is?

And the earth "became- hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness "became- hayah" upon...

And hence the dinosaurs died out in a watery death, but not the flood of Noah's time. This is why no bones of man are found with the dinosaurs - man was not yet created.

Noah's flood is only seen superficially in the geological record because unlike the previous 5 extinction events - and 6 creation events (of which man is the sixth) no new life was brought forth. The same life that existed before the flood, was brought through the flood. Only its effects can be seen. Unlike the other 5 destructions in which all new forms of life were created suddenly - all over the globe - in vast numbers - fully formed - that did not exist in the previous creation.

Like an artist He created it - molding it over untold eons into its present state. Soon to undergo a 6th destruction and a 7th and final creation... In which all new forms will arise - including lions that will eat straw.

 

[ddubois]

However, your idea that inflated ages are caused by a varying ratio of 14C/12C does not hold water by the simple fact that those varying ratios are known and measured, therefore providing a calibration curve which corrects for those variations. Do you not see this?

This post made me angry for at least two reasons:
(1) "Do you not see this?" was very condescending and undeserved. If you had looked at any of the many times this topic has come up before in this thread, you would know I am aware of the calibration of carbon dating to make it more consistent with tree ring dating.
(2) You are unjustifiably arrogant with "your idea that inflated ages are caused by a varying ratio of 14C/12C does not hold water by the simple fact..." The facts are that the calibration curve corrects for some relatively small (2 to 3%) known variations. What I was suggesting was an unknown, much greater variation. You can argue that such a variation doesn't exist, but you cannot logically argue that the calibration curve corrects for it.

 

[ddubois]

The fact is that the sample(s) sent to the University of Georgia radiocarbon labs was misrepresented. It is not even known that the sample sent was actually collagen, much less from a dinosaur. Do the provide a description of how they extracted the collagen? The UGA radiocarbon lab certainly did not. If they wish to verify their integrity, then this process needs to be openly performed from start to finish. Will they do this? What do they have to hide?

I believe you are sincere, but just as you think creationists are misrepresenting and lacking integrity, I find myself thinking the same of you, and that doesn't seem healthy. Perhaps Satan's work. I think I had better stop responding for a while.

 

[SkyWriting]

Solid rock can fold without breaking when the folding is done over extreme times such as hundreds of thousands of years.

What is your evidence of this? How can I check your data?

 

[J0hnSm1th]

Simplified, it is that in the past, the C14/C12 ratio was much lower, giving inflated ages from carbon dating.

Carbon dating is but one method and one only suitable for recent dates (up to 50k years). There are many other dating methods that can be explored and corroborate each other.

The Earth has the appearance of great age. This is undeniable. Whether it is actually billions of years old or is young with embedded age doesn't really matter.

 

[Gene2memE]

Carbon dating is but one method and one only suitable for recent dates (up to 50k years). There are many other dating methods that can be explored and corroborate each other.

To add to this, there are several other dating methods that discount a young earth, even if there was some mysterious change to radioactive decay that give abberantly high dates for radiocarbon dating.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is:
Rehydroxylation - Which goes back about 10,000 years
Archeomagnetism - Which goes back about 30,000 years
Lake varve dating - Which goes back about 60,000 years
Thermoluminescence - Which goes back about 100,000 years
Optically stimulated luminescence - Which goes back about 200,000 years
Ice core dating - Which goes back about 800,000 years
Electron spin resonance - Which goes back about 1,000,000 years
Obsidian hydration dating - Which goes back about 1,200,000 years
Amino acid dating - Which goes back about 2,000,000 years

Not only are there purely physical clocks - like lake varves or ice core layers - but there are other radioactive clocks, as well as chemical and geochemical clocks.

All of these would have to be wrong. All of these would have to give the same misleading picture.

Either the dating methods - which we know have concordance from decades of testing - are all wrong, or the myths of ancient Semitic peoples and their reinterpretations are wrong.

I know which camp I'm comfortable inhabiting.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

What is your evidence of this? How can I check your data?

 

[SkyWriting]

My mistake.....how do I check your conclusions about what conditions caused this and the time frame?
It's almost as if you don't understand the scientific method.
How do I reproduce the conditions you conclude were present, so I can see if you are correct that this
would be the result? Perhaps the conditions you have imagined are incorrect.

What happened here and over what time frame?

 

[RickG]

This post made me angry for at least two reasons:
(1) "Do you not see this?" was very condescending and undeserved. If you had looked at any of the many times this topic has come up before in this thread, you would know I am aware of the calibration of carbon dating to make it more consistent with tree ring dating.

My post was not meant to be condescending in the least. I made that comment because you made a statement that seemed to question the calibration curve. Perhaps you are not not communicating in a manner that I interpret what you are saying correctly. Keep in mind that you are communicating from a position of no formal education or experience in the area of radiocarbon dating, with a person who possesses both. I would be just as confused questioning your area of professionalism. Here, I'll provide another example. You just stated: "I am aware of the calibration of carbon dating to make it more consistent with tree ring dating." To me that is not very clear and appears to me that we match the two together, which is incorrect. The calibration curve is derived in part from tree ring data. It is from tree ring data, which correlates the chronology of the tree rings with the measured content of 14C in each of those chronological rings. Furthermore, tree rings have their limitations to only some 8 to 9 Ky. From that point on varves and speleothems take it up to 50 Ky and somewhat beyond. If tree rings and 14C matched there would be no need for a calibration curve.

(2) You are unjustifiably arrogant with "your idea that inflated ages are caused by a varying ratio of 14C/12C does not hold water by the simple fact..." The facts are that the calibration curve corrects for some relatively small (2 to 3%) known variations. What I was suggesting was an unknown, much greater variation. You can argue that such a variation doesn't exist, but you cannot logically argue that the calibration curve corrects for it.

You did not make that clear in my opinion. Again, probably a difference in our levels of understanding and the use of terminology. Those known variations are based off a lot of data from many many many independent sources and exceed 50 Ky. Keep in mind that 14C is formed in the upper atmosphere from a reaction between 14N and gamma rays and combining with oxygen (O2) forming carbon dioxide (CO2). Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a well mixed long lived greenhouse gas. Any anomalous spikes would linger for a very long time and would show up quite vividly in the data we have, especially with respect to tree rings which continuously absorb 14C. That is why I say the suggestion that there may be unknown spikes does not hold water. And please do not misunderstand, I am not saying the calibration curve is perfect or flawless. We are always collecting data and refining the curve to produce better accuracy.

Another thing to keep in mind with respect to a spike in 14C in the calibration curve. If there were more 14C unaccounted for, the dates obtained would be younger, not older.

 

[RickG]

I believe you are sincere, but just as you think creationists are misrepresenting and lacking integrity, I find myself thinking the same of you, and that doesn't seem healthy. Perhaps Satan's work. I think I had better stop responding for a while.

It is because I am a professional in some of the areas in which they make claims and can easily spot those things, some of which I pointed out that I have concerns with. Also, the fact that most creation science literature is not written by people who are in the fields of science they write about. Another problem is that there is extremely little original research presented in the creation science literature. Are you familiar with the term "quote mine"? A quote mine occurs with part of a text or what a person says is taken out of context to mean something completely different. I see this a lot in the creation science literature concerning dating methods, most of which come directly from dating method textbooks. In dating method textbooks, besides the descriptions of procedures and the chemistry and physics behind it, is always included a section on problems that can occur and affect results. What the creation science literature does, is point this out, without mentioning the additional instructions on what causes those problems, how to detect them, and how to avoid them. One popular claim is to say scientists throw out results that doesn't fit their desired dates. That is what I call a half-truth. Yes some dates are disregarded, but not because they don't give a date the scientist would like to see; rather, because it is an anomalous date that can be attributed to an error of some sort.

As to whether I think they lack integrity, there is a professional scientific term I utilize quite often, which on the surface appears to be derogatory name calling, but in reality it is only a description of a process. The term is "Intellectual Dishonesty". Intellectual dishonesty can be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional would be when a person knowingly misrepresents data, most often by "cherry picking" parts that appear to support their position, while ignoring everything that does not support their position. Unintentional are those who are ignorant of the science they are presenting, which I see as the most common.

 

[SkyWriting]

Unintentional are those who are ignorant of the science they are presenting, which I see is as the most common.

Like when I asked how I would to "check the data", Professor Hurd responded with a picture covered with squiggle marks?

 

[RickG]

Like when I asked how I would to "check the data", Professor Hurd responded with a picture covered with squiggle marks?

I haven't a clue what you are talking about? Context Sky, context......

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It's a statement you appear to agree with, so I really don't understand the problem. Also, you tried to play it off as the opinion of mainstream geology when it turns out to be a random guy on the internet posting at a photography website.

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,

You found the first person that agreed with you, and you could have cared less about his credentials. That's what happened. If you were really interested in the view of mainstream geologists then you would have used Google Scholar to find papers written by mainstream geologists. For example:

"The sample preparation lines developed at CIRCE produced samples of mass >1 mg characterized by negligible fractionation effects and an apparent age for blank samples corresponding to 53,300 yr with a standard deviation of 2500 yr. For the mass range >1 mg, the line is utilized for routine measurements of unknown samples; systematic checks on secondary standards included in each measurement batch indicate that an accuracy <0.3% (+/- 30 years) is achieved for modern samples in normal operation (Terrasi, 2007)."
http://www.aranzadi.eus/fileadmin/docs/Munibe/2009325330AA.pdf

Samples that should have an infinite age, their blank samples, measure 53,300 years old. This is the upper limit of carbon dating. Samples that are 1 million, 10 million, or even 100 billion years old would be reported as 53,300 years old or younger using their equipment. This is just the measurement side of the equation. We still haven't even discussed in situ production of 14C.

You have admitted that you made a mistake in citing the digital photography page. What I am more worried about is that you didn't even consider real scientific papers written by real geologists. Instead, you look for conspiracy type webpages that aren't written by scientists.

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".

You were looking for someone who agreed with you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What is your evidence of this? How can I check your data?

Well you could check out this site.

http://geoscience.wisc.edu/~chuck/Classes/Mtn_and_Plates/rock_deformation.html

They make the point that such deformation without breaking happens more easily when the rock is hotter. So deformation without breaking is said to occur more readily way underground, and then becomes seen when erosion and/or uplift raises the deformed rocks.