Dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years

Hempskybergstein · 19-08-13, 01:04 AM

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He says that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such entirely different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 signals which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable signal concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 signals unlikely", he notes. "If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them."

makes this website seem a lot more plausible

Hempskybergstein · 19-08-13, 11:38 AM

Many dinosaur bones are not fossilized. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone. Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone. Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies. Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make. Also in 2009, the team of Dr. Phil Wilby discovered a fossilized squid that contained a sac of ink so well-preserved that it could be used in a pen for writing, found in rock that is considered to be 150 million years old. In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters. Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded. That is, if they are over 65 million years old as the conventional wisdom says.

now that could be quite embarrassing for the history books.....

WanderinBloke · 19-08-13, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Hempskybergstein

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

makes this website seem a lot more plausible

Dr. Thomas Seiler, Creationist. Nuff said.

Hempskybergstein · 19-08-13, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by WanderinBloke

Dr. Thomas Seiler, Creationist. Nuff said.

Not the solid refutation I was hoping for but had Thomas Seiler been a Darwinian sympathizer I'm sure you would of posted this up before me.
Bong?

**Stirruphead** · 19-08-13, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by WanderinBloke

Dr. Thomas Seiler, Creationist. Nuff said.

Not the solid refutation I was hoping for but had Thomas Seiler been a Darwinian sympathizer I'm sure you would of posted this up before me.
Bong?

It's true, it's not much of an answer to say that Creationists are wrong by definition, as you seem to be asserting, WanderinBloke.

**Stirruphead** · 19-08-13, 04:27 PM

A website called 'Creation Ministeries International' says of Dr Mary Schweitzer, (who found the alleged proteins in the T-Rex skeleton) in the course of discussing this issue:

"It is a shame that Dr Schweitzer is so entrapped in the billions-of-years paradigm that she is unwilling to abandon it in the face of huge problems, both biblical and scientific."

In other words, Dr Schweitzer, the scientist who claims that this delicate tissue can be found in fossils, is a believer in evolution over billions of years. This despite the fact that she is a devout Christian. Her position is emphatically not: Oh look, connective tissue, that means these fuckers can't be millions of years old after all!!" It's simply: "Oh look, connective tissue!!" If her discovery is real it's only 'embarassing for the history books' if there's no way that these kinds of tissues could be preserved that long. But how are we to assess that? I certainly never had an opinion about it.
Did anyone else here?

Hempskybergstein · 19-08-13, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Stirruphead

If her discovery is real it's only 'embarassing for the history books' if there's no way that these kinds of tissues could be preserved that long. But how are we to assess that? I certainly never had an opinion about it.
Did anyone else here?

Yes, I did.
It puts history into doubt, if you ask how can such time spans be assessed also ask why the history books have taken fossilization to be a process that takes millions of years, and that process has neither been assessed, how did history arrive at that conclusion?
I'm not going to rise to a religious arguement, I'm neither promoting God or Atheism so believe what you like, just don't force it upon me.

**Bob2142** · 20-08-13, 02:24 PM

Looking around at the populace in my general location Im not entirely surprised about dinosaurs being around only 40,000 years ago as some still have yet to evolve from the missing link.

I dont know whether its because Im growing up and out of my youth but these days when I see the title of Doctor I wince a little. To me the title is being diluted to the point that any arsehole can call themselves a doctor or simply pay to buy the title, I mean look at (formerly "Dr") Gillian McKeith in the UK. The majority of her views were at best implausible with her range of diagnosis obtained simply by looking and having a play with a patients stool sample, whilst Im fully aware that some medical conditions can be identified from stool samples she just used to go too far. Anyway it would appear that Im not the only person who found her antics questionable whilst masquerading around as a Dr and when investigated well... No one could find her thesis.....

Just because theyre a Dr doesnt prevent unadulterated shit coming out of their mouths which is itself unfortunate; the sooner they start locking up, publicly tar and feather those that use their "qualifications" to further their own agenda or feather their own nests at the expense of the guilible and ignorant the better. Start charging them with fraud and dish out prison terms if its warranted.

Not to gag science or academics at all, they can carry on what theyre doing however should the day come someone calls bullshit on the scientists work they had best have a good data set to substantiate their claims and theories and then hopefully we can start regaining trust in the title for at the minute there are too many quacks and imposters making grand claims on the basis of nothing.

Apologies for the slight derailment.