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

ethan said:
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to this thread, then I speculate that it'll go downhill quite rapidly. Unless of course Lysander can tell us about homoeopathy, in which case we're in for good times.
 
kQMEWYr.png


newgeology.us is a Creationist website.
 
JCBeastie said:
Soft tissue in dinosaur bones?

Since when did we have dinosaur bones? What we have is fossils and a lot of layered geology that suggests their age.
Actually, soft tissue within fossils has been found. For example, I reference the Smithsonian Mag. However, I personally feel that this points less towards dinosaurs being 'recent' and more towards a flawed understanding of the full nature of the fossilation process.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
They don't use carbon dating on dinosaur fossils though as it doesn't work on anything over something like 50,000 years. What they do instead I think is use layers of volcanic ash to find a similar layer of igneous rock nearby, date the igneous rock and use that as the date. The reason they do this is that they can use different forms of radiometric-dating on the igneous rock which can measure a much greater time-frame but fossils are found in sedimentary rock which can't be dated radiometrically using those methods.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

Many different methods exist to determine the age of a rock/fossil - for the best results they use multiple different techniques.

From what you said "hells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)" If I'm reading it right, it seems to indicate this method shows things as being around 20/40,000 years old - regardless of how old they are.

[FnG]magnolia;24093231 said:
Oh, do go on.
Click to expand...
Don't encourage him (even sarcastically!) :p

Antar Bolaeisk said:
They don't use carbon dating on dinosaur fossils though as it doesn't work on anything over something like 50,000 years. What they do instead I think is use layers of volcanic ash to find a similar layer of igneous rock nearby, date the igneous rock and use that as the date. The reason they do this is that they can use different forms of radiometric-dating on the igneous rock which can measure a much greater time-frame but fossils are found in sedimentary rock which can't be dated radiometrically using those methods.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they date the rock they are encased in - along with the rocks above & below it - along with certain other tests on other events which occurred throughout the ages.

It's not as simple as dating one object.
 
Last edited:
Working at a university as I do, we are taught that we should respect our fellow scientists in their beliefs.

Unfortunately I think that science and religious belief are mutually exclusive and instantly have to question the logic of somebody who professes to be both a scientist and subscribes to a specific religion.

The fellow in the video of the OP has a PhD in physics from the University of Stuttgart. Undoubtedly he has a good grasp of physics as a subject and is likely very adept at mathematics.

However he is also a practising Roman Catholic and was a choir boy in his youth. To practice a religion, ANY religion, shows an inability to questions ones thought processes, indeed to actively practice (i.e. worship) in the name of a religion shows that you are likely to be fundamentally flawed in your reasoning for doing research ESPECIALLY if your area is something like physics (i.e. contemplate the who/what/why of life very often and come to the conclusion that it is all Gods doing). Very often what one wants to find from his research is what he finds, regardless of whether it is actually true.

It is up to the academic community to effectively police this and determine whether one persons conclusions are sensible.

Clearly this man has applied an experimental technique known to have limitations that preclude it from being of use in this case to a problem in a faulty way. His results cannot be trusted.

What's more worrying for me is that the conference didn't spot this before allowing him to talk! Though I suppose they have at least caught it afterwards and there's a chance it was effectively an open forum.
 
Antar Bolaeisk said:
They don't use carbon dating on dinosaur fossils though as it doesn't work on anything over something like 50,000 years. What they do instead I think is use layers of volcanic ash to find a similar layer of igneous rock nearby, date the igneous rock and use that as the date. The reason they do this is that they can use different forms of radiometric-dating on the igneous rock which can measure a much greater time-frame but fossils are found in sedimentary rock which can't be dated radiometrically using those methods.
Click to expand...

You're right in part, we can however date ash as well. You don't really need to find other igneous rock (ash, or at least tuff etc. is an igneous rock)
 
manic_man said:
Working at a university as I do, we are taught that we should respect our fellow scientists in their beliefs.

Unfortunately I think that science and religious belief are mutually exclusive and instantly have to question the logic of somebody who professes to be both a scientist and subscribes to a specific religion.

The fellow in the video of the OP has a PhD in physics from the University of Stuttgart. Undoubtedly he has a good grasp of physics as a subject and is likely very adept at mathematics.

However he is also a practising Roman Catholic and was a choir boy in his youth. To practice a religion, ANY religion, shows an inability to questions ones thought processes, indeed to actively practice (i.e. worship) in the name of a religion shows that you are likely to be fundamentally flawed in your reasoning for doing research ESPECIALLY if your area is something like physics (i.e. contemplate the who/what/why of life very often and come to the conclusion that it is all Gods doing). Very often what one wants to find from his research is what he finds, regardless of whether it is actually true.

It is up to the academic community to effectively police this and determine whether one persons conclusions are sensible.

Clearly this man has applied an experimental technique known to have limitations that preclude it from being of use in this case to a problem in a faulty way. His results cannot be trusted.

What's more worrying for me is that the conference didn't spot this before allowing him to talk! Though I suppose they have at least caught it afterwards and there's a chance it was effectively an open forum.
Click to expand...

Nip off to the middle east and tell the mussies that will you?
Might sort a whole bunch of world politic out if you can convince them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom