Real Science Radio: Why Is Carbon 14 everywhere it shouldn't be?

Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator

Hey Brian Thomas, "Why Is Carbon 14 everywhere it shouldn't be?"

This is the show from Friday, July 15th, 2016

SUMMARY:



* Hey Brian: Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart interviews in studio fossil expert Brian Thomas. Even though radiocarbon only lasts thousands of years, and not millions, Carbon 14 is found everywhere it shouldn't be! About the extraordinary persistence of 14c in marble, coal, oil, natural gas, dinosaur bones, and diamonds, Bob asks this Institute for Creation Research fossil expert about possible contamination as compared to endogenous 14c. The discussion is fascinating!



* Please Support ICR: To help the biblical creation movement continue to grow, please consider purchasing some of their fabulous resources for yourself and to give as gifts to others! You can do this at store.icr.org!

* Another RSR Prediction: On today's program, Bob Enyart and Brian Thomas predict that chert, even though it is often dated at more than a billion years old, will contain short-lived Carbon 14!

* Learn About Carbon 13 in Fossil Bones: If you love science and learning about fossils, you'll just love what Brian Thomas explains to us about the various Carbon isotopes in fossils, and the ratio of Carbon 12 and Carbon 13, and what that tells us about the diet of a dinosaur (or other creatures) and whether or not these Carbon isotopes reveal contamination, or a lack of contamination, in fossils that also include endogenous biological material!



* RSR HIGHLY Recommends this Special CRSQ Edition: Long-time RSR listeners may recall Bob Enyart's paper published in the peer-reviewed journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Dobzhansy: 40 Years Later Nothing Makes Sense. Now, see the highly recommended iDINO Project Special Report that includes a fabulous radiocarbon paper by Vance Nelson and Brian Thomas! You can click to view the abstracts but RSR highly recommends purchasing this important and historic issue, which you can find also at tiny.cc/crsq-dino-soft-tissue-ed.

* Compound Interest: (post-show note) "If you're interested in economics, or you just want to understand your own finances, you just might love this book fascinating little book, Compound Interest, by Will Duffy." - Bob Enyart

* Post-show Statement: Bob Enyart and his guest Brian Thomas join the world grieving over the murder of scores of innocent people in Nice, France. Today's program, incidentally, was recorded before yesterday's horrific crime occurred.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I wonder why the Darwinists aren't in here demanding to see a qualified scientist present evidence for creationism. :chuckle:
 
way 2 go

way 2 go

Well-known member
Stripe said:
I wonder why the Darwinists aren't in here demanding to see a qualified scientist present evidence for creationism. :chuckle:
Click to expand...

"Even though radiocarbon only lasts thousands of years, and not millions, Carbon 14 is found everywhere it shouldn't be! About the extraordinary persistence of 14c in marble, coal, oil, natural gas, dinosaur bones, and diamonds"

so where are the darwinist :think:
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
way 2 go said:
"Even though radiocarbon only lasts thousands of years, and not millions, Carbon 14 is found everywhere it shouldn't be! About the extraordinary persistence of 14c in marble, coal, oil, natural gas, dinosaur bones, and diamonds"

so where are the darwinist :think:
Click to expand...

They are wondering when you are ever going to apply some critical assessment skills to the C14 claims.

For example, have you never wondered why the creationists only ever test the hard parts of the bone, when normal bone C14 dating discards that material in order to date the collagen? :think:
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We know why you don't want to talk about the substance of the radio show. For a start, you haven't listened to it.

gcthomas said:
This one has no mention of C14 dating of collagen from dinosaur bones, nor any testing of any dinosaur soft tissue.
Click to expand...

:darwinsm:


1997 - Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Preservation of Biomolecules in Cancellous Bone of Tyrannosaurus rex by Schweitzer, Horner [and three other authors from Los Alamos National Labs; and Montana State University].
Analysis of extracts from the bone tissues revealed the presence of molecules with light absorbance maxima consistent with nucleic acids and peptides/proteins. Analyses of bone extracts for amino acid content yielded ratios similar to those found for modern ostrich and horse bone... Bony tissue samples from the T. rex suggests the presence of collagen type I remnants... bony tissue samples from the T. rex suggests the presence of collagen type I remnants. Results indicate that the analyzed tissue contains numerous biomolecules. While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues.

 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Your snippet doesn't have any reference to radiocarbon dating — are you haveing trouble reading the long words again? :rotfl:

I did listen to the programme, at least the first 15 minutes until it became obvious it was just a love-in without proper analysis of the stories. I did try to find the creationist papers where the results were published, but there is little, and of those I found only one made an effort to detail the preparation of the bone samples.

The processing departs hugely from accepted standards. For example, acetic acid was used to remove surface contamination, instead of hydrochloric acid. Acetic acid contains modern carbon and would introduce C14. The real problem, though, was that only the hard parts of the bone were tested, when real scientists reject the hard parts because they are porous and very likely to be contaminated by deposits from percolating groundwater. To ignore this in unconscionable, as it pretty much guarantees that ancient samples will have measurable amounts of modern carbon.

Have you really never read the actual papers these people produce — are you as gullible as you appear to be?
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Stripe said:
No, you didn't. Get back to us when you have. :up:
Click to expand...

So rather than reply to specific questions following from what you have written, you resort to pathetic, unfounded accusations of lying.

Christians round here think that sort of behaviour is immoral, but maybe it's tolerated where you come from. I sincerely hope that you manage to develop some humility one day.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
gcthomas said:
So rather than reply to specific questions following from what you have written, you resort to pathetic, unfounded accusations of lying.
Click to expand...
Not lying. You said yourself you did not listen to it. :idunno:

And your "specific questions" were nothing to do with OP.


Sixth: The inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, Dr. Walter Libby, stated in the journal Science, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age." And as of 2013, there is still no known mechanism to contaminate collagen with modern carbon. Here's our RSR explanation of why this is. If a specimen is purified to 95% collagen, or 98%, or 99%, etc., then approximately the same percent of the carbon in the fossil sample will be endogenous (i.e., original to the living animal). Why? Because new carbon atoms will not replace original carbon atoms in the collagen molecule. As a result of decomposition, to the extent that original carbon atoms were falling out of the tissue (so to speak), then to that extent you would no longer have collagen; rather, to that extent you would have humic acid. Decomposing collagen cannot be "repaired" by free carbon atoms happening upon the decomposition. Rather, the collagen must be manufactured within a living animal (with its constituent carbon atoms) into a "super-super-coil... interdigitated with its neighboring microfibrils... so well ordered as to be crystalline." Further, bacteria do not make collagen, which eliminates another possible source of contamination. So if a researcher can verify that he has a sample that has been purified to 99% collagen, for example, then he can be sure that all the carbon in that 99% of the sample is original.


http://kgov.com/carbon-14-and-dinosaur-bones

I hope you learn some humility some day.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Stripe said:
If a specimen is purified to 95% collagen, or 98%, or 99%, etc.,
Click to expand...

There is no claim here that this was done. 'If' doesn't mean 'when'. If you think it has been done, do you have a link to the paper? The abstract? Even a passing discussion of the results?

As I said, the only 'research' i can find that details how the dating ws done presents an idiotic technique that is virtually guaranteed to incorporate contamination into the hard bone material.

I would love to see contradictory, first hand evidence. Where is it, Stripe? Why do you dilly dally so?
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
gcthomas said:
There is no claim here that this was done. 'If' doesn't mean 'when'. If you think it has been done, do you have a link to the paper? The abstract? Even a passing discussion of the results? As I said, the only 'research' i can find that details how the dating ws done presents an idiotic technique that is virtually guaranteed to incorporate contamination into the hard bone material. I would love to see contradictory, first hand evidence. Where is it, Stripe? Why do you dilly dally so?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what the passage is about.

And you've not listened to the show yet.

Get back to us when you have. :up:
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Stripe said:
You don't seem to understand what the passage is about.

And you've not listened to the show yet.

Get back to us when you have. :up:
Click to expand...

You have suggested that bone collagen has been accurately carbon dated — was that a lie then? Why did you claim it if it wasn't true? Without the collagen dates, there are no reliable carbon dates for dino bone, as you know.

Another fail, Stripey. Get back if you ever find any evidence to back up your crazy anti-science beliefs. Tada! :wave:
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
gcthomas said:
You have suggested that bone collagen has been accurately carbon dated — was that a lie then? Why did you claim it if it wasn't true? Without the collagen dates, there are no reliable carbon dates for dino bone, as you know.Another fail, Stripey. Get back if you ever find any evidence to back up your crazy anti-science beliefs. Tada! :wave:
Click to expand...
Nobody has the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Did you listen to the show yet?
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Stripe said:
I'm not sure why you've asserted that collagen has not been radiocarbon tested, but these guys did it:

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Click to expand...

Thanks, that wasn't so hard, was it? Why did you resist so much?

Lets look at the research paper. OK, it's not a research paper, but notes on a presentation. Right. It lists a lot of datings, with 3 out of the 20 ssmples tested by a collagen method. That's better. One question springs to mind immediately: collagen degrades quickly, and where collagen degradation is suspected it is essential to measure the amount of contamination by separating out proteins into individual amino acids and comparing the ratios separately (and in the dino bone collagen only protein fragments have ever been found, so this step is essential). The page sugests that the collagen results were only compared with bioapatite dates, and not separated by amino acid — that's a shame.

Do you have a link to a paper or abstract that gives some more details about how the collagen dates were determined? Without a method, it is difficult to assess, and I don't trust creation scientists enough to take it on faith as you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top