Real Science Radio: More Soft Tissue Confirms RSR Dino Prediction

[6days]

How far back can carbon-14 dating accurately measure?

Actually... what it accurately measures is the decay rate of daughter element carbon 14 in dead organic material.
You asked how far back it can measure.....But that depends on some variables and assumptions.
How much C14 was in Adam and Eve?
We know that coal burning and atomic testing effects the ratio of C12 to C14. Also unknown conditions in the past such as solar rays and the strength of the earths magnetic field may effect the ratio. Another factor that would drastically effect the ratio is the global flood...Several things would change the ratios such as volcanic activity around the globe emitting C02 without the normal C14

 

[Jonahdog]

Hi Jonahdog. 14c is being found EVERYWHERE it is not supposed to be, including in specimens that discount any hypothesized contamination. For example 14c is found inside of the hardest naturally occurring stuff on earth, i.e., inside of diamonds. And from natural gas extracted from wells miles below the Earth's surface. And from a small mosasaur bone that still also contains original soft tissue allegedly 80-million years old. And then 14c is also found in coal, and oil, and allegedly billion-year-old chert, and from many countries and locales and various continents: all the dinosaur bones ever tested. See rsr.org/14c.

That's why I offered Jack Horner $25k to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex (hear that conversation at that same link, toward the bottom of the page). Your analogy was backwards, but I presume, unless you smoke rsr.org/pot, that you are fully aware of this and are trying to finesse the point of your analogy, hoping no one will notice, because you just don't want to acknowledge your error due to both a lack of humility and in solidarity with the evolutionists' zero concession policy.

To take even further the observation of 14c all over the place, we can conduct an experiment based on an observation from the discoverer of carbon dating. Libby discussed that radiocarbon atoms found embedded as part of a collagen lattice CANNOT be contamination, because those atoms get into that protein complex through a sophisticated biological assembly process. When that lattice decomposes, into humic acid, then sure, if handled improperly, a number of those 14c/one-out-a-trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere could contaminate the specimen. But such atoms are not going to fall into the specimen and replace atoms originally placed into the collagen complex. This is why we creationists have been moving toward doing this additional testing on dinosaur collagen, a scientific test that evolutionists (like Horner) would never do and would prefer that no one ever do (for of course it would yield significant 14c, as expected by Ph.D. young-earth creation geologists, nuclear physicists, biochemists, etc.; see also rsr.org/predictions). And if this laboratory experiment is done, evolutionists of course would try to discredit the testing or preferably, bury the results.

That is how tightly shut an evolutionist's eyes are.

- Bob Enyart
rsr.org

p.s. Pleased to make your acquaintance Jonahdog.

Well golly, Pastor Bob. I am duly honored to have you reply to me. But as usual, your theological fear prevents you from either understanding the real world or being honest. Take your pick.

To quote my father "You're full of canal water." Wow, I haven't used that term in a looong time.

 

[Jonahdog]

Nonsense and pseudoscience.
Why is C14 not a proper tool for dating soft tissue?
The answer is because results will contradict your belief system.
Soft Dino tissue dates 22,000 years...30,000 years. You somehow believe soft tissue survives millions of years, rejecting the evidence it is only thousands of years.

Given your theology, C-14 is totally useless. How can anything date to 22K-30K years if it all started 6000 years ago in a week? Or is your deity just playing with us?

 

[Jonahdog]

Well golly, Pastor Bob. I am duly honored to have you reply to me. But as usual, your theological fear prevents you from either understanding the real world or being honest. Take your pick.

To quote my father "You're full of canal water." Wow, I haven't used that term in a looong time.

Please provide a reference to the creation scientists doing the C-14 research the will turn everything on its head.

It is interesting that you cherry pick, what you complain about and then grandstand the 25K offer to Horner, when you knew he would not accept because the science indicates any such testing is meaningless. It is further interesting that you ignore all the other tests which, using different radiometrics, show that the earth is billions of years old. Did your god set the universe up to confuse his purported highest creature (made in his image remember)? He made us pretty smart, right, he would have known (being all-knowing)that sooner or later we would try to figure out, from the nature he made, how it all works. Why would he do that, expect us to investigate and then make the clues at variance with his specific Word? Perhaps the answer is unknowable, as is the answer to why kill all the innocent infants in the Flood (I know, I know, I keep bringing that up, but it seems a question without a logical answer other than--he did that because he could and to further put fear into his creation).

Have a nice day.

 

[Jonahdog]

A long time ago.

Well, yeah Nick, but when? We have the Biblical chronologies, ala Bishop Ussher, et al., I'm just looking for a date 100+/- years ago and 6 days, who knows the universe was created in a week about 6000 years ago seems unable to provide a time frame.

It is a relatively important date theologically and scientifically since it is a date from which we should then be able to measure cultural, geologic and biological change. It should be the date when your god wiped the earth clean and everything started over again.

 

[6days]

Given your theology, C-14 is totally useless. How can anything date to 22K-30K years if it all started 6000 years ago in a week? Or is your deity just playing with us?

How can it date 22,000 when you believe it is 70,000,000?

22K-45k carbon dating is consistent with God's Word and the global flood. As already explained..."How much C14 was in Adam and Eve? (initial amount 6,000 years ago unknown)
We know that coal burning and atomic testing effects the ratio of C12 to C14. Also unknown conditions in the past such as solar rays and the strength of the earths magnetic field may effect the ratio. Another factor that would drastically effect the ratio is the global flood...Several things would change the ratios such as volcanic activity around the globe emitting C02 without the normal C14.

The science is consistent with God's Word.

 

[User Name]

14c is being found EVERYWHERE it is not supposed to be, including in specimens that discount any hypothesized contamination. For example 14c is found inside of the hardest naturally occurring stuff on earth, i.e., inside of diamonds. And from natural gas extracted from wells miles below the Earth's surface. And from a small mosasaur bone that still also contains original soft tissue allegedly 80-million years old. And then 14c is also found in coal, and oil, and allegedly billion-year-old chert, and from many countries and locales and various continents: all the dinosaur bones ever tested.

In this video we examine the accuracy and application of Radiometric Dating. Is it really accurate? What about all of the anomolous readings? My investigation gets to the bottom of the subject:

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science #17

​

 

[6days]

In this episode we examine the accuracy and application of Radiometric Dating. Is it really accurate? What about all of the anomolous readings? My investigation gets to the bottom of the subject:

I bothered to watch 6+ minutes ...
Its a logical fallacy (called begging the question) to assume your conclusion. His logic in the video is that this fossil must be old...therefore we reject test methods that give younger dates.

In the beginning, God created.....

 

[Jonahdog]

I bothered to watch 6+ minutes ...
Its a logical fallacy (called begging the question) to assume your conclusion. His logic in the video is that this fossil must be old...therefore we reject test methods that give younger dates.

In the beginning, God created.....

Wow, that's about 5 and 1/2 minutes more than I can be bothered to listen/watch Pastor Bob anymore.

 

[Jonahdog]

How can it date 22,000 when you believe it is 70,000,000?

22K-45k carbon dating is consistent with God's Word and the global flood. As already explained..."How much C14 was in Adam and Eve? (initial amount 6,000 years ago unknown)
We know that coal burning and atomic testing effects the ratio of C12 to C14. Also unknown conditions in the past such as solar rays and the strength of the earths magnetic field may effect the ratio. Another factor that would drastically effect the ratio is the global flood...Several things would change the ratios such as volcanic activity around the globe emitting C02 without the normal C14.

The science is consistent with God's Word.

No the science is not. Not if you need a 6000 year old universe. Nice try though, it might work to indoctrinate kids in Sunday school but when you send them out into the real world---oh no, they start to think for themselves.

 

[6days]

No the science is not.

You ignore the science Jonah.
You keep avoiding the question...
Why do you ignore the evidence that dinosaurs may have lived recently..... Traces of DNA exist... traces of soft tissue exist in things you believe are 70,000,000 years old.
C14 dates consistently show the material to be only thousands of years.

"Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said 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 different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

Many dinosaur bones are not petrified. 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. 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 really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.

Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs."
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

C14 test results help confirm the truth of God's Word.

 

[User Name]

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

C14 test results help confirm the truth of God's Word.

Do you realize you're quoting from a source that purports to debunk Walt Brown's hydroplate speculation?

"Hydroplate - Offers only generalizations. Impossible initial conditions." -- http://newgeology.us/

 

[6days]

Do you realize you're quoting from a source that purports to debunk Walt Brown's hydroplate speculation?

"Hydroplate - Offers only generalizations. Impossible initial conditions." -- http://newgeology.us/

And???
Whats your point... or whats the connection to them saying C14 exists in Dino fossils?

 

[rainee]

How can C14 dating accurately measure back 50,000 years if the earth/universe is only 6,000 years old?

Wow, did anybody seriously answer this?
I love this question!

User Name,
May I please tell you how great it is that they have already, years ago, discovered errors in their Carbon Dating and correspondingly long ago corrected those errors?
Isn't that wonderful?
That is why you can trust our radioactive dating all the way around because how could there possibly be any errors that we don't know about yet? I mean, seriously, how long have we been dating in this way? Two thousand years?
So how could we not already know it all and fix it all??

So keep thinking science is your firm foundation you can trust your logic with! I salute you....r faith.

 

[Stripe]

Wow, did anybody seriously answer this?

Of course we have answered it numerous times. However, we will not answer it here, because the evolutionists are up to their usual tricks; saying anything to avoid the challenge to their precious religion.

 

[User Name]

editing...

 

[User Name]

I offered Jack Horner $25k to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex

As I understand it, the trace amounts of collagen and other tissue residues observed in dinosaur fossils is microscopic in size, meaning there isn't enough of it available for carbon dating.

 

[Jefferson]

As I understand it, the trace amounts of collagen and other tissue residues observed in dinosaur fossils is microscopic in size, meaning there isn't enough of it available for carbon dating.

Then why didn't Horner give that as his reason for refusing?

 

[User Name]

Then why didn't Horner give that as his reason for refusing?

That would be a good question to ask him.

 

[Stripe]

As I understand it, the trace amounts of collagen and other tissue residues observed in dinosaur fossils is microscopic in size, meaning there isn't enough of it available for carbon dating.

Nope.