Scientist fired from university after discovering dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 Years Old

a reply to: peter vlar
Kudos, Dude, for turning it into a teachable moment. I think it's fair to say that all of us start at the fringes but it's a desire for proofs that helps some of us to focus our interests...while retaining our imaginations. That's where science and innovation come from!

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: peter vlar
Kudos, Dude, for turning it into a teachable moment.

Yeah, I must be getting a little soft in my old age or something. In all seriousness though, its a new poster and there wasnt much point in engaging with my usual belligerence because its not very welcoming and it wouldn't have promoted a good discussion so point them in the right direction and hope for the best.

I think it's fair to say that all of us start at the fringes but it's a desire for proofs that helps some of us to focus our interests...while retaining our imaginations. That's where science and innovation come from!

Exactly so. As a kid, I was completely obsessed with anything out of the ordinary, ghosts, UFO's. As I got older it shifted to, though I didn't realize it at the time, more conspiracy related topics like 'did Hitler make it out of Germany alive' and in high school it it became actual science, though still really speculative stuff like the ever popular Nazca lines, what was the origin of the Indo-European language groups, and was Lucy really a human ancestor. While it was curiosity that drove me towArds all of these topics, I always had a back seat driver whispering in my ear to follow the evidence and not get sucked in. And I was really lucky to have that backseat driver as my foundation for whatever topic I was looking into and he happened to be my father who was a science teacher and I'm always thankful that he encouraged me to look into anything and everything I could or wanted to but always be skeptical until the data can confirm it. Obviously not everybody gets to have a backseat driver like that to guide them so I try to remind myself of that every once in a while and put my natural belligerent gorilla on the back burner.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: reletomp

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Since fossils are mineralized, is it not possible that the carbon dating is actually measuring the age of carbon that became part of the fossil MANY MANY years after the animal died ?

Carbon dating cannot be, and never is, used on fossils.

Carbon dating is only useful for organic materials dating no further back than around 60,000 years before present.

Harte

exactly wise guy, like on fossils of bones dating less than 5 thousands years old, like the dinosours'

Carbon dating was not used on this fossil, not-wise guy.

Harte

because when carbon dating it shows that the fossil cannot be beyond few hundred tousand years. not good for the evolution that does not exist

a reply to: reletomp

Hello,

If you're going to keep making this claim, I am going to keep asking for a source, preferably something scientific with methods and data and proper testing for contamination.

As has been said multiple times, C-14 is not useful past 60,000 years, at best. There is no way that any analysis using C-14 would indicate an age of a "few hundred t(h)ousand years" as you suggest, because that goes beyond the limits of the material.

If C-14 levels are sufficiently small as to indicate an age older than the limits of the test, one can safely assume that the material is older than the limit but cannot get an accurate measurement of how much older (we cannot use C-14 to date something to 100k years), with a possibility of secondary contamination becoming more and more likely.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: hydeman11
a
As has been said multiple times, C-14 is not useful past 60,000 years, at best.

And to get to 60,000 years you have to use special techniques such as large samples or extended analysis time.

There is no way that any analysis using C-14 would indicate an age of a "few hundred t(h)ousand years" as you suggest, because that goes beyond the limits of the material.

Pigeon chess....

a reply to: reletomp

You really need to buff up on the science. Carbon dating is not used for the majority of fossils anymore. Read the following which was posted several pages prior:

Read and learn:

"Abstract:
Many materials found in archaeological sites are able to trap electronic charges as a result of bombardment by radioactive radiation from the surrounding sediment. The presence of these trapped charges can be detected by electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy: the intensity of the ESR signal is a measure of the accumulated dose and thus of the age. Tooth enamel is ubiquitous at archaeological sites and is well suited for ESR dating, with a precision of about 10-20%. This method has now been used to date many sites critical to the biological and cultural evolution of modern man. Dates for sites in Israel and Africa have demonstrated the existence of anatomically modern humans more than 100 ka ago. "

www.jstor.org...

Electron spin resonance dating of animal and human bones.

Ikeya M, Miki T.

Abstract

Ages of fossil bones were determined by electron spin resonance spectroscopy. The electron spin resonance signal is associated with lattice defects or trapped centers produced by natural radiation in the bones and gives a measure of the total dose of natural radiation, or the archeological dose. Archeological doses were determined for samples of known age from a variety of sites and used to estimate apparent average annual rates of natural radiation at the sites. The method has the advantage that the sample need not be ground or heated, and it should be useful for dating biological materials.

www.jstor.org...


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

books.google.com... tmR0c#v=onepage&q=electron%20spin%20resonance%20and%20dating&f=false

a reply to: reletomp

Wow, this one is still going! Dunno why, first reply had it covered I thought!

Anyway, welcome to ATS Mr Armitage (or his groupy), your debate skills are lacking but your stubbornness is second to none!