It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

University of Georgia and others say dinosaurs THOUSANDS of years old, not millions

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on May, 16 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
University of Georgia, Center for Applied Isotope Studies, dinosaur tissue samples was divided at the lab into two fractions with the “bulk” or collagen break down products yielding an age of 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite yielding an age of 41,010 ± 220 years [UGAMS-11752 & 11752a].


Data was presented in a Poster Session @ American Geophysical Union (AGU) Meeting in San Francisco Dec 17, 2014 and at the AOGS in Singapore August 5, 2015. This data suggest the following WAKE-UP CALLS.

(1) The 65 to 150 Ma between dinosaurs & man apparently do not exist as dinosaur bones give ages ranging from 22,000 to 41,000 years on AMS sensitive to 60,000 yrs.
...
Source: Paleo group


Source

Here is a video that explains some of the many finds that show that dinosaurs are 20,000-40,000 years old and not millions. People, make up your own minds.



Here the finder of the T-Rex with soft tissue admits that soft tissue found in dinosaurs contradicts the science of how tissue breaks down over millions of years - only conlusion I can make here is that it's not millions of years old but rather thousands of years old as radiocarbon dating also confirms.



Before you start calling me a Creationist (of which I'm not); Creationists believe that Earth was created 6,500 years ago and nothing existed before that time; so by logic I cannot possibly be a Creationist and say that a dino was 40,000 years old
...

-MM
edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

By logic if ALL creationists thought 6500 years, they don't.


+6 more 
posted on May, 16 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You cannot use C-14 dating to date dinosaurs! The half-life is too short. Any creationist using C-14 and dinosaurs in the same conversation has immediately discounted their entire argument.


Before you start flaming me for being a Creationist; Creationists believe that Earth was created 6,500 years ago and nothing existed before that time; so by logic I cannot possibly be a Creationist and say that a dino was 40,000 years old
...

-MM

That's called a Young Earth Creationist. There are also Old Earth Creationists.
edit on 16-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I dont buy it. The way layers of earth form contradicts this. Though I wouldnt discount some dinosaur species surviving much closer to human times than previously thought.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You cannot use C-14 dating to date dinosaurs! The half-life is too short. Any creationist using C-14 and dinosaurs in the same conversation has immediately discounted their entire argument.


Before you start flaming me for being a Creationist; Creationists believe that Earth was created 6,500 years ago and nothing existed before that time; so by logic I cannot possibly be a Creationist and say that a dino was 40,000 years old
...

-MM

That's called a Young Earth Creationist. There are also Old Earth Creationists.


Not true, maximum C-14 dating age is 60,000-80,000 years with todays dating equipment, all of these dinosaurs where C-14 dated to be much younger than that - the oldest sample dated by the University of Georgia and others, was 40,000 years old and would still have 1% of the original C-14 atoms left in its tissue.

-MM
edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Your source is dubious at best. Why isn't the results of this webpage posted to a scientific journal? Because they are taking liberties with science here. They even do the standard "This is stuff science doesn't want you to see!" routine

Our research has been largely ignored and mainstream science has even refused to test our results by trying their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. This is not the scientific way, ignoring new information because it does not fit your present ideas!! They have even refused to publish our findings in America. Our team published a paper in 2009 Scientific article on dating dinosaur bones in Germany and in the National Research Council of Italy in 2009.

The reason their "research" was ignored is because it isn't published in a scientific journal for peer review. No one scientist worth his salt will peer review a website. That is not the scientific way.

Plus the site does a lot of "you be the judge!" while pitching its already determined conclusion to you. That isn't scientific either. A REAL science presentation just presents the data free of bias and opinion. It will finish with a conclusion of its results but actively suggesting you should believe a certain way while presenting the data is VERY intellectually dishonest.
edit on 16-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Your source is dubious at best. Why isn't the results of this webpage posted to a scientific journal? Because they are taking liberties with science here. They even do the standard "This is stuff science doesn't want you to see!" routine

Our research has been largely ignored and mainstream science has even refused to test our results by trying their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. This is not the scientific way, ignoring new information because it does not fit your present ideas!! They have even refused to publish our findings in America. Our team published a paper in 2009 Scientific article on dating dinosaur bones in Germany and in the National Research Council of Italy in 2009.

The reason their "research" was ignored is because it isn't published in a scientific journal for peer review. No one scientist worth his salt will peer review a website. That is not the scientific way.

Plus the site does a lot of "you be the judge!" while pitching its already determined conclusion to you. That isn't scientific either. A REAL science presentation just presents the data free of bias and opinion. It will finish with a conclusion of its results but actively suggesting you should believe a certain way while presenting the data is VERY intellectually dishonest.


Here is one from the (edit: use this link instead which has more than just the abstract) peer-reviewed journal Acta Histochemica.

-MM
edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

edit on 16-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
You'll have to read it, as most papers it's behind a pay-wall.

-MM
edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Got a way past that pay wall? Because I'm not paying for it. Though I doubt that article says that the triceratops lived 20,000 years ago because it doesn't hint as such in the abstract.
edit on 16-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Got a way past that pay wall? Because I'm not paying for it.


I'm sorry, I don't make the rules -most peer-reviewed papers you'll have to pay to read - this is the sad state of science today...

-MM
edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Science isn't free. I don't have a problem with the pay wall, but if you haven't paid for it either then that means you've read just as much as I have. The abstract, and there is nothing in the abstract that hints at moving the time frame that triceratops lived many many thousands of years.


+9 more 
posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
The source here is a creationist web site. The University of Georgia is being misrepresented here. They said no such thing. This is not a scientific study. It is amateurs pretending to be scientific.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Though I doubt that article says that the triceratops lived 20,000 years ago because it doesn't hint as such in the abstract.


No, this paper is just about dinosaur soft tissues and not the dating. Here is another link that has more than the abstract.

-MM
edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I'm not disputing the soft tissue in the bones angle. I've already known about that for some time now. I'm disputing the idea that triceratops lived 20,000 years ago.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
The source here is a creationist web site. The University of Georgia is being misrepresented here. They said no such thing. This is not a scientific study. It is amateurs pretending to be scientific.


Please don't go shooting the messenger now, this isn't the Dark Ages


Anyways, it's not just University of Georgia, the Lab in the table contains other labs too:

- GX is Geochron Labs, Cambrdge, MA
- AA is the University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ
- UG is the University of Georgia, Athens, GA
- KIA is Christian Albrechts Universität, Kiel, Germany.

-MM

edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
perhaps the 'soft tissue' which has the various 'young' characteristics, but still not a viable stage of preservation... would be better put in the OOPAA category "out-of-place-ancient-artifacts"

the sample may have been preserved in a most rare and unique, natural, time-capsule...unseen & unknown to have existed to modern science....
the measurements of time decay do not 'tell' how old the sample is
~ the dating method only reports the amount of decay which has already taken place ---- (the scientist then calculates the average age)

So... the sample might have been locked into a totally perfect. preservation chamber for 100 million years BUT
some 22,000 or more years ago that 'perfect' preservation chamber the specimen was housed in
got cracked open and the decay process started the 'Aging Clock' of that soft-tissue dino meat now being investigated ...

hmmmm


edit on th31149496878216062017 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation




Before you start calling me a Creationist (of which I'm not);


What are you afraid of. This is science its objective your not going to instantly be kneeling before the Pope if these studies are true.

Science points it doesn't prove, although those who have heavily invested their world view of an old earth model may need to make some adjustments if these studies at true.

I'm sure the modern uniformitarialism paradigm will survive, I'm sure those modern sciencentist will find a way to fix it.
edit on 16-5-2017 by Observationalist because: Spacing between text



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You cannot use C-14 dating to date dinosaurs! The half-life is too short. Any creationist using C-14 and dinosaurs in the same conversation has immediately discounted their entire argument.


Therein lies the problem with you journal thumpers. If they are finding C-14 in dinosaur fossils, then it suggests that the fossils aren't as old as you think they are.

Your position is that BECAUSE they are finding C-14, they must be discredited.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

Sure, but it's not just one dinosaur that has soft tissue, there was one announced this month (that triggered me to make this post) and the T-Rex back found in 2010 they haven't been allowed to C-14 date yet. The table in my post has tests from these dinosaur finds (source) :

Acrocanthosaurus (AA-5786, UGAMS-7509a/b, GX-15155), a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1984 near Glen Rose Texas by C. Baugh and G. Detwiler; in 108 Ma Cretaceous sandstone; identified by Dr. W. Langston of the University of Texas at Austin.

Allosaurus (UGAMS-02947), a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1989 by J. Hall and A. Murray. It was found under an Apatosaurus skeleton in the Wildwood section of a ranch west of Grand Junction, Colorado in 150 Ma (Late Jurassic) sandstone of the Morrison Formation.

Hadrosaur #1 (KIA-5523), a duck billed dinosaur. Bone fragments were excavated in 1994 along the Colville River by G. Detwiler and J. Whitmore in the Liscomb bone bed of the Alaskan North Slope; identified by J. Whitmore.
Hadrosaur #2 (GX-32739, GX-32678, UGAMS-01935/01936/01937), a duck billed dinosaur. A femur bone was excavated in 2004 in clay in the NW ¼, NE ¼ of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana by O. Kline of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, Glendive, Montana. It was sawed open by O. Kline and H. Miller in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Hadrosaur #3 (UGAMS-9893), a duck billed dinosaur. Scrapings were taken from a large bone in Colorado in Cretaceous strata, excavated by J. Taylor of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, Crosbyton Texas.

Mosasaur – from: Lindgren J, Uvdal P, Engdahl A, Lee A H, Alwmark C, Bergquist K E, Nilsson E, Ekström P, Rasmussen M, Douglas D A, Polcyn M J, Jacobs L L (2011). Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19445 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0019445.
Psittacosaurus (UGAMS-8824), a small ceratopsian dinosaur whose name means “parrot lizard”. The tail bone is from the Gobi Desert, donated by Mt. Blanco Museum, Crosbyton Texas.

Stegosaurus (UGAMS-9891). Scrapings were taken from a rib still imbedded in the clay soil of a ranch in Colorado, partially excavated in 2007 and 2009, in 150 Ma (Late Jurassic) strata by C. Baugh and B. Dunkel; identified by C. Baugh in 2014.

Triceratops #1 (GX-32372, GX-32647, UGAMS-04973a), a ceratopsid dinosaur. A femur bone was excavated in 2004 in Cretaceous clay at 47º 6’ 18” by 104º 39’ 22” by O. Kline of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, Glendive, Montana. It was sawed open by O. Kline, H. Miller in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Triceratops #2 (UGAMS-03228a/b), a very large ceratopsid-type dinosaur excavated in 2007 in Cretaceous clay at 47' 02" 44N and 104' 32" 49W by O. Kline of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, Glendive, Montana. Outer bone fragments of a femur were tested for C-14.

Triceratops #3 (UGAMS-11752), a large (40 inch) brow horn was excavated in 2012 in Cretaceous clay at SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec. 14, T 15 N, R 56 E, Dawson County, Montana, elevation 2240 feet on a private ranch by a team led by O. Kline of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, Glendive, Montana. The outer bone fragments were tested for C-14 content. We asked for carbon and nitrogen content - Bulk C was 1.8 and N 0.05%.

-MM
edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join