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: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:22 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.


Creationist web site or not, the fact is that C-14 tests show a very young age of dinosaurs.

I don't want to get into the whole discrediting game because someone has a certain belief system or religion; let us rather just look at the science from the C-14 tests and not start name-calling each other this or that


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

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 @ 04:25 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.


So after sixty thousand years, all carbon 14 should be gone. The thing is it is not gone, it is at about the content it should be for thirty thousand years ago. Now did you watch the first video? I used to belong to a dinosaur site, I have read about this inconsistancy many times, the carbon dating should show no trace but it shows it is between twenty and forty thousand years old. Now according to the OP which is consistant with other stuff I read. they discount the carbon dating and just use depth and some other ways to rate age, There are other major discrepancies that cause messed up dating in three places in this country. In those places, stuff that was supposed to be extinct for millions of years shows in many ways that the bones and vegetation is less than thirty thousand years old, it is out of place artifacts like there were some places where time jumped forward. In those places even the depth of the skeletons shows thirty thousand or so years old.

Something weird has happened on this planet in the past, there are big buildings buried in hills here in the USA, covered by sandstone. What happened? I don't know, I just state what some archeologists have discovered. Also there are some structures in Europe with perfect carvings of dinosaurs on them and paintings and drawings that depict dinosaurs. How would those ancient people know what a dinosaur looked like if they had not seen them.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find it very hard to believe that there is "soft tissue" if the sample bones were millions of years old.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find it very hard to believe that there is "soft tissue" if the sample bones were millions of years old.


Yes, the second video in my first post the scientist that was responsible for the T-Rex exclaims total disbelief of this fact:

-"It's very amazing, actually. It flies in the face of everything we know about how tissues and cells degrade"

, she says. To me, the answer is pretty obvious - its thousands of years old and not millions.

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



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Anyone with any sense would figure out as a child that the myth of dragons is directly related to dinosaur finds, meaning the 65 million year idea is a joke. I figured this out by myself when I was 5. It always boggles my mind how people do not recognize such a simple concept.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Anyone with any sense would figure out as a child that the myth of dragons is directly related to dinosaur finds, meaning the 65 million year idea is a joke. I figured this out by myself when I was 5. It always boggles my mind how people do not recognize such a simple concept.


I would not call education brain washing, but when you get rewarded for saying that non-avian dinosaurs is at least 65 millions of years old, and this is repeated for years by peers and authorities, your brain will pretty much be programmed to that "fact" and un-learning it is hard.

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



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
is it possible that the tissue found didn't come from the dinosaur remains? Is it possible the test was done incorrectly or that there was contamination?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
is it possible that the tissue found didn't come from the dinosaur remains? Is it possible the test was done incorrectly or that there was contamination?


Hi, Tearman.

The first video goes into that. They took great care in the samples not being contaminated, they also found proteins and such that matched the expected biology.

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



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Tearman

Of course it is possible. But this was a controlled lab environment. I think the ideas that we have been fed maybe lies. But don't tell anyone.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
is it possible that the ramains found weren't dinosaurs?

Have there ever been C14 tests done on dino remains that don't conform to the claims made here?

What does a well researched rebuttal to these claims look like?
edit on 16-5-2017 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
is it possible that the ramains found weren't dinosaurs?

Have there ever been C14 tests done on dino remains that don't conform to the claims made here?

What does a well researched rebuttal to these claims look like?


All the tissue samples were from dinosaurs. After 60,000-80,000 years the number of C-14 atoms in the tissue is so low that it's hard to date older samples than that in the lab, so they use geology dating instead which contradictary claim dinosaurs being millions of years old.

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



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Come on don't be disingenuous. This article is obviously a refutation of an attempt to dismiss their findings by stating that the soft tissues found were actually NOT soft tissues from the dinosaurs but were instead microbial biofilm.

The refutation seemed rather convincing which leaves us with the conundrum that it likely IS triceratops soft tissue, which then would support that their carbon 14 tests are as reliable as carbon 14 tests can be.

It's not surprising to me at all that mainstream scientists would be reluctant to attempt to duplicate the tests, out of fear of paradigmic retribution.

Only a fool can look at the history of science and believe that the modern establishment is not going to fight tooth and nail against paradigm shifting findings like this.

I wasn't surprised to find that there was a scientist who attempted to dismiss it as microbial biofilm so that any results could be ignored.

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Agreed, well put.



I wasn't surprised to find that there was a scientist who attempted to dismiss it as microbial biofilm so that any results could be ignored.


There were proteins and other biology found that bacterias don't produce, thus it was proved that the tissue samples were not biofilm contamination/bacteria.

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



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Sorry for my first reply It was a bit reactionary. I'm glad you posted this and are objectively looking at the findings. That's refreshing to see.

I did watch the video, It's amazing how consistent their findings were all around the 30,000 - 40,000 years mark. Is there any way this could just be unique for this area where they found the bones (Hell Creek and Morrison Formation)?

Edit: Answed my own question, I went to their site

Most paleontologists, and others refuse to carbon date dinosaur bones. They dont want you to see it. But our Paleo team has Carbon 14 dated dinosaur bones from Texas, Colorado, Montana, China, North Dakota, and Alaska by professional labs using accelerator mass spectrometry. Every sample dates to between 23,000 and 39,000 years before the present


edit on 16-5-2017 by Observationalist because: Answer my own question



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
has there ever been c14 tests on dinosaur bones that don't fall in the range of 20 to 60 thousand years ago? What would a c14 test look like for something that actually is millions of years old? I'm imagining the margin for error increases as you date further into the past, and at some point results will basically just be noise.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
has there ever been c14 tests on dinosaur bones that don't fall in the range of 20 to 60 thousand years ago? What would a c14 test look like for something that actually is millions of years old? I'm imagining the margin for error increases as you date further into the past, and at some point results will basically just be noise.


Labs can't C-14 test anything older than 60,000-80,000 years old. That's why the scientific paper is so damning, by saying there is soft tissue authors are implicitly saying that dinosaurs are thousands and not millions of years old. If there is no soft tissue the other dating techniques are used, like looking at the strata(geology) a.s.f., which usually says that the finds are millions of years old.

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



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
well, supose you tried to date something millions of years old, what kind of results would you get?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
well, supose you tried to date something millions of years old, what kind of results would you get?


With C-14? No result as there would be no C-14 atoms left in the sample.

-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 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation what proteins? what are the associated chromosones and dna sequences for those proteins?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
But... but...

*sputter*

It's weird when settled paradigms ...er, change... or even (maybe) start to.

Time to (possibly) re-arrange my own "truth" again... and likely not the last time.

Wow.

But then, that soft tissue was even (veeeery likely) found in dino-bone sure does point to a more recent date...

and that leads to uncomfy thoughts of ... gasp ,catastrophism!

*and many, many other strange thoughts about what we do and don't know about...
edit on 5/16/2017 by Baddogma because: *added caveats - I'm still stuck to 65 mil for the demise of my dino friends and reluctant to be classed with young earth creationists... but if the evidence keeps pointing to younger dinos, then... back to *sputter*




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join