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

I do find it fairly hard to believe so many fossils tested in multiple different places would all have a date in such a specific range. Also there's no way soft tissue could last millions of years, which is why experts are so skeptical that soft tissue could even be found in the first place. I'm not religious so I have no reason to want this to be true, but I cannot discount the possibility it may be true because the evidence seems to be pointing that way and there's a lot we don't understand about evolution.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
...
Source: Paleo group

That site mentioned this rebuttal to previous similar claims:

A typical reaction to our dating of dinosaur bones is exemplified by the following article submitted to the Columbus Dispatch in November of 1991.
...
"If carbon was found in the fossils, Krishtalka said, it most likely came from dust, dirt and the shellac preservative with which the specimens were likely preserved when they were acquired by the museum in the 19th century."

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,

It quite possibly is related, in my opinion it probably is.

meaning the 65 million year idea is a joke.

That's a non-sequitur. Why can't the dragon mythology be related to finding dinosaur bones instead of the living creature? I was watching some paleontologists in China and they went to an old farmer, who said he would show the scientists where he found the "dragon bones". They were actually dinosaur bones, though this uneducated farmer apparently didn't know about dinosaurs but he new the dragon myth so he called them dragon bones. There you have it, the origin of the dragon mythos, finding bones of a creature that resembles a dragon. It doesn't have to be the actual creature.

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

No doubt scientists were surprised by soft tissue findings in supposedly ancient fossils, and they didn't understand how this was possible at first, but now they think they've figured out that iron is responsible:

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Schweitzer told LiveScience.

So the soft tissue was an interesting discovery, but scientists do research instead of jumping to conclusions and this was the finding of their research.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I find those explanations very weak... "oh it was just dust bro". How does that explain different tests from different labs of different fossils showing the same approximate time frame? And "it was preserved with iron" strikes me equally dumb, that's a perfect example of how scientists are able to make any result fit their preconceived notions if that's what they want to do. Just think up some convoluted theory which appears to make sense on the surface and is virtually impossible to disprove, and you're good to go.

I am sceptical on this. Just a few tests, even if accurately carried out, need to be further verified. That said, I would hope that the non-creationist scientific community would get their act together and start testing samples for radio carbons. Until they do, they are actually not credible themselves.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation


Hats off to you for keeping up with the many & varied...dinosaur soft tissue finds...


But, with millions of bones found, your cited handful of anomalies does not point out that All those dinosaur fossils are of recent origin....
possibly becoming extinct at the onset of the start of the last/recent Ice Age some100,000 years ago ~ with pockets of isolated groups of dinos hidden in ice free valleys, for example


my only point was to present unlikely yet not-impossible explanations for preserved dino meat or cartilage...

the scientific community is not ready to be corrected to say that dinosaurs all lived 60,000 years ago along side men

there may have been many cases of 'Last of It's kind' examples of dinosaurs the locals called dragons or bohemoths/Leviathan or other local identities... their actual presence being completely unnatural with known physics and such



I enjoyed reading up your list of events ... tyvm

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
You're pretty hopeless if you dismiss an idea and claim "virtually impossible to disprove" when they cited experimental results supporting the preservation effect in the article:

www.livescience.com...

They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

If they can show the decomposition rate is significantly slowed, it's not necessary to run an experiment for 65 million years to make projections abut the future, though of course the field is open to further research and if you want to publish the specifics of why their idea is "dumb" even though they have evidence to support it, you're free to publish your rebuttal.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The point I was making is that to truly know we'd need to wait millions of years, you can't just do some experiments with ostrich blood vessels for a year or two and then extrapolate that to millions of years. Soft tissue just doesn't last millions of years, but I'll concede there are probably some very special circumstances which lead to ideal preservation conditions. However that wouldn't explain why so many fossils seem to have evidence of soft tissue and why they date so young. The livescience article you just linked to mentions this:

The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

So we're talking about creatures which were supposed to be alive over 100 million years ago, and about half of their fossils have traces of soft tissue, yet even a million years should be enough for all soft tissue to degrade according to conventional wisdom, which the article also notes:

The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You say it's a non-sequitur, but, behold... Dragons are terrible lizards.

Dinosaurs, as it turns out, are terrible lizards.

How'd they know from a pack of bones?

originally posted by: UKTruth
That said, I would hope that the non-creationist scientific community would get their act together and start testing samples for radio carbons. Until they do, they are actually not credible themselves.

1) You can't use carbon dating on rocks or samples > approx. 60,000 years old
2) Your ignorance of the scientific research to date and their day to day work in their field is not a reflection of their supposed lack of credibility.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: UKTruth
That said, I would hope that the non-creationist scientific community would get their act together and start testing samples for radio carbons. Until they do, they are actually not credible themselves.

1) You can't use carbon dating on rocks or samples > approx. 60,000 years old
2) Your ignorance of the scientific research to date and their day to day work in their field is not a reflection of their supposed lack of credibility.

It's not about credibility. It's about looking in the right place. Many credible scientists are only ever looking for evidence according to their education instead of realizing the piece of paper(s) they earned are simply certifications of having gone through the gauntlet of ignorance. How many scientists have you heard that say, "not knowing is part of the fun"?

But some of us want Truth, not a complex fantasy. Some of us have the mental capacity to find a truth that is hard, if not impossible, to prove. It becomes more difficult when there is a lack of material evidence and/or there is a load of bureaucracy.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: UKTruth
That said, I would hope that the non-creationist scientific community would get their act together and start testing samples for radio carbons. Until they do, they are actually not credible themselves.

1) You can't use carbon dating on rocks or samples > approx. 60,000 years old
2) Your ignorance of the scientific research to date and their day to day work in their field is not a reflection of their supposed lack of credibility.

It's not about credibility. It's about looking in the right place. Many credible scientists are only ever looking for evidence according to their education instead of realizing the piece of paper(s) they earned are simply certifications of having gone through the gauntlet of ignorance.

This is merely your ignorant understanding of how scientific research is conducted, and how one graduates through higher education to become a practicing scientist.

How many scientists have you heard that say, "not knowing is part of the fun"?

How many scientists have you actually met and talked to in real life? I can confidently say the answer is zero.

But some of us want Truth, not a complex fantasy.

And by "Truth", you mean "anything that agrees with my world view and belief system". Unfortunately, the progress of scientific understanding cares little for your sacred cows.

Some of us have the mental capacity to find a truth that is hard, if not impossible, to prove. It becomes more difficult when there is a lack of material evidence and/or there is a load of bureaucracy.

I'll take "has no understanding of the scientific method or how it is utilized to observe and understand the world around us" for $500, Alex.

a reply to: GetHyped

I'm born and raised by scientists. Sociopaths, but scientists nevertheless.

ETA - you really don't know just how ignorant scientists are; even the good ones.

When you get a top computer scientist for the state of New York to come and ask your advice even though you wipe ass for a living, get back to me.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

No doubt scientists were surprised by soft tissue findings in supposedly ancient fossils, and they didn't understand how this was possible at first, but now they think they've figured out that iron is responsible:

Could they possibly be surprised because they have clung firmly to the loosely based assumtion of uniformitarianism, which narrowed their ability to be objective in regards to discovery outside that theory?

So the soft tissue was an interesting discovery, but scientists do research instead of jumping to conclusions and this was the finding of their research

Would you say they are researching to help advance the discovery or are they trying to fix it so it fits into their paradigm?

I'm willing to be objective and realize that results can be wrong but also so could old assumptions.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Seems they have evidence that someone 65 million years ago took the soft tissue and soaked it in blood?

Oh no they have proof that something that was artificially preserved and lasted 2 years. So saying that if things stay the same, it would stay recognizable for 65 million years is a stretch. Almost like a single bullet theory.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The very fact that there's C-14 atoms in the soft tissue means its less than 60,000-80,000 years old. -MM

Why is that fact? Because the current paradigm says so? All that means is that they have not disproved it yet nor found an exception.


On a different theory: maybe there was a time rift around 40,000 years ago where animals millions of years earlier came through. If this is the case, let us hope that we are not still here the next time the rift opens . . . we will then be living in an old BBC sci-fi show.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The very fact that there's C-14 atoms in the soft tissue means its less than 60,000-80,000 years old. -MM

Why is that fact? Because the current paradigm says so? All that means is that they have not disproved it yet nor found an exception.


On a different theory: maybe there was a time rift around 40,000 years ago where animals millions of years earlier came through. If this is the case, let us hope that we are not still here the next time the rift opens . . . we will then be living in an old BBC sci-fi show.

I just punched myself in the face.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: GetHyped

I'm born and raised by scientists.

Yet you display a stunning ignorance of the scientific method and how the scientific community conducts itself.

ETA - you really don't know just how ignorant scientists are; even the good ones.

Ok, this is just absurd.

When you get a top computer scientist for the state of New York to come and ask your advice even though you wipe ass for a living, get back to me.

1) I don't live in the USA
2) I have a PhD in computer science

Why you feel any of that is relevant to this conversation (and that's me being charitable), I don't know.

So yeah, I understand the publication process (being an active researcher in my field) which makes your claims all the more laughable. You have a high school view postgrad education where apparently people learn by being spoon-fed information from textbooks and teachers and it's all some sort of unquestionable doctrine (which makes your claims of graduating from as a "a top computer scientist" even more unbelievable. Oh wait, you mean "top computer scientists" come to you for advice? Ok, keep LARPing). Yeah, that's.... not how it works. At all.

originally posted by: Bone75

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.

you dont understand how radiometric dating works do you... they arent finding c-14 they are finding the byproducts of the decay.

a reply to: GetHyped

You don't like that your bureaucratic process is being called out. You don't even recognize it then. Try putting forth an idea Acer or Global Foundries rejects because there is a scheme to only release technology incrementally for profit and Global Foundries is only interested in production instead of the future.

You're getting under my skin, friend.

originally posted by: Observationalist
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

your site you quoted above is a creationists site....I guess if you believe in a mythical being, you can believe there was dinosaurs alive 40,000 years ago