Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: cooperton

I'm sending copies of your emails to the head of the lab advising them that you're pulling the same stunt as your cult friends did at University of Georgia. I'll let you know what their response is.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I'm sending copies of your emails to the head of the lab advising them that you're pulling the same stunt as your cult friends did at University of Georgia. I'll let you know what their response is.

You sound paranoid about the truth.

a reply to: cooperton

From the same paper:

Carbonates and shells are analyzed along with the IAEA-C1 Cararra marble (process blank) and IAEA-C2 travertine (secondary standard). Freshly crushed IAEA-C1 routinely yields ages >50,000 14C yr BP (Figure 2C). Precrushed, stored powders have shown not to keep well, typically producing ages 55,000 14C yr BP (Figure 2C). IAEA-C2 generally falls within the consensus range at 2σ (Figure 3C), again with scatter likely attributed to some variability observed with the IAEA-C1 process blank.

You never even read this paper. You're such a liar.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

From the same paper:

Carbonates and shells are analyzed along with the IAEA-C1 Cararra marble (process blank) and IAEA-C2 travertine (secondary standard). Freshly crushed IAEA-C1 routinely yields ages >50,000 14C yr BP (Figure 2C). Precrushed, stored powders have shown not to keep well, typically producing ages 55,000 14C yr BP (Figure 2C). IAEA-C2 generally falls within the consensus range at 2σ (Figure 3C), again with scatter likely attributed to some variability observed with the IAEA-C1 process blank.

You never even read this paper. You're such a liar.

You're losing it. What does that paragraph have to do with the lab tech telling me shellac would not be an issiue?

a reply to: cooperton

Because they used only RAW SAMPLES. Not samples from museums which might have been exposed to shellac.
You never read the paper. Admit it.

a reply to: cooperton


"For this reason, only freshly crushed powders are used for the process blank."

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


"For this reason, only freshly crushed powders are used for the process blank."

Still not sure why this means they can't work around shellac contamination? The lab tech said her self it would be no problem, and sent that paper as proof of their methods. You didn't even quote the part that mentions shellac:

"Samples are inspected for signs of possible contaminants (dust, soil, discolouration, shellac, preservatives), sonicated in Milli-Q® water if necessary (15 min at room temperature), and cleaned with a stainless steel surgical kit, in combination with various drill and Dremel® bits. In the case of bone (media codes B, BU), a stainless steel percussion mortar is used to crush the sample to coarse (1–2 mm) powder. Carbonate samples (media code S) are manually abraded with a drill and stainless steel Dremel bit to remove porous or recrystallized areas, and pre-etched with 0.2N HCl to remove the outer 20–30%. For small samples (e.g. forams) or powders (e.g. SrCO3), no pre-etch is performed (media code SN)."

Your vendetta against me is making you lose your objectivity.

a reply to: cooperton

They were RAW SAMPLES. No museum pieces exposed to shellac. Get over it. You're a liar and a fraud.
We'll see what the head of the lab says.

And there are NO DINOSAUR BONES in the samples.

a reply to: cooperton

Why are there no dinosaur bones in the samples?

Because they are testing samples with C14 RADIOMETRIC DATING. Dinosaurs are older than 55,000 years. Therefore, C14 dating is not an accurate method to date dinosaurs - except, of course, for crackpot cults.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

They were RAW SAMPLES. No museum pieces exposed to shellac.

Both lab techs assured me that shellac contamination would not be a problem.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Why are there no dinosaur bones in the samples?

Because they are testing samples with C14 RADIOMETRIC DATING. Dinosaurs are older than 55,000 years. Therefore, C14 dating is not an accurate method to date dinosaurs - except, of course, for crackpot cults.

Well no, the C-14 data says they're all under 50,000 years old. And they know how to account for shellac if there was any. The main compelling point is that no dinosaur bone has ever dated beyond the C-14 age range. Again, meaning they are all under 50,000 years old. You avoid empirical data whenever it doesn't fit your narrative.

a reply to: cooperton

They are talking about bone samples you do realize a fosil is not bone dont you??

Your typical dinosaur fosil is made out of either hydroxyapatite and calcite, two of the commonest minerals present in ordinary dinosaur fossils. The bone tissue was replaced long ago meaning you will get about a 3 percent C14 ratio on the minerals but this is not dating the bone at all. If this person at the lab could not explain this to you than they are ill equiped to do testing.

Bottom line you cant use C14 to date dinosaur fossils. When an organism is completely fossilized, none of its original tissue, including bone, is preserved. It is all leached out during the mineralization process. Fossilization preserves the shape but not the substance of the animal.

What this means is that there is zero carbon 14 in the dinosaur fossil Meaning impossible to use it to date the dinosaur. If carbon 14 is there it is either froma contaminent such as shallac or micro organisms that were present in the soil. Any lab should be able to tell you this.

My bet is you told them you wanted to date bone tissue so you misled them if you contacted them at all.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Bottom line you cant use C14 to date dinosaur fossils. When an organism is completely fossilized, none of its original tissue, including bone, is preserved.

Perhaps if an organisms remains were actually millions of years old this would be true, but dinosaurs are not that old that's why their remains contain stretchy soft tissue.

Don't try to overcomplicate it. It's that simple. There's a new paradigm, and the crude theory of evolution will be on its way out soon.

a reply to: cooperton

That's because you never read the literature:

Abstract: An ash-rich volcaniclastic sandstone immediately underlying dinosaur-rich material from the Danek Bonebed in
the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (HCF), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, contains accessory zircon, which have been dated
employing U–Pb geochronology. Both laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and chemical abrasion isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) U–Pb analyses have been conducted. The zircon age distributions are complex with U–Pb dates ranging from Precambrian to Cretaceous. We consider the youngest ID-TIMS 206Pb/238U date of 71.923 ± 0.068 Ma as the maximum deposition age of the ash-rich sandstone, placing the overlying Danek bonebed in the early Maastrichtian. This age is compatible with the paleontological assemblage from the Danek Bonebed and the regional stratigraphy. The zircon age distribution also implies that the HCF had a complex provenance of the detritus with some Archean and Proterozoic zircons, a group of Mesozoic, and a large compliment of Cretaceous grains.

The results highlight the importance of high precision geochronology in constraining the age of important fossil deposits

Results
Locality and Age
The newly discovered specimen (UALVP [University of Alberta
Laboratory of Vertebrate Paleontology, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada] 53722) comes from the fluvial deposits of the Wapiti
Formation exposed on the Red Willow River 75 km west of
the city of Grande Prairie in west-central Alberta. Beds
exposed at the site are typical of an active channel belt with
recurrent crevasse splay, organic-rich overbank deposits,
and minor bentonitic paleosols [8, 9]. Ar/Ar dating of an altered
volcanic ash located approximately 2 m above the skeleton
provided an age of 72.58 6 0.09 million years, coeval with
the Drumheller Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation
of southern Alberta [10]. The Wapiti Formation represents a Late Cretaceous high-latitude ecosystem, with an estimated
paleolatitude of 65
N [11].

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom we have been over this before. Show me how they could possibly know for certain the original isotopic ratio... or save yourself time and admit they cannot ever know for sure. Remember, you can't solve for time in the half-life equation unless you know the original isotopic ratio

a reply to: cooperton

Then C14 is wrong as well - according to you, anyway.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Then C14 is wrong as well - according to you, anyway.

Nope, C-14 is one where we can somewhat accurately predict the initial isotopic because we can measure the atmospheric C-14 ratios of present day.

a reply to: cooperton

More crackpot science. If isotopic ratios work for C14, then it works for all isotopes. Thanks for displaying your ignorance of basic chemistry. Nailed again.

originally posted by: cooperton

Perhaps if an organisms remains were actually millions of years old this would be true, but dinosaurs are not that old that's why their remains contain stretchy soft tissue.

Don't try to overcomplicate it. It's that simple. There's a new paradigm, and the crude theory of evolution will be on its way out soon.

This is just insanity, the result of years on indoctrination by zealots.

An old school friend of mine was exactly the same. She spent her entire youth being preached to, over and over again. Any questions were doused with doubt and religious fervour so that her commitment was called into question. Eventually she stopped asking questions. Eventually, she campaigned and preached herself. Her only friends were in her cult circle. Over the course of 15 years I witnessed the death of a bright and inquisitive girl, and the birth of a knowingly deceitful and venomous convert to a sect that is, in fact, the diametric opposite of what Jesus taught.

I see exactly that in you, Cooperton.

a reply to: cooperton

I was looking to get some dinosaur bones carbon dated to determine the validity of these statements and I specifically asked the lab tech if contamination would be a problem, and she sent me a paper that showed methods that ensure all contaminants are removed and that I wouldn't need to worry about shellac.

Well, well. I spoke to the AMS lab today. The reason they don't worry about shellac is because THEY DON'T TAKE SAMPLES FROM AREAS THAT HAVE SHELLAC OR ANY ADHESIVE. They only take samples from areas where contaminants can be removed with H2O, buffers and HCL along with a few other mild solvents.

Since your "email" is dated 2016, they have agreed to search their records to determine exactly what transpired. I'm quite sure you'll be banned from that lab as your crackpot cult friends were banned from the University of Georgia lab.

a reply to: Phantom423

Well i looked up the lab at work since i was curious what lab would be stupid enough to try to date a dinosaur bone.

André E. Lalonde AMS Laboratory
University of Ottawa
25 Templeton Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada
613-562-5800 ext. 1183
[email protected]

So i guess you saved me the time of making a phone call anyway. They do seem to rely on the intriguity of the individual to provide them the sample. I looked at there submission forms and they dont process sub samples they rely on the person to do that. For example you would hire conservator on any artifact to be submitted to get around this he would have to lie.