Dinosaurs and carbon dating

"Common sense would dictate that if we could see red blood cells , the fossils arent as old as they say"
WHY NOT?? We already see blood from mosquito guts trapped in Ypresian aged (EarlyEOCENE) AMBER, why not blood cells a mere 12 million years older??
Their entire argument os NOT based on any facts, its based totally on "Supposititiousness" and an assertion derived from ignorance. There is no science involved in any of these "YOUTUBE PROPOGANDA ACTS"

When you think about it.... If you start with the 20K - 40K radiocarbon dates they're now getting for dinosaur remains and assume 40,000 years to be something like the beginning of dinosaurs on Earth and also assume that the establishment scientists at least got the ratios right, you can plug the 40K number back into the standard little 24-hour clock analogy which has dinosaurs appearing around 10:40 PM, and you get an estimate of age for the Earth of around 720,000 years, which seems intuitively believable enough.

why are you so unskilled at treading about radioisotopic dating?? It is really some of the simplest straightforward math and physics. We use the same lambda values of radioactive elements for nuclear power, weapons, as well as time recording.

Your entire premise would have the rad constants all over the place and therefore totally unable to have the math "work out"

Your "belief" in radiocarbon dates of 40 K is all loaded with simple errors of math, chemistry and logic that a high school student could work out.
Too bad youre so damned gullible.

Yet it never seem to even occur to you that all these bogus dates are derived from "Creation science consultants" who have totally fucked up the lab procedures?

Im sure their repeatbility ois all over and they are unable to provide a +/- 200 yr accuracy.


The only reason Im responding is for the outside chance that youve left your mind open to facts and truth and would begin to question :

1. Howcome the rocks that contained these fossils dates to 66 million(above) and 68 my (below) and , for a few fossils where they were deposited as "casts in volcanic ash" the dates on K/K/Ar dates are also nicely at 66 my,

2. Howcome it is only two outfits, both avowed Creationist "consultants" that even do this work and report out these numbers, knowing full well that their METHOD BLANKS show that they are, somewhere ADDING fresh carbon 12/13/14 IN A RATIO THAT IS SUSPICIOUSLY MODERN. (Always look at trip blanks, method blanks, and host shipping blanks to see whether anything was DDED)

Carbon-14 radiometric dating isn't used for dating dinosaur fossils. Only works out to about 50,000 years.

CORRECT!! Give that man a cigar!!!

I dunno. When it comes to this stuff Farmerman knows his ****. I would take what he says to be truer then someone "believing" the truth.

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - Andre Gide

Gunga doesnt have the skills to continue reading past his Creationist blogs to determine where facts lie. When radiometric dating is done, they are usually cpompounded from several overlapping methodologies.
What the gunga is doing is a complete backflip on what his "Creation scientists" were doing just a few years ago (wherein they were trying to discount ALL radiometric dating because it was "Fraught with error")
Seems theyve changed their minds by doing a completely bogus lab test wherein they are , i n reality, measuring a whole sample age by counting C14 that theyve actually INTRODUCED into the samples.

Kinda ass backward . It appears that the U of Georgia had published a retraction that spared their radionuclide lab some major embaraasment. It appears that the samples delivered them were not honestly reported out as far as matrix, context, etc.
WE already knew the radio ages of the sediments above and below the layer wherein the dinosaur fossils lay. (IM TRYING TO GET THIS ONE POINT THROUGH GUNGAS HEAD, AND ALL I CAN DO IS REPEAT THE FACTS).
If the fossils lay in sedimentary layers (that contained date-able volcanic ash), and these layers are dated by overlapping means (K/Ar, K/Ar-Ar, U/Pb, sedimentary association, mapping of the Hell Creek Fm), HOW then, can the fossil dinosaur be 3 orders of magnitude younger than the rocks in which it lay.
Theres only 2 ways that can happen

1Fraudulent or incompetent radiochemistry, including improper cleanups, contamination, or (as I think happened) using a shellac coating on the bones and including some shellac residue to the lab

2"salting the strata" with doctored bones that were dusted with young carbon

Creation scientists arent really scientists. They are hucksters bent on duping the gullible.

It's been known for some time that soft tissue is turning up in dinosaur remains and we now even have an article in Nature corroborating this, albeit they go on trying to claim that the soft tissue is 65,000,000 years old.

The radiocarbon dates in the 20K - 40K range for that same sort of tissue are reasonable. 20K - 40K years is basically in the reasonable range for RC dating. Somebody trying to claim an rc date of 62,000 years would be out to lunch.

Formerman every once in a rare while has something intelligent to say on topics which he actually knows something about, which is why I don't have him on ignore. He does not show any signs of grasping this kind of topic.

FARTING GYM INSTRUCTOR PRANK
https://youtu.be/T-aRwq6pgBw

Whats to grasp? Youve assumed that anything showing "Soft tissue: is geologically young.

1 Have you any knowledge of other "Soft tissues or fossils" that are out there that arent young?

2You seem to be caught in a bit of a "doublethink" event. If the world is YOUNG(as you seem to assert), then radioisotopic dates are all wrong EXCEPT for these C14 dates which counter the radioisotopic scale of time and deep time. However, the rocks that encase the dinosaur fossils of which you rely, ARE OLD (66 to 68 my old) . Unless, of course, those dates are WRONG. SO, according to you, C14 dates acquired with NO QA data and duplicates and method blanks, are the only right pieces of data.

3. Are the laws of Physics and radiochemistry, somehow suspended for these dino fossils of which you lovingly speak


.