0
   

C14 in dinosaur remains

 
 
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2015 02:21 am
http://www.icr.org/article/8822/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2015 01:26 pm
@gungasnake,
seems that your CRI guys are the only ones finding all this C14. COuld it be that someone is fudging the data by smearing the samples ??

TRUTH In SCIENCE is not one of the CRI's most honored traditions
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2015 04:11 pm
@farmerman,
Folks trying to set up a chronostrtigraphic log for the HEll Creek Formation(where the plant megafossils lie) They measured against various geologic properties. Guess what? NO C14, (plenty C13 nd C12)

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1454805/24541453/1395056037547/ArensJahren2014.pdf?token=u6XG1SakUqzKmNJNJO0sv3J5g4M%3D
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 09:40 am
@farmerman,
whenever a sample that is being analyzed for some constituent is arguably devoid of that constituent, it is quite easy to introduce that constituent during handling and processing. Thats why we do :surrogate recoveries". field blanks", method blanks:, and lab blanks: for all samples. The machinery that does the analyzing (there are several used in the chain of analyses for isotopes) is also clibrated at the very low end of its sensitivity by introducing known concentrations of the )lets say radioisotope) and using this"Calibration response curve" as a means to fit the unknown sample into the capability of the MS machinery used.

Introducing just one or two atoms of C14 can give us all kinds of wacky results. Seeing that all these samples seem to hover around 30 to 40 thousand years gives me reason to believe that this is some fundamental systematic error that is introduced into the sample chain. I feel that its some basis of stupid error not some nefarious plot. The lab nor the Creationists seem to unerstand each other so they just report the data (BUT ONLY IN THEIR NON PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE). Im sure that were a REAL scientific journal considering this for publication they would ask the authors and labs to justify such goofy data (ESPECIALLY since the underlying and overlying ash bed laminae in the HELL CREEK FORMATION all show that this formation site is between 66 and 68 million years old. WEVE KNOWN THAT FOR YERS
NO CREATIONIST HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THAT DISCREPANCY, they just run with their data an assume that theyre even right.

That aint science gunga, but I knew you only believe **** that supports a worldview. .

farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:22 am
@farmerman,
I was just sent a note from a friend who clipped a GEOCHEM newsletter that UNIVERSITY of GEORGIA ISOTOPE LABS are NO LONGER goung to accept samples of Creationist dinosaur bones just because of the problem I mentioned above. They detail it that the issue of spurious beta decay beyond a reasonable" 7 half lives" period, needs to be adressedin the sample diary nd Chain of Custody. Beta decay from atmospheric Nitrogen nd K/Ar will invalidate the analyses at "DEAD C14" ages of samples.
The Creation consulting group that has been doing this work should really be ashamed of itself. This is as fraudulent a method as was the discovery of the human footprints in the Paluxey River
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » C14 in dinosaur remains
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2019 at 10:39:09