Dino tissue Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years: Censored conference report

[revelarts]

Several things interesting about this story.
1. Scientist censoring info, say it aint so.
2. soft tissue surviving millions of years, well no thousands it seems .
3. 1000's of years old Dinosaurs? that CAN'T be right.... or can it?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
AOGS 2012



Quote:

Dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years - Censored international conference report Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones – the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old. Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning. And more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won't be restored. The researchers presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS). Carbon-14 is considered to be unassailable in its reliability among dating methods. It’s accuracy as a technique has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically. The possibility that the amount of C-14 in the air has fluctuated adds a small uncertainty. But the greater possibility for error is that the amount of C-14 in bone samples has been altered by contaminants such as decayed organic matter from soils. Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He says that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such entirely different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 signals which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable signal concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 signals unlikely", he notes. "If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them." Many dinosaur bones are not fossilized. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone. Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone. Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies. Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make. Also in 2009, the team of Dr. Phil Wilby discovered a fossilized squid that contained a sac of ink so well-preserved that it could be used in a pen for writing, found in rock that is considered to be 150 million years old. .... ...In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters. Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded. That is, if they are over 65 million years old as the conventional wisdom says....

Science OPEN inquiry and all that , for SOME scientist stiil thats good news

...Carbon-14 dating of bone is one of the most difficult tasks in carbon dating, and requires the most care of any carbonaceous material. This is mainly due to the nature of bone, which is a very porous material. Certain parts of bone look like a sponge under the microscope. Many dinosaur bones are hard as rock because the original material has been replaced with a silicon material such as quartz. These are “mineralized” or “fossilized”. We have found un-mineralized dinosaur bones. We then scrape the outer surface off to get rid of surface contamination, and date the inner remaining material. One can date just the purified bioapatite, the total organics, or the collagen. Or, all three components can be dated, as was done by us (see chart).
The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-Rex dinosaur femur bone was reported in the journal SCIENCE. This is an outstanding find because collagen, being a soft tissue present in most animals, is supposed to decay in a few thousand years. Collagen is the main protein found in connective tissue of animals. It can make up as much as 1 to 6 percent of muscle mass. Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered in Glendive Montana, and our group received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for Carbon-14 testing. Both bones were tested by a licensed lab for presence of collagen. Both bones did in fact contain some collagen.
...

Click here to see YouTube video of the conference dino presentation

Click here for conference document of schedule (17:00) and abstract BG02-A012
http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012%20Abstract.pdf

On the conference website, the abstract was removed from position number 5;
AOGS - AGU (WPGM) Joint Assembly

[Gaffer]

Interesting. So it's possible some large reptiles existed 40,000 years ago. What's the big deal. Just another piece of the evolutionary puzzle. Sounds like a bunch of scientists are just battling over their own ideologies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Interesting. So it's possible some large reptiles existed 40,000 years ago. What's the big deal. Just another piece of the evolutionary puzzle. Sounds like a bunch of scientists are just battling over their own ideologies.

Here is the big deal. Evolution gives huge amounts of time to allow for the changes that allowed extremely small organisms(microscopic) to evolve into the larger organisms then into the much more complex and larger animals.
Evolution gives time frames in millions of years but here we have 40,000 years ago that dino's still existed which clearly tosses a big kink in the whole evolution theory and it time frames.. Which by the way is bull anyways IMHO..-TYR

[Gaffer]

Just cause something survived until 40,000 years ago doesn't discount evolution. The dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. But there's nothing says some didn't make it through and remain as they had been during that whole time. They have found fish they though were extinct for millions of years. It's all pieces of a very large puzzle and we only have a few of the pieces. They are not even sure if the dating is correct or might have been contaminated in some way. So there's nothing definite about this yet. The thing about science and evolution is that nothings set in stone. Hypothesis and theories change based on new evidence.

[aboutime]

Just cause something survived until 40,000 years ago doesn't discount evolution. The dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. But there's nothing says some didn't make it through and remain as they had been during that whole time. They have found fish they though were extinct for millions of years. It's all pieces of a very large puzzle and we only have a few of the pieces. They are not even sure if the dating is correct or might have been contaminated in some way. So there's nothing definite about this yet. The thing about science and evolution is that nothings set in stone. Hypothesis and theories change based on new evidence.

Gaffer. Finally. A real life, Biography that proves LARRY KING has been around longer than everyone else!

We all know. LARRY KING didn't evolve. CNN didn't come till much later.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just cause something survived until 40,000 years ago doesn't discount evolution. The dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. But there's nothing says some didn't make it through and remain as they had been during that whole time. They have found fish they though were extinct for millions of years. It's all pieces of a very large puzzle and we only have a few of the pieces. They are not even sure if the dating is correct or might have been contaminated in some way. So there's nothing definite about this yet. The thing about science and evolution is that nothings set in stone. Hypothesis and theories change based on new evidence.

All thats true . So when people try to tell me its a done deal on Evolution I dont believe it. When a theory is constantly having to be changed then its not a done deal and not a reality as if its been proven yet.. However the Evolution supporters declare that it is. It is not.. -Tyr

[Gaffer]

All thats true . So when people try to tell me its a done deal on Evolution I dont believe it. When a theory is constantly having to be changed then its not a done deal and not a reality as if its been proven yet.. However the Evolution supporters declare that it is. It is not.. -Tyr

The real evolution supporters don't believe anything is a done deal until it's been completely proven with undeniable proof and then it becomes law in the scientific community. Like the Law of gravity. And even then they will look for any anomaly that may prove differently. Nothing is absolute.

[Noir]

Carbon dating can give wildly innacurate dates if not applied correctly.
I've read about tests were living mice have be Carbon Dated to be thousands of years old. etc.

[gabosaurus]

http://www.anycalculator.com/carbon14calculator.htm

[revelarts]

Gaffer
here's the issue
Scientist have been saying it's a SURE thing that Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.
and have been using that as a whipping post for ANYONE casting doubt on that "fact" of evolution.

Now you want to say it doesn't matter. But some scientist aren't at that point yet. They don't even want to acknowledge it yet. they know it's a pillar of their time lines. It throws stuff off, the so called meteor that "may have" (they don't know ) caused the now in doubt extinction 65 MILLION years ago for instance.

It doesn't completely crush evolution but it calls into question a lot of stuff.

Carbon dating can give wildly inaccurate dates if not applied correctly.
I've read about tests were living mice have be Carbon Dated to be thousands of years old. etc.

Now that fact has been used by creationist for years but often poo pooped by "real" scientist and evolution supporters.
But I agree, there's no doubt that the carbon dating methods are often inaccurate and inconclusive. In this case they are suppose to be using it to date within the range of yrs it's suppose to be accurate. 100,000 yrs and less. That's by the standards most evolutionary scientist use. So it's their own standard, carefully and rigorously applied on multiple samples. And as Good scientist they ask others to REPEAT the test to see what they find.

But just the fact that they've found cartilage AT ALL proves that many Dinosaurs fossils are NOT Millions of years old. Cartilage and other soft tissue would not survive that long. No need really for other test. That's Proof by scientific standards most people can grasp. Living tissue decays/rots/fossilizes over decades and centuries, rarely into millenniums and never into 10s of millions of years.

[Robert A Whit]

Interesting. So it's possible some large reptiles existed 40,000 years ago. What's the big deal. Just another piece of the evolutionary puzzle. Sounds like a bunch of scientists are just battling over their own ideologies.

I beleive that in the old days, dinosaurs were thought to be reptiles. But more recent discoveries show they were warm blooded and indeed related to birds.

No known bird is cold blooded.

Some dinosaurs were thought to be slow moving. This is because most reptiles are slow until fully warmed up in the sunlight.

Birds as you know don't need to warm up in the sun.

A Paleontologist from Bozeman MT came up with the idea that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

As to DNA taken from bones even 40,000 years ago and carbon dating?

I dunno. Not sure.

[Gaffer]

I beleive that in the old days, dinosaurs were thought to be reptiles. But more recent discoveries show they were warm blooded and indeed related to birds.

No known bird is cold blooded.

Some dinosaurs were thought to be slow moving. This is because most reptiles are slow until fully warmed up in the sunlight.

Birds as you know don't need to warm up in the sun.

A Paleontologist from Bozeman MT came up with the idea that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

As to DNA taken from bones even 40,000 years ago and carbon dating?

I dunno. Not sure.

Yep, there is a theory that our present day birds are decedents of the dinosaurs. Actually it makes sense. Since evolution is all about adapting to environment.

[Abbey Marie]

Why toss it out of the conference? Afraid of something?

[Noir]

Why toss it out of the conference? Afraid of something?

Because in science you don't publish every set of findings you have to conference or the media. The data has to be reviewed, subjected to rigger and testing.
Otherwise it ends with egg on its face, classic examples like 'Cold Fusion' and 'Faster than light nutrinos' show all to well what happens when scientists rush to publication and conference when bizarre results are recorded, even if they are recored again and again.

Either way there will be something big in this story, better make sure and get it right, no?

[PostmodernProphet]

You should take a look at a book called Forbidden Archaeology.......there are something like 200,000 incidents of evidence that contradict the scientific explanation of how things came to be that have been rejected.....seems that each one of them is merely a single example of an isolated event that can be dismissed out of hand......