Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 years old.

Started Jan 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
Don_Campbell Senior Member • Posts: 2,435
A few observations do not comprise scientific proof

Great Bustard wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Where would we find what the labs have to say? They just did a commercial testing job, took the money and applied the procedures asked for. The labs have nothing to do with the bogus conclusions drawn from the tests.

-- hide signature --


They are contactable by email. I will send them each an email and report what they respond. Perhaps this will help us from drawing to bogus conclusions.

I emailed all 4 labs who performed C14 dates for the researchers and received replies from University of Georgia, University of Arizona and Geochron labs.

University of Georgia stated their C14 dating instruments are good up to 59,000 YBP on geological graphite and up to 54,000 YBP on processed blank anthracite.

The University of Arizona and Geochron labs (same address as Kreuger Food Laboratories Inc.) both stated that they generally give out their results with the background C14 levels already subtracted. Greg from Uni Arizona stated that whenever the sample C14 and the background C14 levels overlap, they quote a date without a lower limit, for example >41,000 YBP.

So the consensus from these labs is that the C14 dates that have both an upper and lower limit are not based on the presence of background C14. The dates they calculate always subtract the background C14 level already, unless otherwise stated. All the dinosaur samples except for one had both and upper and lower limit, therefore were not dated based on background C14.

So the only contention with these Dinosaur fossils is whether the 'young' C14 dates are due to contaminant, or perhaps they truly are less than 40,000 years old. Kreuger of Geochron labs claims that the C14 dates were young because of contaminant, but this was after I'd given them the sample numbers which allowed them to know I was talking about samples from the controversial Dinosaur fossils. There is some uncertainty with this contamination claim though as they can only state "appears likely to be the case." Is it 'Likely' because they found the source or cause of the C14 contamination or is it 'Likely' only because the C14 date doesn't match with the conventional understanding of the dinosaurs?

Copies of the emails available here:

C14 Letter 1

C14 Letter 2

C14 Letter 3

Seems that you can't understand the letters they wrote you, either.


Letter 2 discussed the issue of increasing uncertainty as the data approaches the limit, letter 3 ives the limit as a range 30k-50k years. Simply, the more into the noise you get, the less extra noise (or contamination) you need to add to make the result meaningless.

How many times have you explained this to him in this very thread?

Still, one of the many questions that you have still not answered is how these dates agree, or otherwise with your chronology, and what other evidence that chronology is supported by (or even, what your chronology is).

Phil already knows the answer, Bob, and he knows it is true 'cause the Bible told him so.

Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It has been said for centuries by many others in similar words. Phil's cadre of "Paleao Group" "scientists" have not produced extraordinary evidence. I repeat, this work as so far shown to the world isn't the stuff by which scientific understanding is changed.

They've produced questionable evidence that needs to be squared with the HUGE volume of geologic evidence of the age of the bones that carbon material was allegedly obtained from. They've produced evidence that does not stand alone as "proof." Every, EVERY scientist knows (that's KNOWS!!!!) that what they've produced in a scientific paper must be replicated by other scientists and verified by alternative methods. These people have not even gotten this manuscript published by a peer-reviewed journal. It won't be easy to get published in a reputable journal with the educational and professional background that they apparently have (or more importantly, have NOT).

These folks have a set of alleged "observations" that fly in the face of over a hundred years of science. That requires that they support it better than simply by a number of C-14 numbers produced from material that is accompanied by little supporting information and investigation. They not only have not gotten to first base, it is not at all clear that they have hit the ball or that they have even stood at the plate to receive the pitch.

A few years ago a couple of researchers reported laboratory evidence of having produced a cold fusion reaction in a tabletop setup. It would have been exciting if true. It didn't pass the reproducible test. The scientists had backgrounds more related to the research than the Paleo Group's academic backgrounds relate to the field they're trying to contribute to. The cold fusion work has not held up. As far as I can tell this C-14 dating has not be published by any first or even second rate journal in the field of paleontology.

Anybody accepting this work as credible evidence of a startling change in our understanding of when dinosaurs walked the earth lacks most understanding of what comprises scientific evidence approaching proof. I find it amusing than the religious believers who insist on the young earth theory would insist on proof from science (even if it only alleges that dinosaurs lived as recently as 50, 000 years ago). When you start with religion you get to make up any story you want to and simply assert it to be true becasue you believe it to be true--no proof required for true believers. For some reason they always want to produce quasi scientific evidence to bolster their faith. Some weak faith that is.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow