[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Knotical]

http://creationrevolution.com/key-flaw-found-radioisotope-isochron-dating/

Looks like another wrinkle in the assumption that things are being dated correctly. Very interesting read.

 

[Jim Parker]

http://creationrevolution.com/key-flaw-found-radioisotope-isochron-dating/

Looks like another wrinkle in the assumption that things are being dated correctly. Very interesting read.

Over my head.
What I could not find was a conclusion that this method produced an error of some definite amount.
What I gathered is that there are some issues that make the approach much more complicated.
What I definitely did NOT get is any support for a no more than 10,000 year old earth.
And I certainly did not get that the method was totally flawed and of no use whatsoever,


that's it...

 

[Milk-Drops]

http://creationrevolution.com/key-flaw-found-radioisotope-isochron-dating/

Looks like another wrinkle in the assumption that things are being dated correctly. Very interesting read.

http://newatlas.com/radioisotope-dating-flaw-overestimate-rock-age/47696/ I found another site that goes more into detail about what was discovered. It looks like there is a factor that effects dating methods that go into the millions and billion. So it looks like there will be a lot of study to figure out how to adjust dates with differential mass diffusion. So the dates will be more accurate.

 

[brother Paul]

Still it is an interesting admission and will only make the process more exact. I really appreciate that many scientists are willing to include contrary evidence and reshape previously held hypotheses

 

[Jim Parker]

Still it is an interesting admission and will only make the process more exact. I really appreciate that many scientists are willing to include contrary evidence and reshape previously held hypotheses

That's real what scientists do.

 

[Barbarian]

And as the method gets more and more refined, the dates are more and more certain. That's how science works.

Off the top of my head, diffusion rates for solids in solid rock are likely on the order of tens of millions of years, so significant differences might be expected in rocks over a hundred million years or so. Not much comfort for YE creationists.

I know someone who works in the field. I'll ask him what sorts of errors would be involved, and how they might be corrected.

 

[Barbarian]

His reply:
Not sure this paper is all that exciting since geochronologists have largely abandoned Rb-Sr dating due to this (and other known problems) with the method. Surprisingly, Rb-Sr ages tend to more commonly be YOUNGER than more robust U-Pb methods. As an example, my group recently dated (U-Pb) some mafic dykes in India that had an Rb-Sr age of 813 Ma. The U-Pb age was 1192 Ma. Diffusion (such as described in the paper) is one of several problems with Rb-Sr. U-Pb is much nicer because we use paired decay systems of 235U and 238U that provide an instant check on mobility of parent/daughter isotopes within the system. So, the news story is overhyped. Any changes or modifications in the Geological time scale are not based on Rb-Sr ages, but U-Pb ages. So, yes, geologists understand the problems inherent in Rb-Sr dating and we have moved on. That's not to say that it's not still used, but that's because it's relatively cheap and many older countries can't afford the equipment to conduct U-Pb geochron.

 

[Jim Parker]

Still it is an interesting admission and will only make the process more exact. I really appreciate that many scientists are willing to include contrary evidence and reshape previously held hypotheses

That's actually exactly what science is about.
Form a hypothesis; test it; evaluate the results; repeat.
When new information is gained, see how it affects your hypothesis; incorporate it, retest, evaluate the results; repeat.
And so on and so on and so on ....

 

[Cygnus]

Let me at to the conversation,
Radiometric age dating techniques received a serious blow after the discoveries of soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones. Rocks dated at 65+ MY's have been found to contain these specimens. When scientist realized that the soft tissue shouldn't be there thy had to scramle for new ideas. Most settled on, well the soft tissue is there...so it must be possible. Others claimed they samples were preserved when they were protected by "iron" which was based upon a 3 year experiment....as if 3 out of 65+ MY's gives accurate results.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Let me at to the conversation,
Radiometric age dating techniques received a serious blow after the discoveries of soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones. Rocks dated at 65+ MY's have been found to contain these specimens. When scientist realized that the soft tissue shouldn't be there thy had to scramle for new ideas. Most settled on, well the soft tissue is there...so it must be possible. Others claimed they samples were preserved when they were protected by "iron" which was based upon a 3 year experiment....as if 3 out of 65+ MY's gives accurate results.

I see this passed around a lot, but the main problem I have here is that the soft tissue itself wasn't what was found. Fosilization doesn't allow for the actual preservation of the physical tissue. What was found was the Fosilization of softer tissue, which is extremely rare due to the conditions of Fosilization in the first place. I'm also not sure what you meant by the 3 year test. Would you care to elaborate.

 

[Cygnus]

I see this passed around a lot, but the main problem I have here is that the soft tissue itself wasn't what was found. Fosilization doesn't allow for the actual preservation of the physical tissue. What was found was the Fosilization of softer tissue, which is extremely rare due to the conditions of Fosilization in the first place. I'm also not sure what you meant by the 3 year test. Would you care to elaborate.

I've seen video of tissue taken from a dinsaur bone that was soft and stretchable.
Here's a quick 4 min long video that eplains some of what you ask.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I've seen video of tissue taken from a dinsaur bone that was soft and stretchable.
Here's a quick 4 min long video that eplains some of what you ask.

I'm familar with Mr. Armatige, but just like the radio Halos argument that started this thread, Mr. Armatige doesn't like to submit his findings to peer review. Most of his research is unverified and not published in major journals. He prfers to take his "discoveries" to creation only publishing.I'm not discounting his findings on the grounds of him being a creationist, but bcause of his lack of cooperation with non creation scientists.

 

[Jim Parker]

I see this passed around a lot, but the main problem I have here is that the soft tissue itself wasn't what was found. Fosilization doesn't allow for the actual preservation of the physical tissue. What was found was the Fosilization of softer tissue, which is extremely rare due to the conditions of Fosilization in the first place.

Thank you!
That presents an entirely different story.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm familar with Mr. Armatige, but just like the radio Halos argument that started this thread, Mr. Armatige doesn't like to submit his findings to peer review. Most of his research is unverified and not published in major journals. He prfers to take his "discoveries" to creation only publishing.I'm not discounting his findings on the grounds of him being a creationist, but bcause of his lack of cooperation with non creation scientists.

If I were him I wouldn't really want to deal with the "secular" journals...if they would even publish his work at all. Look at what the school did to him.
But facts be facts...
The question for the non-creationist scientist is how did it survive.

 

[Cygnus]

Thank you!
That presents an entirely different story.

Milk-drops ididn't quite present the facts accurately. The fossilized dino-bones are put intoa weak acid and the fossilized portins are slowly eaten away...and what is left is soft tissue.

 

[Jim Parker]

I've seen video of tissue taken from a dinsaur bone that was soft and stretchable.
Here's a quick 4 min long video that eplains some of what you ask.

Interesting!!

 

[Barbarian]

I've seen video of tissue taken from a dinsaur bone that was soft and stretchable.
Here's a quick 4 min long video that eplains some of what you ask.

Those are collagen fibers. Not tissue, not even cells. The color was added by the guys who made the video, apparently to make it look more like tissue. The picture is an electron micrograph, and it would have no color. It's been known for a long time that some organic molecules can last for many millions of years in some circumstances. Far as I know, it's the first time someone found it in vertebrates, though.

Doesn't really mean anything about time or evolution.

This doesn't seem to be dishonesty on the part of Armitage; his article in the Creation Research Quarterly journal makes no claims of tissue:

Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex Bone

Mark Armitage
CRSQ Vol 38 No 2 pp 61-66 September 2001
Abstract
A specimen of hip bone from a Tyrannosaurus rex, excavated from a ranch in Wyoming over 100 years ago, and thought to be 65 million years old is shown, by scanning electron microscopy, to have intact, mummified microscopic collagen fibers and other ultrastructural features within compact bone. Bone Haversian canals as well as lacunae and canaliculi are well preserved.

 

[Cygnus]

Those are collagen fibers. Not tissue, not even cells. The color was added by the guys who made the video, apparently to make it look more like tissue. The picture is an electron micrograph, and it would have no color. It's been known for a long time that some organic molecules can last for many millions of years in some circumstances. Far as I know, it's the first time someone found it in vertebrates, though.

Doesn't really mean anything about time or evolution.

This doesn't seem to be dishonesty on the part of Armitage; his article in the Creation Research Quarterly journal makes no claims of tissue:

Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex Bone

Mark Armitage
CRSQ Vol 38 No 2 pp 61-66 September 2001
Abstract
A specimen of hip bone from a Tyrannosaurus rex, excavated from a ranch in Wyoming over 100 years ago, and thought to be 65 million years old is shown, by scanning electron microscopy, to have intact, mummified microscopic collagen fibers and other ultrastructural features within compact bone. Bone Haversian canals as well as lacunae and canaliculi are well preserved.

I don't really mind a response back, but when someone presents a dishonest message and claims..."It's been known for a long time that some organic molecules can last for many millions of years in some circumstances."..I do mind.
Soft dinosaur tissue can't last for millions upon millions of years. Especially when the tissue that was once touching the still soft tissue has rotted away.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't really mind a response back, but when someone presents a dishonest message and claims..."It's been known for a long time that some organic molecules can last for many millions of years in some circumstances."..I do mind.

That's just a fact. Would you like me to show you?

Soft dinosaur tissue can't last for millions upon millions of years.

So far, we haven't seen anything like that. As you just learned, Armitage never claimed to have found tissue in his sample. He merely found some collagen fibers. Not even cells; just some organic material. But that's far from the first time it happened. Read the abstract of his paper, above, and learn.

 

[Cygnus]

So far, we haven't seen anything like that. As you just learned, Armitage never claimed to have found tissue in his sample. He merely found some collagen fibers. Not even cells; just some organic material. But that's far from the first time it happened. Read the abstract of his paper, above, and learn.

Numerous studies have documented the presence of pliable, un-fossilized tissue still remaining in dinosaur fossils. Within this tissue are intact cells and fragments of dinosaur proteins....visit this link..look at the pictures...discover just how wrong you are.

To add to that the article you mentioned was written in 2001. I believe this predates Mark Armitage stretchy tissue by about 14 years.