First Dinosaur Brain Discovered

[shunyadragon]

A variation of atmospheric carbon content between 3.9% and 2% in atmosphere 4974 years ago will yield (assuming constant decay rates which I am not disputing), by multiplication of decay to present which is 54.788%, present content in samples of

54.788% = 0.54788
* 3.9% -> * 0.039
* 2% - > * 0.02
= 0.02136732 = 2.136732 %
= 0.0109576 = 1.09576 %

This will yield a carbon dating of:

2.136732 % - > 31,800 years BP
1.09576 % - > 37,300 years BP

Get variation down to originally 1 %, you will get present content of 0.0054788 or of 0.54788 %, which puts the dating to 43,000 BP.

Since beginning of this thread, I will no longer consider it possible that 20,000 BP is from Flood, since that implies 8.898%, and 0.08898/0.54788 = 0.1624078265313572 or 16.24078265313572 % back in Flood Year.

A variation between 16% and 1% of present carbon 14 content would be a major one, and one I do not envisage. Hence my rejection of 20,000 BP dates as to Flood Year, they must be post-Flood.

Nothing above represents anything observable nor falsifiable. The execs of ENRON would love you on their accounting staff.

I am sorry that you have a self-imposed ignorance and dishonesty with an archaic belief in scientific facts that have changed.

Dinosaur soft tissue has been found since then, and also remaining bone with original content, not permineralised.

Dinosaur soft tissue found is indeed mineralized.

Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-soft-tissue-recovered-eight-cretaceous-era-fossils-180955538/

Past efforts to recover organic structures such as skin, feathers and muscle fibers have focused on exceptionally well-preserved remains, yielding discoveries such as flexible tissue from a T. rex, hemoglobin from the inside of an ancient mosquito abdomen and pigment molecules from an Eocene turtle fossil. But those examples have always been seen as the exception rather than the rule.

Now, scientists at Imperial College London say they have overturned this long-held notion. As they report this week in the journal Nature Communications, it is possible to recover organic structures from fossilized specimens that are at least 75 million years old. This seems to be the case even for run-of-the-mill fossil bones that give no external hint of containing the remnants of soft tissues.

The fossils in question are eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones, representing unidentified species in both major dinosaur clades. Some are from the Ornithischia, which includes herbivores such as Stegosaurus and Iguanodon, while others represent the Saurischia, which covers carnivores such as Velociraptor as well as plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus.

All eight fossils used in the study are of only average quality. Despite this, the researchers were able to use new mico- and nano-scale mass spectrometry methods to observe what appear to be calcified collagen fibers in four of the fossils, and they resemble those in modern bones. The team also discovered structures akin to red blood cells in two of the fossils. A closer inspection of those structures revealed a striking resemblance to the blood cells of modern emus, 6-foot-tall flightless birds that live in Australia.

© Copyright Original Source

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...Au37zJdEp9A.99

The next pot concerns the issue of the MOR TRex.

[shunyadragon]

I am sorry that you have a self-imposed ignorance and dishonesty with an archaic belief in scientific facts that have changed.

Dinosaur soft tissue has been found since then, and also remaining bone with original content, not permineralised.

First define premineralized(?) in this context.




Can you provide a source that describes the MOR T Rex is not fossilized nor mineralized that is familiar and studied these fossils.

[rogue06]

It is ideology to pretend that the bowling ball would leave the postal scale as little affected as a feather would with a car scale (or whatever you call the things you weigh cars on in English).

The non-ideological and according to theory prediction for the bowling ball on the postal scale is that the arm would push up immediately and perhaps the bowling ball take the postal scale down. No one would be even slightly tempted to consider the bowling ball as "300 g" (even if that is heavy for a letter).

The similarily non-ideological and according to theory prediction is that an organic object 65 million years old does not have one single atom of carbon 14 left.

And that means the carbon dates actually obtained "the wrong way" COULD NOT have been obtained at all.

And yes, we are talking of carbon within the detection limit.

Can you try that again so that it makes sense?

The point is that you don't use equipment that cannot possibly give an accurate answer such as using a hand held postal scale to weigh a bowling ball. It will max out at a quarter pound and only an imbecile would then claim that the bowling ball weighs only a quarter pound

[rogue06]

A variation of atmospheric carbon content between 3.9% and 2% in atmosphere 4974 years ago will yield (assuming constant decay rates which I am not disputing), by multiplication of decay to present which is 54.788%, present content in samples of

54.788% = 0.54788
* 3.9% -> * 0.039
* 2% - > * 0.02
= 0.02136732 = 2.136732 %
= 0.0109576 = 1.09576 %

This will yield a carbon dating of:

2.136732 % - > 31,800 years BP
1.09576 % - > 37,300 years BP

Get variation down to originally 1 %, you will get present content of 0.0054788 or of 0.54788 %, which puts the dating to 43,000 BP.

Since beginning of this thread, I will no longer consider it possible that 20,000 BP is from Flood, since that implies 8.898%, and 0.08898/0.54788 = 0.1624078265313572 or 16.24078265313572 % back in Flood Year.

A variation between 16% and 1% of present carbon 14 content would be a major one, and one I do not envisage. Hence my rejection of 20,000 BP dates as to Flood Year, they must be post-Flood.



I am sorry that you have a self-imposed ignorance and dishonesty with an archaic belief in scientific facts that have changed.

Dinosaur soft tissue has been found since then, and also remaining bone with original content, not permineralised.

Actually it was. What you don't seem to realize is that they aren't exactly soft. They had to soak the material in an acidic solution for several days in order to get it even slightly pliable.

[shunyadragon]

Actually it was. What you don't seem to realize is that they aren't exactly soft. They had to soak the material in an acidic solution for several days in order to get it even slightly pliable.

hansgeorge;

Do you understand what the demineralisation process scientist use to treat fossils described by rogue 6 means. The fossil are treated with an acid, sometimes multiple times over a period of days or weeks to remove carbonate mineralization products to clean the fossil and reveal more of its original properties. After demineralization some fossil tissue has became slightly pliable. The demineralisztion process is only partial, because the actual structure of fossil has been mineralized by replacement of tissue with Calcium/Magnesium Carbonates. This only works with fossils that have been mineralized by Calcium carbonates.

[Kbertsche]

I gave documentation from CMI.

And here is some documentation on radiocarbon dating from ICR. So far as I know, Gerald Aardsma is the ONLY real YEC radiocarbon dating expert (i.e. one who was trained at a leading world-class radiocarbon lab and who has actually done radiocarbon dating himself).

Source: Gerald Aardsma, ICR

First, any instrument which is built to measure radiocarbon has a limit beyond which it cannot separate the signal due to radiocarbon in the sample from the signal due to background processes within the measuring apparatus. Even a hypothetical sample containing absolutely no radiocarbon will register counts in a radiocarbon counter because of background signals within the counter. In the early days of radiocarbon analysis this limit was often around 20,000 radiocarbon years. Thus, all the researcher was able to say about samples with low levels of radiocarbon was that their age was greater than or equal to 20,000 radiocarbon years (or whatever the sensitivity limit of his apparatus was). Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20,000 radiocarbon years.

The second characteristic of the measurement of radiocarbon is that it is easy to contaminate a sample which contains very little radiocarbon with enough radiocarbon from the research environment to give it an apparent radiocarbon age which is much less than its actual radiocarbon age. For example, a sample with a true radiocarbon age of 100,000 radiocarbon years will yield a measured radiocarbon age of about 20,000 radiocarbon years if the sample is contaminated with a weight of modern carbon of just 5% of the weight of the sample's carbon. It is not too difficult to supply contaminating radiocarbon since it is present in relatively high concentrations in the air and in the tissues of all living things including any individuals handling the sample. For this reason special precautions need to be exercised when sampling materials which contain only small amounts of radiocarbon.

Reports of young radiocarbon ages for coal probably all stem from a misunderstanding of one or both of these two factors. Measurements made using specially designed, more elaborate apparatus and more astute sampling-handling techniques have yielded radiocarbon ages for anthracite greater than 70,000 radiocarbon years, the sensitivity limit of this equipment.

© Copyright Original Source

Aardsma is absolutely correct here. The YEC claims of radiocarbon "in" ancient bones, coal, diamonds, etc. are false. What they are really seeing is radiocarbon "on" the samples due to 1) background from the measurement instrument and 2) contamination.

Note that this information has been in the YEC literature since 1989, but YECs seem to ignore it or not understand it!