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.

Source: https://ncse.com/library-resource/non-mineralized-tissues-fossil-t-rex

Non-Mineralized Tissues in Fossil T rex

In the March 25, 2005, issue of Science, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and her co-authors reported the discovery of intact blood vessels and other soft tissues in demineralized bone from a 65- million-year–old specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex housed at the Museum of the Rockies (MOR). Scientists’ reaction to this discovery has been cautious; Schweitzer and others have not provided the biochemical data necessary to decide whether or not the “flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience” is, in fact, T rex soft tissue. But while scientists have been appropriately skeptical of Schweitzer’s claim, many young-earth creationists improperly have seized on it as evidence that the T rex fossil from which Schweitzer extracted the putative soft tissue, and fossils generally, are not more than a few thousand years old.

The absolute ages of all fossils ultimately hinge on radiometric dating techniques, the validity and accuracy of which are beyond reasonable doubt. These techniques are derived from the pre-eminent scientific enterprise of the 20th century: nuclear physics. If we did not know enough about radioactive materials to date things, then we would not be able to build atomic bombs. I would eagerly admit that the earth was young if it meant that A-bombs were not real, but that Faustian bargain has been made and we must live with it. Multiple analyses using several independent radiometric techniques show that the rocks in which the MOR T rex was found are about 65 million years old. The age of this fossil is a settled fact. The question that I want to ask here is why creationists see the preservation of soft tissue as evidence that the MOR T rex is relatively modern. The answer lies not in the muddled thinking of creationists, but in the careless and ambiguous way that paleontologists themselves discuss “fossils” and explain how fossils form.

Fossils and Fossilization
While “fossil” originally referred to anything that originated in and was dug out of the earth, including gems and metals, the term in English has been used mainly in its modern sense since the early 19th century. But what is this modern sense? This turns out to be a difficult question to answer. Ignoring a handful of etymological fundamentalists, for the past few centuries “fossil” has had two distinct meanings: the remains or traces of ancient life (the time-based definition), and an object of biological origin that has undergone the process of “fossilization” (the process-based definition). The creationist challenge to the age of the MOR T rex is an equivocation based on this dual definition:

1. A fossil (time-defined) is old.

2. The MOR T rex is not a fossil (process-defined) because the presence of soft tissue demonstrates that it is not fossilized.

Therefore, the MOR T rex is not old.

The argument is invalid because each of the premises defines “fossil” in a different way. Few arguments used by creationists are as easily refuted as this, because most errors in creationists’ reasoning are not simple logical fallacies, and arise instead from misinterpretations of empirical evidence and hence requiring detailed refutation. But the equivocal use of “fossil” is not a creationist invention; it is a bad habit that they learned from paleontologists themselves.

It is curious that a term so central to their science should be used so carelessly, but paleontologists rarely differentiate the two definitions of “fossil,” and often use them interchangeably, even in situations that demand precision, such as in reference books. For example, Herve Bocherens (1997: 111) writes:

The chemical composition of fossilized vertebrate tissues is the result of the uptake, exchange, and loss of chemical elements, in two different sets of circumstances. First, during the life of the animal. ... Second, during the diagenetic evolution of the mineralized tissues (i.e., fossilization) this original organization of the chemical elements is altered ... [emphasis added]
Statements such as these are so common in paleontological literature — especially as throw-away remarks in prefaces and introductions — that they tend to roll smoothly off the brain without critical evaluation. But this passage is quite ambigious. Fossilization, here defined as the “diagenetic evolution of the mineralized tissues,” is a process. Unmineralized tissues apparently cannot undergo fossilization. But can unmineralized tissues be fossilized? “Fossilized” also implies a process-dependent definition of “fossil,” because, under the time-dependent definition, becoming a fossil simply is a matter of getting old, something that hardly qualifies as a process; calling a bone “fossilized” simply because it is old would be as meaningless as calling an old chair “antique-ized.” So if unmineralized tissues can be fossilized, then there must be some way of becoming fossilized other than through fossilization, and T rex soft tissue could be described as “unfossilization-ized fossilized tissue.” But if unmineralized tissues cannot be fossilized, this would imply that unmineralized tissues cannot be fossils. What, then, are “fossil” leaves, soft-body animal “fossils”, and petrified wood?

The topic of Bocherens’s article is not fossils per se, and the problems I point out here have no real bearing on the bulk of his excellent and informative article. Nevertheless Bocherens’s confused discussion of “fossilized” and “fossilization” is typical of the careless way that many paleontologists use “fossil,” especially when discussing “unusual” fossils such as ancient soft tissue.

For example, in reference to the purported T rex soft tissue in an interview with a BBC reporter (BBC 2005), Schweitzer said:

This is fossilised bone in the sense that it’s from an extinct animal but it doesn’t have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil.

© Copyright Original Source

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!