The age of Çatalhöyük was confirmed by multiple independent means, not just by C14 dating but also by thermoluminescence dating, obsidian hydration dating, and dendrochronolgy. As always the YECs can hand wave away each method but can never explain why all the independent methods return the same “older than the Earth” ages.
3 Likes
It wouldn’t put it to sleep at all. Scientists have known that life is old for a long time, and it’s been confirmed by dozens of different unrelated methods. YECs have ignored all of them, and keep clamouring for more tests, as if the one they want now would show anything different from the thousands that preceded it. Testing the T Rex tissue would change nothing. The YECs would just ignore the results, make excuses or misrepresent the results, like they have done for so many other results (including the Turin shroud!) and start demanding something else be tested instead.
Also, I wouldn’t expect a lack of contamination simply because I don’t know if the processes used to extract the tissue are the same processes you’d use to prepare something for carbon dating, so it’s possible that the specimen has already been contaminated.
1 Like
It’d be as interesting as noting the Eiffel Tower is taller than a yardstick, or that Route 66 is longer than a tape measure.
1 Like
True dat. It’s hard enough to attempt protein analysis on these samples without setting fire to them first.
If their claim of pristine preservation is true, why not a carbon age of 20, or 30, or 40,000 years?
Begin with a regular C14 calculation using time (t) of 20,000 years and the known half-life of C14.
Say the 8.89% of remaining C14 is a pretty good estimate of what specimen USNM 555000 (the T Rex specimen in the article) showed compared to 100% of what the same living T Rex would be estimated to show.
So now plug in 8.89% C14 remaining and time (t) of 66 million years.
Now we see that their theory of iron preservation should have effectively stalled the half-life of C14 by 3300% if the creature truly was alive 66 mya.
18,902,115/5730 = 3299
This opens up a can of worms for them. Now they are forced to quantify the “iron-mediation” they have claimed so they can break open more bones and measure their results against other creatures and other levels of iron mediation. Therefore, this kind of vague language will no longer suffice:
“…iron-mediated Fenton and glycation pathways [that] …have contributed to enhanced … longevity of elastin and fibrillar collagen within and around [extant] blood vessels.” [from the article]
They need hard numbers on their supposed iron-mediation if they want to be convincing.
Worse than that, however, they must justify to the scientific world what a “stalled” C14 half-life over a span of 66 million years would even look like! Such an idea is unprecedented. They would almost be forced to prove that an elevated half-life for C14 by 3300% is justified at all. Good luck with that.
By the way, if they want to do real and compelling science, the carbon-dating side of the process is not an option, otherwise they will always leave room for the possibility that these creatures lived only thousands of years ago and not millions. As it stands now, we simply do not have to take their word for the mya scenario. Even some of them will have private doubts about it.
By breaking open old bones and announcing their findings of blood vessels and collagen to the public in the first place, they have painted themselves into a corner. Then, by messing with the soft-tissue and running analysis on it, they have forced themselves to now carbon-date it and convincingly show that the young carbon age that will invariably be returned has been effectively stalled and how – that is, with quantitative numbers, not just vague language.
In short, their research has only just begun. They have a ton of work to do to prove-out their side of the mya argument. Not to mention, they run the risk that, in the end, their data may actually disprove their side.
What are you talking about? Exceptional preservation, whether iron-mediated or otherwise, is not claimed to slow down C14 rates.
2 Likes
Because it’s older than that, and despite what you appear to think, their iron-mediation refers to chemical decay, not radioactive decay.
2 Likes
No. No one is saying the mechanism responsible for preserving tissues and other organic materials are capable of slowing down nuclear decay rates.
They are suggested as mechanisms that slow the rate of decomposition of chemical bonds between organic molecules, not slowing down subatomic processes in the nuclei of atoms.
Putting food in my freezer will slow down the rate at which it normally spoils, but putting radioactive materials in there won’t slow the decay rate.
3 Likes
I do not wish to misunderstand; are you linking the preservation of tissue with the idea that C-14 decay would have stalled? That would not be the claim of the Boatman paper or Mary Schweitzer. C-14 decay is constant, and would have almost no effect on soft tissue preservation one way or another.
Of course I do not believe in stalled or altered or slowed C14 decay rates! These poor researchers are grasping at straws. If they carbon-dated these tissues to 20 or 30,000 years, what are they going to invoke if not altered decay rates? The problem for you and them seems insurmountable.
Apart from that, the only answer is to continue to refuse to carbon-date, and that is tantamount to dishonest science. If you refuse to carbon-date, we can simply continue to refuse to believe your mya storyline.
Contamination? It’s not like it’s unusual.
So you’re saying the level of C14 in the sample should be at the level of instrument background, and if it is not then the sample is as-young as the C14 age or even younger, and no other explanation for such a measurement is possible?
Deal.
2 Likes
Hehe, ironic turn of phrase he used. He previously simply refused to believe it, and will continue to do so. Oh, okay then.
2 Likes
At the very least, they should look at 13C/12C ratios to determine if the carbon is organic in origin. Organic carbon is richer in 12C than abiotic carbon. As I and others have mentioned over and over, there are many causes of contamination when using 14C dating, especially when you approach the edges of its effective range.
1 Like
I think the amount of material available is just too microscopic even for AMS. For the shroud of Turin dating where parsimony was paramount, each lab received a 3 cm square sample. Schweitzer’s samples were in the micrometer range.
Most of the justifiable original skepticism from the scientific community seemed to be concerned with contamination from organic sources, such as invasive microbes taking up residence or other ingress. A recent date from C-14 would have served to substantiate fears of such contamination, although one could expect the YEC community to take a very different interpretation of such an outcome. In any event, Schweitzer has probed the tissues with antibodies and other techniques to determine composition, which probably conveys more valuable information that destroying the material for AMS.
1 Like
Insurmountable??? It’s not insurmountable, it’s non-existent.
1 Like