Were Dragons Real?

Thanks for confirming you misrepresented Fiorillo’s thoughts on the specimen. It doesn’t matter what Mori thinks in this context. You said Fiorillo thought it was permineralized because of the color on the outside of the bone. But he clearly thinks it’s permineralized because of what he thinks is within it.

To any scientist that does any lab work, this isn’t true even on the face of it. There is always analytic error and sources of methodological error.

Let’s look at this problem carefully. For there to be no C14 we have to first assume that no nitrogen atoms in the sample were converted to 14C by surrounding radiation. Afterall, this is the process that creates 14C in our upper atmosphere. Any nitrogen in the sample could also be converted through this process.

Second, we have to rule out the possibility that environmental carbon is introduced into the sample after collection and during carbonization. Obviously, there are many steps where this can occur, including chemical reactions that will covalently attach atmospheric carbon dioxide to the sample. The method of extracting carbon from the sample will also introduce trace amounts of modern carbon. There is also contamination of the fossil with carbon found in the ground itself, such as percolating water.

Third, we have the instrument itself. Carbon from past samples and environmental contamination can be present in the chamber being used for detection.

There is absolutely no expectation that a fossil billions of years old will have zero 14C. There is every reason to believe that a sample from a billions of years old fossil will have detectable amounts of 14C.

4 Likes

What amount would be predicted?

Yep. And he thinks just by saying Nelson decontaminated the specimen makes this all disappear. When it is known decontamination processes themselves can add carbon to the specimen…

2 Likes

Depends entirely on the fossil, the environment it is found in, the method used for extracting carbon, and the instrument.

3 posts were merged into an existing topic: How Science Works: One Anomaly Versus A Mountain of Evidence

Your paper does nothing to suggest that DNA would be retreivable from bones that are >= 65 ma.
Much less collagen, which has also been retrieved!

See:

No, not if is it truly permineralized as you folks keep arguing. Sure, there would be some, but not to that extent.

Depends entirely on the fossil, the environment it is found in, the method used for extracting carbon, and the instrument.

I would be interested in seeing any papers that specifically address the predicted amount of detectable C14 in specimens that are millions of years old. And their test results.

1 Like

To what extent?

Me too! And the reason you [evolutionists, that is] will not have this data available is because no is looking for it…but you should be…!

1 Like

LOL, exactly. You don’t have data of any kind. So really none of you have room to even speak to this subject matter.

What were these specimens pMC?

What are you on about? You said there should be some C14. But not to this extent. I’m asking what extent. What were the levels?

I would suggest starting here:

You’ll have to explain to me why it matters what Fiorillo says, but somehow it doesn’t matter what Mori and Davies both say.

That’s an interesting page I’ll have to dig into some more. But already I notice they have a chart that includes the column “True Age”, and that column is going back many, many years further than modern science has been around. Thus these “true ages” are not really “known ages” but “assumed ages”. I am interested in a paper that predicts a specific C14 result for a specimen of known age (not an assumed age).

You are misreading the chart. Those are just hypothetical examples showing the impact contamination can have on a sample from different age ranges. What it is meant to illustrate is that a tiny amount of contamination will have little impact on young ages but a potentially significant impact on older samples. This is because of the nature of the dating methodology where smaller and smaller amounts of 14C have a larger impact at older ages:

Sigh… BECAUSE YOU SAID FIORILLO THOUGHT SOMETHING FOR A CERTAIN REASON AND HE DIDNT REALLY THINK THAT FOR THE REASON YOU SAID HE DID.

Even if the fossil is unpermineralized, you still misrepresented Fiorillo’s thoughts on the specimen.

For you and you only since you are special I will make this elaboration: “to any appreciable extent”.