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”.
I need numbers
How do you suggest someone does this?
Once again, no. You’re working hard to dance around the reality of these bones. As I said in my article (which I doubt you took the time to actually read!), Fiorillo is doing exactly what he claims Mori did–he’s using loose language. He says, “within”, but what does he mean by that? He’s clearly not talking about these bones being fully permineralized throughout; he’s just simply saying that the samples contain trace amounts of those minerals. Nobody is denying that, however. Mori admits it, and so did Davies. But both Mori and Davies independently of one another chose to describe these bones as having a reddish outer tinge of permineralization, but otherwise are unpermineralized.
Ah, ok, I’ll have to spend some more time with it then.
Nevermind, I didn’t formulate that thought correctly. I’ll have to come back to this one later.
Dude, you aren’t even close. I don’t care about the reality of the bones right now. Only that you made an inaccurate statement. You said Fiorillo, on this very forum, only thought they were permineralized because of their color. Which is false!!
Then there’s nothing of any consequence or relevance for us to discuss. See ya!
You said Fiorillo, on this very forum, only thought they were permineralized because of their color. Which is false!!
Can you quote where I said that anything was based upon color alone?
I’m freaking strung out on cancer meds right now so my writing may be unclear but goodness gracious. This isn’t that hard to follow.
Fiorillo clearly thinks there are permineralized because of what he believes are within the bones. Not just the color.
I mean dang dude, you could’ve just misspoke or accidentally left something out. But you made it into this whole ordeal instead of just saying whoops my bad.
When I said “rust-colored tinge” I meant to imply that the ‘tinge’ consists not only of a color, but it is in fact a ‘tinge’ of minerals that cause that color to be there. Sorry if that wasn’t clear by what I wrote. Everybody agrees there are some introduced minerals on the outside of the bones that give them a reddish color, but that is not what is usually meant by the term “permineralized”, as Mori has said. That’s why Mori stood by his original wording that the bones are typically uncrushed and unpermineralized.
No, I think you’re off track. If even one out of 100 dinosaurs proves to be legitimately young, then the idea that dinosaurs went extinct 65 mya is falsified.
If these fossils are coming from below the K/T boundary, then they aren’t young. 14C dating is certainly not going to be the thing that proves these fossils are young.
On the flip side, I would certainly agree that it is entirely possible for some non-avian dinosaur lineage to have survived past the K/T extinction event and thus far evaded detection in the fossil record. However, I have never seen any legitimate science that would put the >65 mya age for known fossils in doubt.
Seeing them? Would you be interested in reading them? By “reading,” I mean examining the tables and figures first and foremost.
Would you commit to discussing ONLY the actual test results, or would you revert to only discussing the words the authors wrote?
Wrong. Schweitzer has documented original tissues, cells and molecules still present in bones from the Mesozoic, below the KT boundary. It is contrary to known science to assert they could have lasted that long. Therefore that qualifies as extremely strong evidence that the geologic column is not millions of years old.
Does it falsify that the earth is old? No.
Does it falsify that dinosaurs lived 65 mya? No.
It merely creates a unique discussion point that needs to be ferreted out. This is the point that I was making.
That all of the dinosaurs went extinct 65 mya is not the big issue here. The big issue is whether or not the earth is 10,000 years old or 4,500,000,000 years old. Making the issue about whether or not they all went extinct 65 mya is moving the goal posts.
3 Likes
Sure, you can go that route, but the unpermineralized hadrosaur bones from the Liscomb bonebed in Alaska are supposed to be from 69 mya. Yet they survived somehow, mostly unfossilized. I find that unbelievable, personally.
All that means is that these structures can survive that long in that condition. Schweitzer herself says as much.
The known science is 65 million year old dinosaur fossils with those features. The known science says they can last that long.
2 Likes