Dating site Posts

Fantasy radiometric dating mt st helens you thanks for

Posted in Dating

Members Portal. Young Earthers point to an infamous dating error as evidence that the Earth is only as old as the Bible says. Skeptoid Podcast March 24, Podcast transcript Subscribe. Today we're going to point our skeptical eye at one of the key players in the debate between geologists and Young Earthers over the age of the Earth. In June of , Dr.

Considering that the dacite probably erupted in AD, Austin should have known that at least some of the samples would have given dates that were younger than 2 million years old and that Geochron Laboratories could not have provided reliable answers.

Therefore, it's not surprising that some of Austin's dates, such as the result for the amphiboles, etc. Without properly referencing Bartelt et al. This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam.

Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony.

To be exact, the recent hideous actions of the Washington DC area USA sniper s illustrate how unreliable eyewitnesses can be and how important forensic science is in solving crimes and stopping killers. In contrast to Austin et al. As mentioned above, we already know that Austin's application of the K-Ar method to this dacite sample was flawed from the beginning. Nevertheless, what are some possible causes of Austin's old dates?

Of course, some YECs might argue that God, for whatever reason, simply zapped some 40Ar into the various minerals during the 'Creation Week' about 6, years ago. Obviously, this suggestion has absolutely no scientific support or merit. Such ideas are flights of fantasy and not scientific hypotheses. Not even Austin endorses these untestable claims in his essay. Other YECs might argue that some of the minerals in the dacite began to grow sometime over the past 6, years.

However, without resorting to ucountryconnectionsqatar.comoven miracles to speed up the decay rate of 40K, YECs still have the problem of explaining how all of that 40Ar could form in only 6, years.

manage somehow

Using science, there are at least three hypotheses that may be purposed to explain why Austin obtained 'dates' ofto 2. Any or all of these hypotheses are possible. Austin strongly argues that steps were taken in his laboratory to protect the samples from contamination and that xenoliths foreign rockshypothesis 3 were removed from the samples before analysis.

are available? True

He also claims that microscopes were used to scan for 'foreign particles' xenocrysts? Of course, he and his assistants may have missed many of the xenocrysts if they were small.

30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer hypothesis 2 and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the AD eruption hypothesis 3. Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals.

This is the logical fallacy of composition Copi and Cohen, The validity of either hypothesis 2 or 3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid.

Figure 4 in Austin's essay shows a thin section photograph of a portion of the dacite. In the caption of Figure 4, Austin identifies the grains in the photograph as phenocrysts and microphenocrysts, which is probably generally correct.

Phenocrysts and microscopic phenocrysts microphenocrysts are crystals that grow in a melt magma deep within the Earth. In some cases, the entire melt solidifies before reaching the Earth's surface and an intrusive igneous rock develops Hyndman,p. Because intrusive rocks solidify deep within the Earth away from cool water and air, volcanic glass is absent and the grains may be fairly large that is, easily reaching lengths of one centimeter or more.

In other cases, such as Austin's dacite, a partially crystallized melt erupts on the Earth's surface and produces a volcanic rock, which may be a mixture of rapidly quenched volcanic glass and coarser phenocrysts Hyndman,p. Although Austin and Swenson will not admit it, some of the grains in Figure 4 may be xenocrysts rather than phenocrysts. In some cases, the magma may not be hot enough to melt or entirely dissolve the xenocrysts and they may survive after the melt cools.

Because of the Mount St. Helens eruption, scientists know that sedimentary rock layers can form in only hours, rather than requiring millions of years. It also showed that radiometric dating is not necessarily accurate and that God gave animals and plants the ability to . Mar 24, What Austin did was to exploit a known caveat in radiometric dating; dramatically illustrate it with a high-profile test using the public's favorite volcano, Mount St. Helens; and sensationalize the results in a paper that introduces nothing new to geologists, but that impresses laypeople with its detailed scientific language. Jun 01, The Mount St Helens lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between and The dating test In June of , Dr Austin collected a Author: Keith Swenson.

For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish from phenocrysts for example, Hyndman,p. As clearly shown in Figure 4 of Austin's essaymany of the mineral grains are zoned. The zoning appears as a series of concentric rings of various shades of gray within the grains see the two obvious examples in the middle of Figure 4.

Zoned crystals also may show Carlsbad twinning, which is typical of feldspars Perkins and Henke,Plate 10; Klein and Hurlbut,p.

In thin section and under crossed-polarized light, Carlsbad twinning has a 'half and half' appearance, where one half of the grain is darker than the other half Perkins and Henke,Plate As the sample is rotated on a microscope stage, one twin will darken as the other lightens in crossed-polarized light. A large grain with very noticeable Carlsbad twinning is located at the top of Figure 4. Well-established laboratory studies Klein and Hurlbut,p.

That is, as the magma cools, calcium-rich plagioclases crystallize first, which causes the remaining melt to become depleted in calcium and relatively enriched in sodium. Once temperatures further decline, more sodium-rich plagioclase begins to solidify from the melt and may surround the calcium-rich grains.

This process produces zoning, where the older and more calcium-rich plagioclases are located in the core of the grains and the younger and more sodium-rich plagioclases occupy the rims. Because of their crystalline and chemical differences, the calcium-rich plagioclase cores have somewhat different optical properties than the sodium-rich rims, which produce the noticeable concentric zoning in the grains in Austin's thin section photograph.

Besides plagioclase feldspars, chemicals in cooling magmas deep within the Earth may organize into pyroxenes, amphiboles and a large variety of other minerals. In contrast, any melt that reaches the Earth's surface during an eruption will immediately quench into volcanic glass if it comes into contact with seawater or other surface waters.

The quenching process freezes the atoms in place and prevents them from organizing into crystals. In the presence of air, the lava may cool slowly enough that some VERY small minerals may grow.

congratulate, brilliant idea

The highly disorganized volcanic glass matrix in Austin's Figure 4 appears black or 'isotropic' in crossed-polarized light. Unlike most minerals, which lighten and darken in crossed-polarized light as the microscope stage is rotated, volcanic glass always remains consistently dark under crossed-polarized light. Furthermore, unlike disorganized and quickly chilled volcanic glass, well-zoned and developed feldspar crystals, such as those shown in Figure 4, don't form overnight.

On the basis of the glass and mineral textures and elementary melt chemistry, we know that the zoned plagioclases and other relatively large and well-developed minerals in Austin's dacite must have taken more time to grow than the surrounding glass matrix.

By using high-temperature ovens in undergraduate university laboratories or even crystal-growing kits and kitchen chemicals, a normally intelligent person can verify that coarse crystals take more time to grow than finer-grained materials. Clearly, basic crystal chemistry and physics dictates that zoned and other relatively large phenocrysts grew deep within the Earth and existed before the glass matrix that rapidly formed during the eruption.

Nevertheless, it is clear from Austin's essay that he has failed to incorporate the obviously diverse ages of the phenocrysts and the volcanic glass into his explanation for the origin of the dacite.

Similarly, Swenson also fails to comprehend the indisputable history that is associated with the plagioclase zoning and to properly recognize the important age differences between the coarsest phenocrysts and the volcanic glass. Obviously, if Austin wanted a sample that only represented the material that solidified during the eruption, he would have had to remove ALL of the plagioclase and other phenocrysts from the glass component.

Even when phenocrysts as in Austin's Figure 4 and xenocrysts can be seen with an optical microscope, they can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively separate from the glass. I've attempted to separate very fined-grained minerals from glass in coal ashes by using magnetic separation and hydrofluoric and other acids.

It's not easy. Specifically, Austin admits that most of his fractions are impure when he includes the term 'etc. Furthermore, Austin's descriptions in the following statements clearly indicate that he FAILED to adequately separate the phenocrysts and possible xenocrysts from the volcanic glass.

Austin admits:. Because Austin did NOT separate the plagioclase from the glass, we would expect this sample to contain a mixture of young glass, plagioclases with relatively old calcium-rich cores and moderately old sodium-rich rims.

Because Austin clearly understands the heterogeneous composition of this 'fraction', he should have known that a K-Ar date on this mess would be meaningless.

Stay Connected!

Again, the mineral textures, as well as the laws of chemistry and physics, dictate that the calcium-rich plagioclase cores grew at higher temperatures before the sodium-rich rims and that glasses only formed once the melt erupted at the surface. Austin also states:.

"Creation Science" Exposed! Dating Mount St. Helens Lava

Mafic microphenocrysts within these glassy particles were probably dominated by the strongly magnetic Fe-Ti oxide minerals. The microscopic examination of the 'heavy-magnetic concentrate' also revealed a trace quantity of iron fragments, obviously the magnetic contaminant unavoidably introduced from the milling of the dacite in the iron mortar. No attempt was made to separate the hornblende from the Fe-Ti oxides, but further finer milling and use of heavy liquids should be considered.

At this point Austin admits that the iron mortar probably contaminated his sample. Although the contamination might have seriously affected any iron analyses, K and Ar analyses may not have been affected. The description of another one of Austin's 'fractions' indicates that it is also highly impure:. These mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts evidently increased the density of the attached glass particles above the critical density of 2.

This sample also had recognizable hornblende, evidently not completely isolated by magnetic separation. Because it was composed of finer particles meshit contained far fewer mafic particles with attached glass fragments than DOME-IH.

This preparation is the purest mineral concentrate. Therefore, instead of dating the ages of the pyroxenes, he probably dated a mixture of mostly pyroxenes along with other minerals and volcanic glass. Again, a K-Ar date on such an impure 'fraction' would be meaningless and a waste of time and money.

That is, Austin is not dating the volcanic glass or the pyroxenes in the dacite, but artificial mixtures, which result from incomplete separations. Finally, Austin states:.

thanks for

However, because Austin ignores the analytical inadequacies of Geochron's mass spectrometer hypothesis 2except for possibly the pyroxenes, there is no evidence that excess argon is present in any of the other mineral or glass components in this sample.

Because Austin admits that his separations were impure, how can he, Swenson and other YECs justify their claims that these dacite samples were a fair test of the validity of the K-Ar method?

Why did Austin waste precious time and money analyzing samples that were known to contain mineral and glass impurities? As a geologist, Austin should have known that minerals, especially zoned minerals, take more time to crystallize than quenched disorder glass.

How could he expect the relatively large and sometimes zoned minerals to be as young as the glass?!! The following additional comments by Swenson demonstrate that he does not understand the mineralogy and chemistry of the dacite:. However, Dalrymple found that even volcanic glass can give wrong ages and rationalized that it can be contaminated by argon from older rock material. I should state that Swenson did not have the courtesy to name this critic it's me or cite even one of my sources that criticize Austin's efforts.

In any debate, the debaters should provide the references or Internet links for their opponents so that the readers can evaluate both sides and really understand what's going on. Clearly, Swenson simply assumes that the volcanic glass contains 'excess argon. In his essay, Austin even admits that the glass still needs to be separated and analyzed for argon.

Furthermore, many studies for example, the Haulalai basalt; Funkhouser and Naughton, demonstrate that Swenson and other YECs cannot automatically assume that modern volcanic glass contains excess argon. Although hypothesis 1 is plausible, until the argon isotope concentrations of the PURE glass are accurately measured for Austin's dacite if this is even possible we cannot properly evaluate this hypothesis.

Because Swenson does not provide a page number for his citation of Dalrymplethe identity of the volcanic glass with excess argon is uncertain. Perhaps, Swenson was referring to the following statement from Dalrymplep. If Swenson is referring to this section, it's nothing more than an irrelevant red herring. Unlike the Mt.

Radiometric dating mt st helens

Dalrymplep. Although high-pressure ocean water may prevent argon gas from escaping from the rims of a lava flow on the ocean floor, the centers of modern submarine flows typically provide K-Ar dates of 'zero years' Young,p. Because the centers of the flows cool more slowly, any excess 40Ar and other gases can disperse out of the remaining melt before solidification.

While YECs explain geology by invoking talking snakes, magical fruit, and a mythical 'Flood', Dalrymple discusses legitimate chemistry and fluid physics, which is hardly relying on flimsy 'rationalizations' or implausible excuses. Furthermore, contrary to Swenson's claims, nothing in Dalrymple excuses Austin's sloppy approach to K-Ar dating.

In particular, YECs have no justification for automatically assuming that the dacite glass contains excess argon. Even if the dacite glass does contain excess argon, Dalrymplep. That is, as the volcanics age, the excess argon would be diluted into insignificance by the developing radiogenic 40Ar. Furthermore, if abundant excess argon is present in older rocks, Ar-Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can detect and eliminate its effects as examples, McDougall and Harrison,p.

Austin clearly believes that the ancient dates for his samples entirely resulted from excess argon hypothesis 1 :. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. Therefore, the 2. It's certainly plausible that some excess argon could accumulate in small fractures or defects within the crystalline structures of pyroxenes, amphiboles, feldspars and other minerals Dickin,p.

While Austin claims that orthopyroxenes should retain the most argon followed by hornblende an amphibole and finally plagioclase, he provides no references to support this claim. In reality, the crystalline structures of amphiboles, unlike feldspars and pyroxenes, contain open channels, which can hold argon gas and other fluids Klein and Hurlbut,p.

I'm skeptical that the defects and fractures in the orthopyroxenes and feldspars of Austin's dacites could hold more excess argon per mineral volume than the relatively large open structures within the hornblendes Dickin,p. Therefore, IF hypothesis 1 was the only factor influencing the dates of Austin's samples, I would expect the hornblende-rich 'fraction' to provide an older date than the pyroxene- and feldspar-rich 'fractions.

From the above discussions, we already know that hypothesis 2 is a likely explanation for Austin's old dates. To evaluate hypothesis 3, we should look at the crystallization order of the phenocrysts as suggested by Bowen's Reaction Series.

The series states that certain minerals will crystallize in a melt at higher temperatures than other minerals. That is, different minerals have different freezing points. Mafic magnesium and iron-rich volcanic rocks, such as basalts, form from relatively hot melts C and hotter, Hall,p.

Felsic silica-rich rocks, such as granites, form at cooler temperatures perhaps as cool as CHall,p.

useful message

The most common minerals in rocks of intermediate chemistry, such as dacites, are located towards the middle of the series.

Bowen's Reaction Series is a very important concept that undergraduate students learn in their introductory physical geology courses.

To be exact, Bowen's Reaction Series was the one diagram that I was required to memorize when I took my first geology course in college. Although Bowen's Reaction Series was established long ago by field and laboratory studies, Swenson, Austin and other YECs repeatedly fail to comprehend its importance and how it can produce ancient phenocrysts, which may affect the radiometric dating of very young samples.

In a young volcanic rock, such as the Mt. Helen's dacite, the calcium-rich plagioclases may have formed thousands or even a few million years ago.

Again, as a rock ages and 40Ar accumulates in both the glass and any 40K-bearing minerals, the differences in the ages of the materials becomes less significant. That is, if the glass quenched in an eruptionyears after the formation of the calcium-rich plagioclases, after Origins': J.

Bowen's Reaction Series also predicts that pyroxenes will crystallize at higher temperatures before amphiboles. Assuming that any argon contamination from Geochron's equipment hypothesis 2 is negligible, we see that the dates in Austin's table are consistent with the crystallization order in Bowen's Reaction Series. As expected, the purest pyroxene fraction provides an older date 2.

That is, IF the dates are real, the pyroxenes formed in the melt before the amphiboles as predicted by the series. Because the pyroxenes solidify before most other minerals, it's also not surprising that the 'pyroxene, etc.

Depending upon the amount of zoned feldspars which consist of older calcium-rich cores and younger sodium-rich rims and the quantity of glass, amphibole and pyroxene impurities, the 'feldspar etc.

On the basis of the following statements by Swenson, his gross misinterpretations of Dalrympleand his unwillingness to respond to my earlier statements on Bowen's Reaction Series and its possible relevance to Austin's results, it is clear that Swenson does not know what Bowen's Reaction Series is and how it can affect the age distributions of minerals in very young volcanic rocks:.

They said that Dr Austin should have known they were old because the crystals were large and zoned.

that interfere

However, Dr Austin's results Table 1 show that the wrong ages were not confined to one particular mineral. The idea that the age of a mineral can be anticipated by its size or colour is incorrect.

Dalrymplefor example, found that the wrong ages in his samples were unrelated to crystal size, or any other observable characteristic of the crystal. Contrary to Swenson's implications, mineral zoning is much more than a color property. As discussed earlier, zoning and crystal growth are extremely important in understanding phenocryst ages. Based on the statements in his essays, Swenson simply assumes that excess argon is present in all of the components of the dacite and that any statements on the lack of a relationship between excess argon and crystal size in Dalrymple automatically apply to Austin's dacite.

Again, because Swenson does not provide any page numbers when referring to Dalrymplewe can only guess which sections of Dalrymple's article he is citing.

The results for the Mt. Lassen plagioclase and the Mt. Etna flow, which contains a HIGH percentage of large phenocrysts, appear to support their contention. Thus, for THESE experiments there does not appear to be any correlation of excess 40Ar with large phenocrysts or with any other petrological or petrographic parameter.

Clearly, whether amphibole, pyroxene, plagioclase or other phenocrysts are effectively degassed or not during eruptions is a complex and, perhaps, ucountryconnectionsqatar.comedictable issue.

Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand - erupted in , , but rocks date yrs old. Hualalai basalt, Hawaii erupted years ago, but rocks were dated to 22 million yrs old. Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in , but rocks were date to , yrs old. Mount St. Helens erupted in , but rocks were dated up to. Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals. Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. The following material may be freely copied and distributed as long as the author is properly acknowledged and the material is not altered, edited or sold. INTRODUCTION.

Nevertheless, as discussed in Dalrymplep. Furthermore, if excess argon is relatively abundant in older samples, Ar-Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can detect and eliminate its effects as examples, McDougall and Harrison,p.

The standard age of the rock is said to be 1. Plenty of time for the process to reach steady state by uniformitarian standards. All this time as Helium a very light element is given off, it slips around the other atoms and leaves the crystal lattice.

The hotter the crystal, the faster the He escapes into the surrounding rock. As the Zircon crystals were studied, it was apparent there was a lot of He still in the crystal - in fact much too much - if this was going on for a billion years. Measurements in a blind experiment were taken that showed how much Helium should be left after certain amounts of time, at various heat levels of the rock and the diffusion rate of He leaving the crystal.

Predictions were made for the diffusion rates based on two different relationships - one for an evolutionary time frame of billions of years, and one for a Creationist time frame of thousands of years.

The results from an independent lab showed the diffusion rate to be practically the same as the predicted creationist rate. Extremely close - excellent results for the young-earth creationist time frame, and not at all what the evolutionary time frame predicted.

thank for the

This is proof that those deep earth rocks with large amounts helium still in the zircon crystals were only thousands of years old.

They cannot be a billion years ol or close to that figure. If you believe in predictive, quantifiable science, then you cannot believe in 1. In order to get the level of helium found in the rocks, there had to have been a lot of radioactive decay. But the results show also that there was not only very a rapid decay episode, but the helium still in the crystal, shows it happened in the recent past.

Recent as in thousands of years ago, not millions let alone billions. Polonium halos in granite and metamorphic rocks formed in the catastrophic world-wide flood indicate a young age as well. Samples came from several granites. Halos are a microscopic spherical pattern of damage in the crystalline structure of the granite. The damage is caused by high energy alpha particles that are emitted by radiometric decay of the Uranium in the rock. Particles like tiny bullets pierce the rock and leave a spherical pattern, outward from the U atoms.

Polonium is very unstable, and decays quickly. Some can decay in 3 minutes, some a few days. Po halos are also found in all rocks and in large numbers. How can they be there in large numbers? This conundrum can only be explained if there were one or more rapid changes in U decay rates. The large numbers of these Po halo finds do indicate very quick changes in decay rates and that the rocks cannot be millions and millions of years old. Again, the observable science fits the Creation model and not the uniformitarian model.

Carbon 14 or radiocarbon is an entirely different method of dating materials in the earth. It is only used on material that was once alive. Bones, flesh, plants, and any remains that are not entirely fossilized into rock, is what C can be used on. It is only good for a dating back with any confidence to less than 80, years. This is because C the radioactive parent element has a half life of only 5, years.

C is from the atmosphere and part of the food chain.

you were not

Plants take in as carbon dioxide, the C is the carbon atom, instead of the normal and stable C It is everywhere and all through the food chain, such that all living things as well as the atmosphere, have about the same amount of carbon inside their living tissue.

However once a plant or animal dies, it stops ingesting new C Again, radio-carbon dating is only used on samples that were once alive, and is typically good for only ages up to 80, years with any reliability. It was never used to indicate millions of years of age for fossils or rocks or anything else.

Evolutionists never use C on samples they believe to be millions of years old. Yet samples of material analysis of rocks believed to be millions of years old, do contain tiny microscopic fragments of shells, bone, graphite wood and other organic materials.

The compositional analysis of its contents from these studies have been published in many scientific journals. Because of these observations, the RATE Team collected samples of coal Metamorphosed plant remains from deep mines from all over the earth.

Each one is thought to be hundreds of millions of years old, and therefore should be C dead. These samples were sent to independent labs for C dating. Bones of dinosaurs were also dated, as well as petrified wood. In fact, fossil samples from a large spectrum of the fossil record were also tested. Diamonds from deep mines were also tested. Samples of industrial diamonds from around the world were also tested. This is real observable science. And all of these methods give maximum dates that are that are not in the billions of years and are totally incompatible with evolutionary time spans.

In fact, the modern findings of jumbled dinosaur and sea-life graveyards all over the earth, soft tissue in dinosaur bones, as well as the C mentioned above, all make the old-earth age beliefs look very wrong. Laetoli foot prints in Africa and the Paluxy river footprints in Texas and in the wrong sequences based on evolutionary assumptions. All the many inconsistentcies simply make the million year old age of rocks and strata untenable. And yes, if the obvious conclusion is that there is a Creator and the Bible can be trusted - it does have deep spiritual repercussions.

Vardiman, A. Snelling, and E. Joseph, MO. By Dr. Donald DeYoung. DeYoung authored this non-technical book in order to equip the layperson to defend scientific six-day creation and refute modern dating techniques. For more than five years, the RATE team labored examining modern dating techniques and found that these techniques do not support an earth that is billions of years old. The relevance and processes of helium diffusion, fission tracks, and methods of radioisotope dating are described in a way that the attentive reader can understand.

Long before Madam Curie and the invention of radiation detectors. Perhaps you could give more information on this c14 dating of fossils? I could understand if perhaps one or two people are now lost in history so to speakbut I see you also mention there are MANY such examples which is really lucky because then its obviously well documented what they were, what data came back, who done the analysis and more importantly WHY they ALL done the analysis without question when they all knew c14 is not present in fossils.

See heres an example of a creationist paper that can be reviewed and both the raw data, the testing method, the results and absolutely everything can be reviewed I looked around online on sciencemag, pubmed and other creationist sources and found no such information. So since you published this article obviously you succeeded to find the information where I failed.

There are lots of examples of C14 found in dino bones. The most well known example was in This includes documentation of an Allosaurus bone sample that was sent to The University of Arizona Tucson to be carbon dated. The result was sample B at 16, years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be aroun years. The samples of bone were blind samples. Mickel, seems like you are not familiar with C14 and how it is very different from other forms of radiometric dating.

C14 is used on bones and buried plant and firewood samples all the time from anthropological digs. The dino bones were blind samples. The labs were not told these were Dino bone fragments, but the labs test bones and partially fossilized bones like this all the time. C14 is only good for maximum dates of 80, years or so. But every time someone does test for C14 in Dino bone fragments - its always found. But more importantly you also did not comment on the main points of the article here.

The assumptions of long age dating techniques like U-Pb have been shown to be wrong. Here is an article by an independent research group that explains C14 dating and its issues, as well as their procedures for testing dinosaur bone samples - not just for C14 but also for Collagen.

The soft tissue includes not just proteins like collagen, but also apparent red corpuscles inside a small vein-like structure. The entire story of dinosaurs going extinct 65 million years ago is completely disintegrating. Note: Collagen is a protein found exclusively in animals. It is the main component of connective tissue, and is the most abundant protein in mammals. Collagen, in the form of elongated fibrils, is typically found in fibrous tissues such as tendons, ligaments as well as the cornea, cartilage, and bones.

My wife and I saw you in Morrison Il sunday and thoroughly enjoyed your presentation!!!

Facebook twitter google_plus reddit linkedin



  1. Doushakar

    It is intolerable.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *