Sunday, March 3, 2013

Mary's Bones Part V: How Did Those 24,000 Carbon Year Bones Get Inside Those 80,000,000 Radiometric Year Rocks?

In Mary's Bones Parts 1, II, III, and IV, we have followed the amazing story of dinosaur bones, purportedly 60-80,000,000 years old (based on the radiometric dating of the strata in which the bones were found), which present the extreme anomaly of soft tissues, hemes, and collagen.

Over at the Talk Rational blog, an extensive debate was engaged on just what the scientific method requires, when Red Dots such as these present themselves to our attention, as precious opportunities to experimentally test (and potentially falsify) that which we think we know.

After several hundred posts where, we were assured, such dino bone anomalies:

1. Don't exist,
2. Even if they do, constitute no challenge to the theory of evolution,
3. Cannot be carbon dated since they are too old,
4. Can be carbon dated to detect modern contamination,
5. Cannot be carbon dated since they will all be contaminated,
6. Can be prepared so as to remove modern contaminants,
7. Cannot be prepared so as to remove modern contaminants............

We finally, at the tail end of the thread, are presented with, at long last, an indication that not all evolutionary scientists have completely departed the realm of science after all.

In this post we are linked to a study which dates- by C14 test- dinosaur bones from Cretaceous (supposedly 65-80 mya) strata.

The bones C14 date to approximately 24,000 carbon years, consistent with dozens of similar C14 tests on other Cretaceous dino bones throughout the world.

On the one hand we can congratulate the team for dating the bones.

On the other we must now ask our Darwinist friends to explain to us how bones that date to 24,000 carbon years got inside rocks that date to 65-80,000,000 radiometric years.

Ain't science fun?

36 comments:

  1. Statement: the earth is over 5 billion years old. Falsified.
    Statement: the earth is under 4 billion years old. Falsified.

    These bones are not the earth.

    Possible explanations:
    1. Maybe the bones are young and some dinosaurs lived much more recently, then were buried much deeper than we expected.

    2. Maybe carbon isotope fluctuates after a certain long period, and carbon is replenished.

    Impossible explanation:
    The earth and fossil are young.

    This is impossible because it has already been falsified. It is an unscientific answer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Welcome A:

    A: Statement: the earth is over 5 billion years old. Falsified.

    >> Falsified? No. Merely asserted. You must actual falsify what you claim is falsified. Merely stating "falsified" doesn't cut the mustard..


    A: Statement: the earth is under 4 billion years old. Falsified.

    >> Falsified? No. Merely asserted. You must actual falsify what you claim is falsified. Merely stating "falsified" doesn't cut the mustard..


    A: These bones are not the earth.

    >> Exactly as true, as it is irrelevant.

    A: Possible explanations:
    1. Maybe the bones are young and some dinosaurs lived much more recently, then were buried much deeper than we expected.

    >> Nope. The bones were found in Cretaceous strata, strata which is claimed to have been radiometrically dated at 65-80 mya

    2. Maybe carbon isotope fluctuates after a certain long period, and carbon is replenished.

    >> Maybe magical collagen fairies are preserving the soft tissue right along with the little magical pumps that replenish the carbon.

    The above is certainly possible, but it is not a scientific hypothesis, since it cannot be falsified.

    A: Impossible explanation:
    The earth and fossil are young.

    >> Wrong. There is nothing impossible about that.

    A:This is impossible because it has already been falsified. It is an unscientific answer.

    >> To the contrary. What is unscientific is to claim something has been falsified, and not bother to prove it.

    Which is exactly what you have done here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Both statements are falsified. Radioisotope dating and stellar measurements have falsified them. It is impossible for the earth to be older than 5 billion years. It is also impossible for the earth to be younger than 4 billion years.

    If you accept radioisotope dating to determine the age of bones, you need to accept it to determine the age of the earth.

    If you have 24000 year old bones, then you have a 4.5 billion year old earth.

    If you reject radioisotope dating for the earth, then you need to reject it for the bones, and then you don't know that the bones are 24000 years old.

    Can't have it both ways.

    Don't uphold falsified statements as true. It's unscientific and dishonest. Try to find a better explanation. Stop ignoring the red dots.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A: "Both statements are falsified."

    >> Neither statement has been subjected to so much as an attempt to falsify them, thus far. Let's see what you've got......

    A: Radioisotope dating and stellar measurements have falsified them.

    >> The radiosotope ratings present us with a Red Dot contradiction between the 65-80mya ages of the rocks, and the soft tissues C14 dated to 24,000 years. This constitutes a direct contradiction between two separate radiometric dating approaches- nothing is established until this contracition is experimentally resolved.

    The stellar measurements are based upon an *interpretation* of redshift. If there were no way to cause a redshift other than recession, and if the General Relativity theory is accepted, *then* we would have an experimental proof of the stellar ages.

    We don't.

    First, redshift has been experimentally demonstrated to be caused by factors *other* than recession, including an intrinsic property of plasmas, demonstrated experimentally *in the lab*.

    Second, General Relativity's gravitational equations are so drastically at odds with observations on the galactic scale and above, that we must invent 96% of the universe in the form of mathematical fictions, "dark matter" and "dark energy", in order to bridge this astonishing gap between theory and observation.

    One is not entitled to claim as "proof", a calculation that involves inventing 96% of the mass of the universe out of whole cloth.

    A: It is impossible for the earth to be older than 5 billion years. It is also impossible for the earth to be younger than 4 billion years."

    >> Not demonstrated as to the first, false as to the second.

    A: If you accept radioisotope dating to determine the age of bones, you need to accept it to determine the age of the earth.

    >> Since the radiosotope methods provide us two drastically contradictory ages, we need accept only that we presently have not established the age of the Earth.

    A: If you have 24000 year old bones, then you have a 4.5 billion year old earth.

    >> Non sequitir.

    A: If you reject radioisotope dating for the earth, then you need to reject it for the bones, and then you don't know that the bones are 24000 years old.

    >> Non sequitir. Perhaps the C14 ages are correct, and the other radiometric methods are wrong. Perhaps the converse is true.

    We don;t know.

    A: Can't have it both ways.

    >> Exactly. Can;t have it both ways. One or the other dating method is wrong.

    We do not know which one yet.

    A:Don't uphold falsified statements as true. It's unscientific and dishonest. Try to find a better explanation. Stop ignoring the red dots.

    >> Repeat that to yourself when you are shaving tomorrow morning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. maybe both dating methods are right. you don't know.

    C14 fluctuation is falsifiable. take some biomatter with artificially depleted C14. bury a bunch of it in a similar environment to the bones. measure different bits of it over a few decades. find different amounts of C14 in the bits. get a constraint on possible fluctuations. if the fluctuations are too small, then we know the measured C14 in the bones can't be explained this way.

    young bones getting into old rocks is a possibility. how can you rule it out?

    we know that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.

    the stellar measurements i'm talking about deal with the HR diagram. not with redshift. redshift helps constrain the age of the universe, not the earth (although there are better ways to constrain the age of the universe than redshift). the starlight would be travelling toward this point whether the earth was here or not.

    the earth must be between 4-5 billion years old, because the alternatives have been definitively falsified. you don't like the answers, because they don't fit with your religion. but those are the answers.

    that's the great thing about science. it doesn't matter what you believe.

    you have two choices. you can accept the science and live with mystery, or you can bury your head in your holy book and become a creationist.

    i choose mystery. life's more exciting that way.

    the bones mystery is interesting. i wonder how it will be solved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A: maybe both dating methods are right. you don't know.


      >> Both can't be right. One cannot put 24,000 carbon year bones inside 80,000,000 radiometric year rocks.


      A: C14 fluctuation is falsifiable. take some biomatter with artificially depleted C14. bury a bunch of it in a similar environment to the bones. measure different bits of it over a few decades. find different amounts of C14 in the bits. get a constraint on possible fluctuations. if the fluctuations are too small, then we know the measured C14 in the bones can't be explained this way.

      >> The thing is, we already have a better control. We have already dated the Cretaceous strata, we know this method gives us 65-80 mya. Any bone that comes out of this strata cannot, by definition, contain any measurable C14, which is measurable only to about 60,000 carbon years at the very edge of our sensitivities.

      So we pull the bones out and measure C14 levels.

      We get positives.

      OK.

      Maybe its as you say- maybe the C14 recycles, contrary to all observation and contrary to the theory of radiometric dating in the first place.

      But there's a problem.

      It isn;t *just* the C14.

      It's the soft tissue.

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics is even far more solidly established than are the foundational assumptions governing radiometric decay.

      There is no remote possibility that collagen, for example, could exist for but a tiny fraction of the 65-80,000,000 year ages ascribed to the Cretaceous strata.

      So we have *two* direct contradictions of the long-age datings:

      1. C14 in measurable quantities (impossible beyond about 60,000 carbon years)
      2. Soft tissue and collagen (impossible *even under perfect, laboratory conditions at a constant 10 degree Centigrade, for over a million years or so).

      Delete
    2. A: young bones getting into old rocks is a possibility. how can you rule it out?

      >> Because the rocks have been sitting there for eighty jillion years, and the bones cannot have burrowed themselves in.

      A: we know that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.

      >> We do not know any such thing.

      A: the stellar measurements i'm talking about deal with the HR diagram. not with redshift.

      >> Alas for your HR diagram, it requires us to believe in the existence of Population III stars. These, somewhat like dark matter and dark energy, exist only in the textbooks and formulas of theorists.

      They have never been observed in the real universe.


      A: redshift helps constrain the age of the universe, not the earth (although there are better ways to constrain the age of the universe than redshift).

      >> There is no way to constrain the age of the universe, if it turns out that our assumptions concerning the Population III stars, and hence the appearance of heavier elements, are not supported by observations.

      A: the starlight would be travelling toward this point whether the earth was here or not.

      >> So?

      A: the earth must be between 4-5 billion years old, because the alternatives have been definitively falsified. you don't like the answers, because they don't fit with your religion. but those are the answers.

      >> To the contrary, you keep insisting that you have demonstrated this, when instead we see that your demonstration requires us to believe in things never actually observed, merely assumed.

      A: that's the great thing about science. it doesn't matter what you believe.

      >> To the contrary, science consists in beliefs just like anything else. The *supposed* difference, is that science ought to only believe that which it can experimentally demonstrate. Your arguments here show how far we have strayed from *that*.

      A: you have two choices. you can accept the science and live with mystery, or you can bury your head in your holy book and become a creationist.

      >> Non sequitir.

      Creation is a certainty, since the universe demonstrably cannot have brought itself into existence.

      A: i choose mystery. life's more exciting that way.

      >> Spoken like a true Cargo Cultist :-)

      A: the bones mystery is interesting. i wonder how it will be solved?

      >> Eventually a rigorous program of C14 testing will have to be done on all Cretaceous samples, especially those presenting soft tissues.

      Delete
  6. also, its not one or the other dating method. either both are right, or C14 is wrong in this case, or numerous different dating methods are wrong in all the cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There exists a direct, Red Dot contradiction between the results of different radiometric dating methods.

      That's important.

      There also exists (and this is far more important still) a direct contradiction between the existence of soft tissues in Cretaceous dino bones, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics itself- *if we assume the Cretaceous strata are as old as the long-age ratings suggest*.

      It's fun!

      We are about to learn something.

      Delete
  7. Population III stars should not be able to be seen yet. They are a prediction for future observations.

    Population III stars are part of an origin theory for current stars, and not an explanation for how current stars age. Their existence or non-existence does not affect current stellar evolution models or current measurements.

    Hypothetically, C14 will date dino bones accurately. Bones were C14 dated to 24000 years. Either the hypothesis that C14 will date dino bones accurately is falsified, or the dino is 24000 years old.

    Radioisotope dating and stellar measurements determine the age of the earth cannot be over 5 billion years or under 4 billion years. Future results will establish better limits. No result with C14 can imply an age > 5 billion years or < 4 billion years. It is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Population III stars should not be able to be seen yet. They are a prediction for future observations. "


      >> Ha! That is hilarious. It is indeed handy to be able to predict the future, when explaining the past, while having not the slightest bit of evidence in the present.

      But it sure as heck isn't science.

      A: Population III stars are part of an origin theory for current stars, and not an explanation for how current stars age. Their existence or non-existence does not affect current stellar evolution models or current measurements.

      >> Alas, A, without Pop III stars your BB theory has no way to account for the existence of any element heavier than helium.

      Since we see elements heavier than helium, but we do not see Pop III stars, there is of course no scientific proof for any age of the universe purported to be based upon your model.

      The situation drastically worsens even from this woeful situation once we grasp how drastically wrong the GR gravity theories are at scales larger than a stellar cluster.

      The entire standard model is a baroque, rapidly-escalating Rube Goldberg contraption of epicycle upon epicycle.

      Hypothetically, C14 will date dino bones accurately. Bones were C14 dated to 24000 years. Either the hypothesis that C14 will date dino bones accurately is falsified, or the dino is 24000 years old.

      A: Radioisotope dating and stellar measurements determine the age of the earth cannot be over 5 billion years or under 4 billion years. Future results will establish better limits. No result with C14 can imply an age > 5 billion years or < 4 billion years. It is impossible.

      >> Since your radiosotope dating is based upon an assumed derivation of heavier elements via Pop III stars, and your stellar measurements likewise depend upon that epicycle- which is not observed- we are not in any wayu bound to accept your metaphysical creation myth as scientific.

      It isn't.

      Science involves experimentally falsifiable hypotheses.

      Obviously, if one can invent inflation, Pop III stars, and 96% of the universe out of mathematical fictions dark matter and dark energy, one is not discussing an experimentally falsifiable theory- one is dealing with a metaphysical creation story.

      Delete
  8. Soft tissues in millions of years old dinosaur bones do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, they do.

      See http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

      Table, second page.

      Cheers!

      Delete
  9. Your previous statement did not mention current stellar evolution models or current stellar measurements.

    The abundances of heavy elements in the sun can be determined observationally. Observations of many thousands of stars at different ages allow us to constrain the age of the sun. The sun is not older than 5 billion years. It is not younger than 4 billion years.

    You have not addressed the numerous dating methods that all agree.

    Maybe the dino is 24000 years old. Maybe C14 dating cannot be used to determine the age of dinosaur tissue. Both explanations account for the current measurements. Neither requires adjusting the age of the earth.

    This is science. Open your eyes. Let your assumptions be challenged. Don't ignore the red dots.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The table you suggest lists activation energies, temperatures and detection limits. It does not discuss entropy or any other thermodynamic variables.

    The paper itself does not mention the second law of thermodynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since all of your stellar evolution models are based upon a Big Bang, from which inflation proceeds (not a shred of a hint about the particle physics identity of the inflation), from which Pop III stars appear (not a hint of evidence for any Pop III stars), as a result of gravitational formation under the influence of dark matter (not a shred of a hint of evidence for dark matter)........

    We see that your models depend upon vast assumptions for which no evidence is presented.

    We are not in any way bound to accept such chains of supposition in the absence of experimentally verifiable evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stellar evolution does not require the big bang. Stellar evolution models generally require a metallicity, mass and effective temperature. Basic physics is applied and the age of the object is determined.

    Big bang is not necessary to constrain the age of the sun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stellar evolution *assumes* that the elements in the star came into existence via a Big Bang, mediated via Pop III stars.

      If, on the other hand, the stars were created in the condition we presently observe them, all assumptions concerning their age, would simply be artifacts of the metaphysical assumption of the Big Bang.

      Delete
  13. I suggest you go back and read the paper again, and notice that each time the words "degradation", "loss", "deterioration", etc. are employed, they are referring to a process which is known as "entropy", which process is described as the outcome of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The dinosaur bone is not a closed system. Even if the bone were a closed system, the deterioration could happen slower than the paper suggests without the second law of thermodynamics being violated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, you are wrong.

      The scientists in the linked paper above have provided *upper limit* preservation ages, even under ideal laboratory conditions, that are well over an order of magnitude less than the purported ages of the soft-tissue bearing Cretaceous dino bones.

      So your above assertion, while admissible as an article of faith, is contrary to the scientific evidence.

      Delete
  15. Maybe we were made 15 minutes ago with our memories intact. Current observations do not rule out this possibility. It would then be interesting to ask what our lives would have been like if we were older than 15 minutes.

    Maybe the sun is only 1000 years old. It is interesting to ask what its existence would have been like if it were older than 1000 years.

    With current solar metallicity, temperature and mass, the age of the sun can be determined. The Big Bang is not a necessary assumption. God could have made the protostar, baby sun, and let it evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The upper limits are not determined from pure thermodynamic principles.

    It may be unlikely for tissue to be preserved for millions of years. It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they are determined from pure thermodynamic (entropy) principles.

      And yes, it is exactly the Second Law of Thermodynamics which yields the upper ages calculated in the paper linked.

      Upper limits which, by the way, are at least a full order of magnitude less than what we observe in the dino bones.

      Ergo, we have a serious problem for the evolutionary, long ages timeline.

      Delete
  17. "Maybe we were made 15 minutes ago with our memories intact."

    >> But there would be no experiment which could disprove such an assumption, therefore it is not a scientific hypothesis.


    Current observations do not rule out this possibility.

    >> They merely rule out the possibility of falsifying it experimentally; that is, they rule it out as a scientific hypothesis.

    A: It would then be interesting to ask what our A lives would have been like if we were older than 15 minutes.

    >> Our lives would be exactly as they are now. There would be no difference at all. One could advance the metaphysical hypothesis that we all came into existence 15 minutes ago, and the rest of us could recognize that, since there could be no conceivable experimental basis for falsifying such an hypothesis, it is therefore *not* a scientific hypothesis.

    A: Maybe the sun is only 1000 years old. It is interesting to ask what its existence would have been like if it were older than 1000 years.

    >> It is true that we do not possess experimental proof for the age of the Sun.

    A: With current solar metallicity, temperature and mass, the age of the sun can be determined.

    >> No. One can advance an hypothesis of its age, based on various assumptions. One cannot experimentally demonstrate those assumptions to be true; that is, it is impossible to dismiss alternative hypotheses, based strictly on experimental grounds.

    A: The Big Bang is not a necessary assumption.

    >> We agree.

    A:
    God could have made the protostar, baby sun, and let it evolve.

    >> We agree. God could also have made the Sun in its present condition, and let it devolve :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Both cases: 15 minute old us and < 4 billion year old earth have been ruled out by observation. They may be true religious beliefs. They are possible only outside of science. Therefore I treat both cases as impossible.

    I choose to base my beliefs on science as much as possible, and on holy books as little as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you are contradicting yourself.

      You earlier acknowledged that no observation could falsify the proposition that we all popped into existence fifteen minutes ago with intact memories.

      This is correct.

      Nothing can falsify such a proposition.

      Now you say it can be observationally falsified.

      How?

      Delete
  19. No observation can falsify a belief that explains every possible observation. Sensible people reject these beliefs out of hand.

    Once these explanations are rejected, many observations falsify the earth being less than 15 minutes old. I see many things that are older than 15 minutes.

    Observations also falsify the earth being less than 4 billion years old, or more than 6 billion years old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No observation can falsify a belief that explains every possible observation."

      >> Exactly as I said. So why did you claim, above, that "15 minute old us and < 4 billion year old earth have been ruled out by observation"?

      You continue to contradict yourself on this point.


      "Sensible people reject these beliefs out of hand."

      >> What beliefs? Those that cannot be experimentally tested? Absurd. We believe in love, justice, happiness, truth, beauty....none mofm these can be subjected to scientific experiement, and yet all exist.

      Only a truly pathetic fool would reject these out of hand.


      "Once these explanations are rejected, many observations falsify the earth being less than 15 minutes old. I see many things that are older than 15 minutes."

      >> Nothing can *falsify*- in the experimental sense- the notion that we all popped into existence fifteen minutes ago with our memories intact.

      But it is not a scientific proposition.

      Would you care to debate it on metaphysical grounds?

      It can be completely falsified there.

      A: Observations also falsify the earth being less than 4 billion years old, or more than 6 billion years old.

      >> This has been refuted above, multiple times, and simply repeating yourself is not advancing the discussion.

      All of your purported "proofs" for the age of the Earth have been shown to rely upon suppositions which, themselves, have not been experimentally demonstrated.

      I invite you to advance any new ideas you jight have, please don;t keep repeating the old ones.

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, they are determined from pure thermodynamic (entropy) principles.

    If this is the case, then they will have shown that a system that degrades more slowly decreases its entropy. Any system that degrades at any rate increases in entropy. The authors would therefore be demonstrably wrong.

    The presence of soft tissue in a 60 million year old dino bone does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. If the authors of that paper claim otherwise, then the authors are wrong.

    The authors do not seem to make such a claim in their paper. Only you make that claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My friend, I invite you to notice that tissues degrade because of a thing called entropy.

      Then go back and read the linked study, which sets upper limits on the time frames over which collagen can be preserved against this entropic degradation.

      You will notice that the resulting figure is drastically too short for your long ago dino bones.

      All the best.

      Delete
  22. Given a belief that can explain all possible observations, nothing has ever been falsified. Any theory may be true. Falsification then has no place in science.

    Love and justice cannot explain all possible observations, and so they are not rejected out of hand.

    I reject beliefs that explain all possible observation. I can then do science.

    I do not know what you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Given a belief that can explain all possible observations, nothing has ever been falsified."

      >> Yawn. Been over this several times already.

      That which is insusceptible of experimental falsification, is not a scientific proposition.

      Get it?

      "Any theory may be true. Falsification then has no place in science."

      >> If it ain't falsifiable, It ain't science.

      Get it?

      "Love and justice cannot explain all possible observations, and so they are not rejected out of hand."

      >> Neither are they susceptible of scientific experimental quantification. So they are both real, and non-scientific.

      Get it?

      A: I reject beliefs that explain all possible observation.

      >> The you reject natural selection.

      A: I can then do science.

      >> Yes, once you dump the tautology, you can then get back to doing science.

      A: I do not know what you do.

      >> At this point, mostly attempt to clean up after your self-contradictions.

      Delete
  23. You have not refuted the age of the earth. You have failed to address either the stellar evolution model or the multiple radioisotope dating methods that all agree. Instead, you propose an unfalsifiable belief that can explain every possible observation: God did it.

    This is my last comment. The discussion has been resolved. You reject science because of a book.

    Thanks for your clarity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You have not refuted the age of the earth."

      >> Refuted it? You have not established any age of the earth in the first place.

      "You have failed to address either the stellar evolution model or the multiple radioisotope dating methods that all agree."

      >> To the contrary, I have addressed both. "All agree" is not a category of scientific verification.

      Experimental confirmation is a category of scientific verification.

      You have not experimentally verified either the age of the Earth, or the age of the cosmos.


      "Instead, you propose an unfalsifiable belief that can explain every possible observation: God did it."

      >> It is quite true that God did it (creation), since the cosmos certainly cannot have brought itself into existence, and hence the cosmos cannot be attributed any natural cause.

      This has nothing at all to do with the age of the Earth, or of the cosmos.

      A:This is my last comment. The discussion has been resolved. You reject science because of a book.

      Thanks for your clarity.

      >> Yer welcome.

      Delete