http://www.worldbydesign.org/evidenc.htm#title1a
Bone fragments from the 30 ft. long Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur, excavated by members of CEM of Glen Rose TX and CRSEF of Columbus OH (Carl Baugh, Collector), were subjected to the radiocarbon dating process at three different laboratories. Again this was an attempt to falsify the fossil foot print evidence and the successful radiocarbon dating of carbonized wood from the cretaceous period. Table 3 lists these dates and for those of four other samples from four separate excavations of other dinosaurs; three came from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh PA. As you will note the dates ranged from about 9,890 to 36,500 radiocarbon years (Beta system) before the present (B.P.).
The expensive accelerated mass spectrometer (AMS) gave the most reproducible dates namely 23,760 +/-270 B.P. at the prestigious University of Arizona National Academy of Science facilities and 25,750 +/-280 at an overseas AMS Lab; the sample at the former was surface scrapings with a carbon content of 3.5% and the latter was a gaseous sample from the crushing of about 180 grams of bone fragments.
Other fragments were dated by a third laboratory using the beta counter; dates of 32,400 and 36,500 were obtained. These along with 39,500 B.P. for dinosaur coprolyte found buried with Acrocanthosaurus were some 7,000 or so years older than the dates obtained with the highly respected AMS. It is important to note that the 32,400 B.P. date was obtained on the same sample that was dated overseas on the more sensitive AMS system which gave a date of 25,750 +/-280 years B.P. A sample of the same carbon dioxide gas was used in both systems with the 7,000 years younger date being obtained on the AMS.Because the AMS appears to be the choice of radiocarbon dating experts today; and, because the AMS is assigned very low +/-deviations we tend to believe the lower dates as true values for the radiocarbon dating process. But, of course, not the true dates. The carbon dating assumptions are thought to give radiocarbon dates that are still too high based on the discoveries of Dr. Libby (5), and interpretations of Whitelaw (6) and Aardsma (11) and others. The true dates are still elusive. However, reducing the dinosaur age by 1,000 times is no small discovery.
Other paleontologists have noted that dinosaur bones as a rule are "carbonized on the surface and throughout the lamellar outer layers" (12). "Kerogenous hydrocarbons" are often present in the central pores and Haversian canals according to the same source. When a cross section of an Acrocanthosaurus bone fragment was sectioned and mounted metallographically in 1989 we also noted that the pores were black which we assumed to be carbonized material. Although there is little or no collagen in the bones as observed by radiocarbon dating labs the organic matter present in the bones are obviously biogenic in nature; that is: the source of the carbon is the dinosaur tissue and other organic matter buried with it.
Hashed up plant material is often buried with dinosaurs so perhaps we should arrange more excavations where we can acquire our own samples of both bone and vegetation.
Since four of the dinosaur dates were less than 17,000 B.P. we saw no reason at this time to repeat the experiments on the more sensitive and more expensive AMS. These dinosaur bone fragments for four separate dinosaurs came from the Colorado-Utah region and include the Allosaurus and the Camarasaurus. All the bone fragments dated so far have contained carbon-14.
How does this carbonized coating form? This too is very simple. Here is the definition for carbonization from the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia: "CARBONIZATION; THE REDUCTION OF ORGANIC TISSUE TO A CARBON RESIDUE. AN UNUSUAL KIND OF FOSSILIZATION IN WHICH THE TISSUE IS PRESERVED AS A CARBON FILM. PLANTS ARE COMMONLY PRESERVED IN THIS MANNER, SOFT BODIED ANIMALS MORE RARELY". THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHAT WE HAVE DATED IS THE CARBON RESIDUE OF THE DINOSAUR TISSUE.
Indeed, the bones of dinosaurs buried and compressed in a fresh state and encased in their rocky tombs seem to give mute testimony to an untimely demise. The Acrocanthosaurus was smashed to a thickness of 15-20 cm indicating catastrophic burial; portions of others were also found here. The presence of carbon in the surfaces and pores of many dinosaurs is therefore not surprising. However, could large quantities of carbon containing radioactive C-14 migrate through the clay to the dinosaur bones to give false readings? Our laboratory studies of clay samples from adjacent to and above the dinosaur burial site along the Paluxy River say, No.
The carbon content of the surrounding clays decreases with increasing distance from the bones, confirming that the dinosaur is the source of the carbon present in the bones. Samples were taken to two different labs in 1991 which confirmed earlier data obtained from one lab in 1990 (1). Also clay is well known for preventing seepage of ground water through to underlying surfaces. Furthermore the carbon content in the clay was so low (0.5% adjacent to the bones reducing to 0.1% three feet away) that it can be said that the clay also prevented the carbon of the dinosaur from migrating very far from the bones; or, put another way - carbon migration proceeds away from the bones.Another possible C-14 contamination is from the samples themselves due to modern bush or three rootlets. However, the labs assure us that "contamination is unlikely" (13). The pretreatment procedures are designed to remove rootlets, carbonates, and alkali-soluble humic material, all of which could add modern carbon to the sample; carbonized wood in this case.
Bones are washed with dilute acetic acid, and crushed to less than 1 mm in size. The bone powder is then digested in cold dilute acetic acid with constant agitation for 24 hours to remove normal carbonates. The sample is then hydrolyzed under vacuum with HCL to dissolve bone appetite and evolve its carbon dioxide for analysis. Of course all of the above is being done primarily for specimens buried in dirt not in rock strata protected by compacted clay (volcanic ?) that would tend to prevent even water percolating through the cretaceous rock strata. That the clay has indeed offered such great protection is the fact that the underlying fossil ichnites are so beautifully preserved. When exposed to air without the protective clay layer they erode within weeks and months.
So, for the reader who philosophically likes the results presented here permit us to quote a few of the comments from scientists who learned from reporters that we have used their facilities to date cretaceous fossils directly; or, obtained fossil bone fragments from their museum. These comments should bring you back to reality very quickly. "Carbon dating dinosaur bones is ludicrous, and the fact they yielded numbers is meaningless," says a museum curator.
"While paleontologists use several methods in dating, part of the disparity rests in the need for researchers to make some assumptions about the gross age of bones so the appropriate test method can be used. Carbon-14 dating and mass spectroscopy dating are best for specimens up to 50,000 years or so," said another. Ask CRSEF for the newspaper clippings.
"If a scientist believes the bones are millions of years older, the usual procedure is to date the age of the surrounding rock strata using potassium argon dating, all of which measure the amount of decay of those elements." These are some of the more kind remarks noted in major AP releases. One of the reporters who did the interviewing suggested, "The gulf separating the two camps is immense".
|
|