Collagen and C-14 in Dinosaur Bones

Videos commented on:

Decontaminated dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated
TrueThatiz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvWdWbLcJvQ

"Les commentaires ont été désactivés pour cette vidéo."

Nevertheless, it was commented on here:

Carbon Dating of Dinosaurs? A Critique of Creationist Claims
NaturaLegion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrnhUZWTaWY

In the following I number the issues, and replace one time signature to have two comments on same issue together:

I "was it really collagen"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:52 there was an antibodies test which confirmed the collagen

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl not interested in taking your (or their) word for it; where are the published results of that antibodies test? Citation please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Seeing a later part of your video, it might be that they took Mary Schweitzer's results as typical and the test you ask for as unneeded.

I'll have to ask them.

NaturaLegion

"it might be that they took Mary Schweitzer's results as typical and the test you ask for as unneeded"

That's a very dismissive way of saying they have absolutely no evidence that what they found was real dinosaur collagen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except the evidence it looks like collagen?

Except the evidence that on at least a Creationist view, collagen would be explainable, but even on an evolutionist one, biofilm is less so?

If anything, it is a way of saying I have not yet asked them about the full extent of their evidence.

NaturaLegion

"Except the evidence it looks like collagen?"

How do you know it looks like collagen? Please cite the source where I can find microscopy, immunochemistry, and mass spectrometry data from the creationists to confirm that the substance they carbon-dated was, in fact, collagen. You haven't done that yet; you've merely asserted that it "looks like" collagen. Do you expect me to take your word for it? Mary Schweitzer published the evidence that what she found was collagen. Why can't creationists do the same?

"Except the evidence that on at least a Creationist view, collagen would be explainable, but even on an evolutionist one, biofilm is less so?"

I refuted this in the video. Try paying attention next time.

NaturaLegion

Added

"If anything, it is a way of saying I have not yet asked them about the full extent of their evidence"

They haven't provided ANY evidence that what they found was collagen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We can see about that when I have asked them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Added

Sorry, only saw last of your two comments, here is to first one.

"You haven't done that yet; you've merely asserted that it 'looks like' collagen. Do you expect me to take your word for it?"

I am taking their word as that of scientists.

And will be asking them for details.

"Try paying attention next time."

As I am now in a library with sound off, how about resuming your refutation? You did not have one which spontaneously struck me as solid, or I would perhaps have remembered it, but if you do, I might actually say "oh, how clumsy of me not to have responded to this". Might, not sure I will.

I also suspect you are in the process of imposing a change of routine due to these finds, and they were using an older but real one.

I also asked you and you have not answered, why is biofilm not an issue with so many other C14 datings, apparently?

I b "collagen could be biofilm"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:20 If so, how is biofilm not an issue with about all regularly and acceptedly carbon dated samples?

I think biofilm was eliminated as a theoretical possibility by testing with antibodies.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl What antibodies test? Where can the results of such testing be found? Citation please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Didn't I already answer that they might have been using Mary Schweitzer's test result as typical?

And if they made a test of their own, I need to ask them about that first, didn't I say that, or was that on another time signature?

[It was on another time signature. See I "was it really collagen?".]

II "why was it not done in a sterile laboratory setting?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:27 why was it not done in a sterile laboratory setting?

Well, those sterile laboratory settings may have been blocking such tests of dinosaur bones.

Also, you show the bare hands of the sawing, but did you note the scalpels and aluminium foil used to collect the samples after that?

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl creationist organizations pull in millions of dollars in annual donations and book deals; it's not my problem that they choose to spend it on museums, theme parks, and lobbying instead of laboratories for doing research. And yes I noticed the scalpel and foil... doesn't address the issue I raised.

[Not even with a later footage given showing gloves used during actual extraction?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think they might have been following current palaeontological routine. If not, I don't know.

As for millions of dollars, you evolutionists are probably sponsored by more like a billion of tax dollars, and have plenty to spare on both lobbying and labs.

Also, Creationists prefer getting lab tests from NOT their own labs, so your side can't say they asked the lab to fake results which wheren't there.

NaturaLegion

"As for millions of dollars, you evolutionists are probably sponsored by more like a billion of tax dollars, and have plenty to spare on both lobbying and labs"

We're also the ones who provide actual EVIDENCE for our findings. In the video, for example, I reference the publications where any other scientist can examine the evidence that Mary Schweitzer has provided in support of her findings. We can see the mass spectrometry readouts, the atomic force microscopy images, the images of the immunochemistry staining, as well as a detailed description of her experimental methods, and we can examine her evidence meticulously to determine whether anything appears to be falsified or fabricated.

Creationists are welcome to do the same thing; it doesn't matter WHERE they conduct their research; if they provide real evidence for their beliefs in a way that others are free to examine, it doesn't matter whether the evidence came from a creationist's own lab. It only matters whether they fully disclose their evidence and a detailed description of their experimental methods. But creationists don't do that... they spend their money on museums, theme parks, and lobbying instead of conducting research and disclosing their evidence to the public.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We're also the ones who provide actual EVIDENCE for our findings."

Self promotion. Ignorance of what Creationists, both scientists and an amateur like I, are actually doing, at best.

"In the video, for example, I reference the publications where any other scientist can examine the evidence that Mary Schweitzer has provided in support of her findings."

Fine, I'll ask the creationist team about that.

"Creationists are welcome to do the same thing; it doesn't matter WHERE they conduct their research; if they provide real evidence for their beliefs in a way that others are free to examine, it doesn't matter whether the evidence came from a creationist's own lab."

If they did come with a result from their own labs, if not you, probably someone else, would cry wolf about mendacious results.

Papers are falsifiable. Cuts both ways.

Creationists may also be providing a lot of test papers from YOUR institutions in their museums, as far as I know.

III "Doesn't pre-Cambrian samples with pollen spores prove contamination?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:48 "Pollen spores have been founds far down as in pre-Cambrian rock layers. Btw, the fossil of a pollen producing plant is never found in pre-Cambrian rock layers."

You conclude contamination.

I conclude that pollen blew from some just pre-Flood plants to the biotope which became labelled as pre-Cambrian.

And obviously, "far down" is compared to the theoretical geological column, not about the depth in site of the findings.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl "I conclude that pollen blew from some just pre-Flood plants to the biotope which became labeled as pre-Cambrian"

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where did I say I had no evidence?

The pollen being there is equal evidence for either scenario.

This means your fear of contamination "can be dismissed without evidence", since the pollen "contaminating" pre-Cambrian are no evidence of "later contamination."

NaturaLegion

Show me an example of a fossil of a pollen-producing plant that was found in a pre-Cambrian layer. Until you do that, there is no justification for assuming that the pollen found in pre-Cambrian sediment layers came from plants that existed at the same time those layers formed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, there is, if it can be argued, as I do argue, that next pollen bearing tree went to a nearby layer which was labelled sth else than precambrian because of the presence of a pollen bearing tree.

In other words, your argument is virtually circular : pre-cambrian had no pollen bearing trees, so this layer with a pollen bearing tree can't be pre-cambrian. This layer with a pollen bearing tree is not pre-cambrian, so all to date found layers of pre-cambrian lack pollen bearing trees. "Ergo, pre-cambrian was a time before there were pollen bearing trees." (This last is the part of the circle you are at present arguing).

NaturaLegion

At no point did I infer or imply that the lack of pollen-producing plant fossils is the basis on which a layer is referred to as pre-Cambrian. I'm not making the circular argument that you accuse me of. There are sedimentary layers with fossils of pollen spores but no fossils of pollen-producing plants, ergo the pollen spores likely arrived in the layers after the layers were formed, and the layers were formed before the existence of pollen-producing plants.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"At no point did I infer or imply that the lack of pollen-producing plant fossils is the basis on which a layer is referred to as pre-Cambrian."

No, you didn't. It is know to me that others do in fact do so.

"I'm not making the circular argument that you accuse me of."

You are part of a group making it between you.

"There are sedimentary layers with fossils of pollen spores but no fossils of pollen-producing plants,"

Ergo the pollen producing plants arrived from the side just before the Flood and were if preserved classified as being of another layer, and a later one.

IV "the creationists have an a priori reason for their results"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9:37 considering how Mary Schweitzer has been attacked, I think she could have an a priori case for not giving Creationists too strong a support.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah the a priori reason is called the scientific method.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think that your ad hominem on creationists about their a priori could also be spelled out that way ...

NaturaLegion

What ad hominem? I'm more focused on attacking the arguments and claims that creationists make rather than attacking them personally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In the video you claimed they had a priori reasons for their conclusions.

That is you were questioning their honesty.

That is as much and as little an ad hominem as mine, when questioning Mary Schweitzer's courage.

NaturaLegion

"In the video you claimed they had a priori reasons for their conclusions"

Actually THEY claimed that they had a priori reasons for their conclusions. Check out 9:28

In response to your comments about Mary Schweitzer, the difference between her and the creationists I'm talking about in the video is that when on her claims, she presented experimental data to confirm the discovery of dinosaur collagen--atomic force microscopy, immunochemistry, and mass spectrometry. Let me know when the creationists start providing any evidence for their claims.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Actually THEY claimed that they had a priori reasons for their conclusions. Check out 9:28"

Can't in this library, no sound here. Bbl on that one.

"Let me know ..."

I am sorry, I am behind schedual. As a homeless man I live a fairly harrassed life.

I'll try to ask them.

V "dinosaurs and bears not found together, while known to occupy same region"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:11 "known to occupy the same region"

Perhaps not known to occupy the same biotope, though?

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl or the same time period. Find me one--just ONE--example of a dinosaur fossil confirmed to have been unearthed from a layer above the KT boundary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is that if it is unearthed from a layer physically in the rock above an iridium layer, that iridium layer will be labelled Permian-Triassic boundary instead of KT boundary.

Find me one place on earth where you have fossils from both below and above such an iridium layer, labelled KT, with a dinosaur below and a non-recent mammal (including dino or smilodon, obviously) above it.

Same, V b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:16 "why are no dinosaurs ever found in same rock layers as lions, tigers and bears"

Well, if you were a lion, tiger or bear, would you go near an area where dinosaurs were around? A Triceratops is more daunting than Gnus, and a T Rex is a very daunting rival, I'd say.

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl the average dinosaur was considerably smaller than a t-Rex... smaller even than the average bear or modern crocodile.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nevertheless, they might have preferred the company of similar creatures to the company of bears or wolves.

[Meaning that a very small dinosaur, not daunting to a bear or wolf, would be in company of a bigger dinosaur which was so daunting to them.]

NaturaLegion

Ad hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence behind the creationist position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, dinosaurs had smaller brains, so moved slower.

To a big dinosaur, that is no problem.

To a small one, that would be a problem in a habitat with bears or tigers as predators present.

Therefore they went instinctively to habitats with triceratopes or tyranni reges.

NaturaLegion

"dinosaurs had smaller brains, so moved slower"

Having a smaller brain does not mean moving slower. Rabbits move faster than humans. There are lizards that move faster than some mammals, despite having smaller brains. You are reasoning like a five-year-old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Rabbits move faster than humans."

Their brain size is larger than a lizard's in comparison. Probably smaller than a man's in comparison to total body mass, but then man is not specialised on speed.

"There are lizards that move faster than some mammals, despite having smaller brains."

Than some mammals. Key word, some.

Also, lizards and dinosaurs are not exactly the same thing, any more than snakes and dinosaurs.

"You are reasoning like a five-year-old."

And you relish ad hominems.

Supposing you won, I could not conclusively prove small dinos had a securitarian reason for clinging to larger ones, even so they might have other ones.

And there are other factors than security which sift animals in different biotopes to this very day.

Same, V c

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:21 if you find a Triceratops, the rock layer is labelled Cretaceous.

If you find a Dimetrodon, the rock layer is labelled Permian or possibly Triassic.

Why don't you ever find clearly non-recent bears or even mammoths in layers above Dinosaurs BUT these latter reached by digging down through bear or mammth layer?

NaturaLegion

Hans-Georg Lundahl not sure the point of your question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not sure that you are honest in saying that. I think after the previous remarks, the point of the question should be pretty clear.

YOU made a question why bears and dinosaurs are never found in same "layer".

I answer it with : they are never found in different ones in same location, unless bear is very recent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(added)

Did I really forget or differ to link to my research on this one?

This post includes an index to posts on the topic, and a fairly complete one:

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

NaturaLegion

"they are never found in different ones in same location, unless bear is very recent."

Your question is a red herring. Two fossils don't have to be found in the same location to be found in the same layer, since sedimentary layers can stretch across hundreds of miles. But incidentally, there actually are examples of dinosaur and bear fossils being found in the same region. For example, bear and tyrannosaurus fossils have both been unearthed in the Shandong province of China, within about a hundred miles from one another, albeit layers of different depth (the bear was found in pliocene layers while the tyrannosaurus was unearthed in--you guessed it--layers below the KT-boundary). Your time would be better spent learning about paleontology than leaving ill-informed YouTube comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I thank you for a very candid answer, it is at least a very dismissive way of admitting that you have NOT found a bear straight above a dinosaur, you have found both in Shandong (in Communist and Atheist-Evolutionist China!) and pretend to have traced the layers by all in between localities so that you are sure the dino layer is "geologically" lower, even when both were probably found about same depth, i e near surface.

You have not argued that you found a similar iridium layer labelled KT boundary below the bear, and if you do,I'd like to know what the bear was dated to, if it has been carbon dated.

It might be above the iridium layer simply because it is post-Flood.

If it is above anything like an iridium layer, you did not mention then KT boundary with the bear.

NaturaLegion

"it is at least a very dismissive way of admitting that you have NOT found a bear straight above a dinosaur"

Red herring.

"Communist and Atheist-Evolutionist China"

Hugh Miller's arguments are based on fossils discovered in Republican and Christian-Creationist Montana! See? I can make irrelevant points too.

"If it is above anything like an iridium layer, you did not mention then KT boundary with the bear"

I said it came from a pliocene layer; this means it's above the KT-boundary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your "red herring" is not one. It is a key point to understanding the intellectual dishonesty (often no doubt unconscious to the person expressing it) of biostratigraphical dating.

Hugh Miller's discovery has not been previously discussed on this thread.

"I said it came from a pliocene layer; this means it's above the KT-boundary."

It means you suppose it is above it. It does not mean you found an iridium layer under it.

Updates

are being added on 16.II.2017 : done.

Update Pentecost 2017

I found collagen was not all there was to it:

Reasons To Believe embarrassing!!!
MarkHArmitage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RalYQA5BY_g

H/T to a guy on quora who showed me to Mark Armitage!