“Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

That is what you should have asked dcsccc. I don’t know how it is possible. But perhaps the C14 method had a problem. I’m not sure where he got the information. Unless dcscccc mistated something.

With regard to your comment about igniting fusion, again I suspect you are not understanding dcscccc. If I understand him correctly, he is insinuating that the decay happened during the process of mineral formation at the time the earth was ejected from a hot star or something similar, not that the earth itself produced the high heat.

22

hi john. here is the paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3581/634.abstractat

23

This is a quote from the abstract. There are replies to this paper as well in the magazine “Science”, but I do not have a subscription to it. The abstract indicates absorption of humus by mollusks, which could distort the C14 process.

> Consequent errors of shell radiocarbon dates may be as large as several thousand years for river shells.

24

john. this old carbon effected the shell date and know as reservoir effect. we also find a dino c14:

http://www.omniology.com/C-14Verification.html

25

Then it seems as though you should start a new thread titled “Shell Radiocarbon Dates: What Does the Abstract Say?”

The subject of this thread is, “Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?"

Why stop at the abstract? Why not drill down to the evidence?

26

Feel free.

27

I’m asking you why you don’t drill down to the evidence. Why is it all hearsay? Why did you claim elsewhere:

…when you know that in reality in this forum your MO is to avoid actual evidence in favor of hearsay? I can’t believe that you added emphasis with “actual.”

Abstracts aren’t evidence.

28

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.