<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.qccsa.org</link>
	<description>Using the Sciences to Spread the Truth of the Scriptures and Special Creation in the Quad Cities</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:11:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/comment-page-1/#comment-315</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qccsa.org/?page_id=876#comment-315</guid>
		<description>Response to Mickel:
“… you mentioned that there are samples of dinosaur bones which returned c14 dating in ‘thousands’ rather than millions of years old… is there any other information on this? is there the name of the laboratory where it was tested? the samples name and a paper on it? perhaps the name of the guy who dated it? if he was qualified? “ 
The answer is basically yes.  There are lots of examples of C14 found in dino bones. The most well known example was in 1990.  This includes documentation of an Allosaurus bone sample that was sent to The University of Arizona (Tucson) to be carbon dated.  “The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years. 
The  result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years.  The samples of bone were blind samples.&quot; 
This test was done on August 10, 1990. “
See  http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

These and other C14 tests are also referenced in this site:
http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3469
in  “Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating “ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
with additional references to technical papers and authors. 

“…  if I were working in a laboratory and opened a box containing a sample to be C14 dated…and in that box was a fossilized bone…well I’d ring up somebody and tell them that someone got their samples mixed up… “ 

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.  Evolutionists do not do C14 tests on known dino bones because they “know” Dinos went extinct 65 million years ago, and so the samples would be C14 dead.  (C14 is only good for maximum dates of 80,000 years or so. )  But every time someone does test for C14 in Dino bone fragments – its always found. 

“So since you published this article obviously you succeeded to find the information where I failed.”
Mickel, maybe you did not try very hard!   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.  More importantly if you check our ‘young Dinos’ article you will that not only is there C14 in Dino bones, but also soft tissue!
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.  Since 2005, soft tissue finds in dinosaur bones, not just T-Rex, but also from Triceratops and Hadrosaur bones are becoming much more publicized, in a variety of scientific journals, including SCIENCE NEWS.   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. 
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

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.   check it out!
http://qccsa.org/young-dinos/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Response to Mickel:<br />
“… you mentioned that there are samples of dinosaur bones which returned c14 dating in ‘thousands’ rather than millions of years old… is there any other information on this? is there the name of the laboratory where it was tested? the samples name and a paper on it? perhaps the name of the guy who dated it? if he was qualified? “<br />
The answer is basically yes.  There are lots of examples of C14 found in dino bones. The most well known example was in 1990.  This includes documentation of an Allosaurus bone sample that was sent to The University of Arizona (Tucson) to be carbon dated.  “The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.<br />
The  result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years.  The samples of bone were blind samples.&#8221;<br />
This test was done on August 10, 1990. “<br />
See  <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html</a></p>
<p>These and other C14 tests are also referenced in this site:<br />
<a href="http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3469" rel="nofollow">http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3469</a><br />
in  “Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating “ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.<br />
with additional references to technical papers and authors. </p>
<p>“…  if I were working in a laboratory and opened a box containing a sample to be C14 dated…and in that box was a fossilized bone…well I’d ring up somebody and tell them that someone got their samples mixed up… “ </p>
<p>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.  Evolutionists do not do C14 tests on known dino bones because they “know” Dinos went extinct 65 million years ago, and so the samples would be C14 dead.  (C14 is only good for maximum dates of 80,000 years or so. )  But every time someone does test for C14 in Dino bone fragments – its always found. </p>
<p>“So since you published this article obviously you succeeded to find the information where I failed.”<br />
Mickel, maybe you did not try very hard!   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.  More importantly if you check our ‘young Dinos’ article you will that not only is there C14 in Dino bones, but also soft tissue!<br />
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.  Since 2005, soft tissue finds in dinosaur bones, not just T-Rex, but also from Triceratops and Hadrosaur bones are becoming much more publicized, in a variety of scientific journals, including SCIENCE NEWS.   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.<br />
<a href="http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm</a></p>
<p>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.   check it out!<br />
<a href="http://qccsa.org/young-dinos/" rel="nofollow">http://qccsa.org/young-dinos/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James J Vargo</title>
		<link>http://www.qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/comment-page-1/#comment-313</link>
		<dc:creator>James J Vargo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:13:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qccsa.org/?page_id=876#comment-313</guid>
		<description>My wife and I saw you in Morrison Il sunday and thoroughly enjoyed your presentation !!!
We asked you for the power point presentation because it was so informative and felt that it could be spread around to our large email list !!!

My suggestion would be the next time you make the presentation that you would take a video and send segments to youtube !!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My wife and I saw you in Morrison Il sunday and thoroughly enjoyed your presentation !!!<br />
We asked you for the power point presentation because it was so informative and felt that it could be spread around to our large email list !!!</p>
<p>My suggestion would be the next time you make the presentation that you would take a video and send segments to youtube !!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mickel</title>
		<link>http://www.qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/comment-page-1/#comment-298</link>
		<dc:creator>mickel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qccsa.org/?page_id=876#comment-298</guid>
		<description>I see above you mentioned that there are samples of dinosaur bones which returned c14 dating in &#039;thousands&#039; rather than millions of years old... is there any other information on this? is there the name of the laboratory where it was tested? the samples name and a paper on it? perhaps the name of the guy who dated it? if he was qualified? 

The problem y&#039;see is that if I were working in a laboratory and opened a box containing a sample to be c14 dated...and in that box was a fossilized bone...well I&#039;d ring up somebody and tell them that someone got their samples mixed up... I certainly wouldn&#039;t waste any time trying to get a date from it... But this guy obviously did!

So I&#039;m sure it came as a great shock to this tester... and I&#039;d be positive he wouldn&#039;t just send the results back and forget about it. 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 speak...but 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see above you mentioned that there are samples of dinosaur bones which returned c14 dating in &#8216;thousands&#8217; rather than millions of years old&#8230; is there any other information on this? is there the name of the laboratory where it was tested? the samples name and a paper on it? perhaps the name of the guy who dated it? if he was qualified? </p>
<p>The problem y&#8217;see is that if I were working in a laboratory and opened a box containing a sample to be c14 dated&#8230;and in that box was a fossilized bone&#8230;well I&#8217;d ring up somebody and tell them that someone got their samples mixed up&#8230; I certainly wouldn&#8217;t waste any time trying to get a date from it&#8230; But this guy obviously did!</p>
<p>So I&#8217;m sure it came as a great shock to this tester&#8230; and I&#8217;d be positive he wouldn&#8217;t just send the results back and forget about it. 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 speak&#8230;but I see you also mention there are MANY such examples&#8230; 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.</p>
<p>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 &#8230; 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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

