krugliraccockcar.cf/drafting-and-mechanical-drawing/ The threat hangs over everyone. A manager of a commercial laboratory that does Carbon dating, Beta Analytic Inc. Her interest led us to propose that her company perform a Carbon test on a T-rex bone we acquired. Thanks for considering our service in this project. We wish you well in your research but must choose to opt-out of the analysis. Since you have identified it as T-rex, and these are known to be extinct for 50 million years, it is beyond the limit of our dating.
If a "recent" result was derived it would be universally challenged with possible risks of poor result claims for our laboratory. This is a project much better suited for collaboration with a university laboratory. It has demonstrated both the technical competency and management system requirements necessary to consistently deliver technically valid test results.
These standards are universally recognized as the highest level of quality attainable by a testing laboratory. Mark Armitage and the triceratops horn. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in a Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica. The university claimed his appointment at had been temporary and claimed a lack of funding for the position. This was news to him, and contradicted prior statements and documents from the university.
Other possible confounding variables are the mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios. In the end, the origin of life remains a mystery that passes understanding. If you blindly accept the Theory of Evolution, you are in danger of believing a fairytale for grownups called the Theory of Evolution. He dismounted and dug out of the ground the hewn stones as well as a few ceramic pieces. Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone. So when he received another bone sample from the Paleochronology group, he returned it to sender and sent an email saying:
Mark Armitage has a MS degree in biology and has been a microscope scientist microscopist for 30 years. He was the president of the Southern California Society for Microscopy for several years. He has some 30 publications to his credit. Mark's micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven scientific journals, and he has many technical publications on microscopic phenomena in such journals as American Laboratory, Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin, Parasitology Research, Microscopy and Microanalysis, Microscopy Today and Acta Histochemica, among others. According to papers filed with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, when Mark Armitage interviewed for an opening at CSUN for a "regular" "part-time" microscopist in he told the panel that he had published materials supportive of creationism.
William Krohmer, Manager of Technical Services and Safety, who would be Armitage's direct supervisor, was on the panel.
The panel hired Armitage despite his creationist writings because of his exceptional qualifications. The position was Electron Microscopy Technician in the Department of Biology, working two ten-hour days per week. He was "permanent part-time" and was allowed to enroll in the full benefits package of the university. He ran the Microscopy Imaging Facility with its three electron microscopes, personally training students and faculty on their proper use.
He was often praised for his work and accomplishments. The Biology Department bought a new confocal microscope that used high-powered lasers for imaging and was computer-driven. Armitage supervised the installation of the new microscope. He was assigned to be the only instructor on it, with responsibility for control and supervision of the instrument.
In February , he was asked to teach a full graduate course in Biological Imaging for the Biology Department. In March , Dr. Oppenheimer sent an email to staff saying that the two days per week that Armitage was working needed to be expanded in order to facilitate the growing demands of the microscopy lab. In June , Dr. Ernest Kwok was made chairman of the committee overseeing the microscopy lab, and became Armitage's new supervisor. In the summer of , Armitage responded to an invitation to participate in a search for dinosaur fossils in Glendive, Montana in the famous Hell Creek formation.
He found the brow-horn of a triceratops; it was not petrified. Studying the horn at the CSUN lab, he discovered soft tissue in the supposedly million-year-old or more fossil. While teaching students how to use microscopes in the lab that he directed at CSUN, Armitage engaged them in brief socratic dialogue about the possible age of the horn.
Kwok's students was stunned by the discovery and implications of soft tissue in the triceratops horn, and told Dr. On June 12, , Dr. Kwok stormed into Armitage's lab and shouted, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department! Armitage reported this to the Biology Department chair, Dr. They both played down the event and told Armitage to forget it. Praise for Armitage's work continued from distinguished members of the Biology Department. In November , a photo of the soft tissue in the triceratops horn was published on the cover of American Laboratory magazine.
The former chair of the Biology Department, Dr. Oppenheimer, wrote a ringing endorsement of Armitage in a letter of recommendation. On February 12, , the journal Acta Histochemica published a paper by Armitage describing the discovery of soft tissue in the triceratops horn. Acta Histochemica is a peer-reviewed journal of structural biochemistry of cells and tissue that welcomes advanced microscopical imaging; it has been publishing since On the day the paper was published, Dr. Kwok called a secret meeting of the committee overseeing the microscopy lab.
Armitage had served on the committee for three years, but he was not invited. The committee decided to terminate Armitage. On February 19, , William Krohmer told Armitage that there was a "witch hunt" being mounted against him, and advised him to resign. When he refused to resign, Krohmer told him he would be terminated. Armitage was fired on February 27, He was told that his job had only been a "temporary appointment". There is a sidenote to this story. Hugh Miller, head of the Paleochronology group, obtained a bone sample from the triceratops horn Mark Armitage discovered.
As you can see, the bone was dated by them to 33, years before present. The data for their four dinosaurs is below. A remarkable find was published in the journal Nature in April The "bone bed is characterized by the presence of completely disarticulated skeletal elements at various stages of embryonic development". This made it possible to detect the preservation of organic residues, probably direct products of the decay of complex proteins , within both the fast-growing embryonic bone tissue and the margins of the vascular spaces. Our results clearly indicate the presence of both apatite and amide peaks within woven embryonic bone tissue, which should not be susceptible to microbial contamination or other post-mortem artefacts.
Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains. Radiocarbon RC or Carbon C dating of linen, cotton, bones, fossils, wood, sea shells, seeds, coal, diamond anything with carbon is one of the most common and well understood of the various scientific dating methods. Carbon is a radioactive isotope of carbon that is formed naturally in the atmosphere. All plants and animals have a regular intake of carbon while they are alive. When an animal or plant dies, it no longer takes in carbon of any form.
C has a half-life of years. The maximum theoretical detection limit is about , years, but radiocarbon dating is only reliable up to 55, years with the best equipment. Older dates are considered to be tentative. If, as generally believed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one atom of Carbon left in their bones. The accuracy of carbon dates depends on whether the ratio of Carbon to Carbon was the same in the past as it is today. There are two types of C dating technologies.
The original one, counting Beta decay particles, is a multistep process and requires sample sizes of several grams. Beta counting is prone to possible errors in each of the many phases. AMS uses a much smaller sample size, and actually counts the Carbon atoms as they are separated from the sample. The equipment accelerates streams of charged atomic particles to high velocities in order to sort and analyze them.
Carbon dating of bone is one of the most difficult tasks in carbon dating, and requires the most care of any carbonaceous material. This is mainly due to the nature of bone, which is a very porous material.
Certain parts of bone look like a sponge under the microscope. Many dinosaur bones are hard as rock because the original material has been replaced with a silicon material such as quartz. These are "mineralized" or "fossilized". We have found un-mineralized dinosaur bones. We then scrape the outer surface off to get rid of surface contamination, and date the inner remaining material. One can date just the purified bioapatite, the total organics, or the collagen, or a combination of these, as we did in several cases. This is a remarkable find because collagen, being a soft tissue present in most animals, is supposed to decay in a few thousand years.
Collagen is the main protein found in connective tissue of animals. It can make up from 1 to 6 percent of muscle mass. Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered in Glendive Montana, and our group received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for Carbon testing. Both bones were tested by a licensed lab for presence of collagen. Both bones did in fact contain some collagen. The best process Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was used to date them. Total organic carbon and dinosaur bioapatite was extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants, and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained.
They were similar to radiocarbon dates for ice-age megafauna such as Siberian mammoths, saber tooth tigers of the Los Angeles LaBrea Tarpits, sloth dung, and giant bison. We usually prefer AMS dating because of its inherent superior accuracy, but use the conventional method when large samples are available in order to completely rule out contamination. This is recommended by a carbon-dating laboratory specialist.
Robert Bennett, physicist and co-author, agree that "the AOGS-AGU assembly encourages presentation of reliable data even though the topic may be controversial. This is a very wise policy for the advacement of science and the education of people everywhere.
Thus, we encourage our colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones from museums and university fossil repositories around the world, as well as testing for C in scrapings from dinosaur bones as they are excavated. We are anxious to see their results presented, just as we have done. Also, we call on the news media and citizens everywhere to urge paleontologists, curators, university faculty, and government scientific agencies to encourage and support further testing for C content in dinosaur remains.
Scientists need to know the actual chronology of the Earth and the age of the fossils.
At a horizon of 40, years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of which extent it can be used to obtain a good estimate of the age of the bones. . What they got was a date for the shellac, not the dinosaur fossils. But carbon dating won't work on dinosaur bones. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium, uranium and potassium, each of.
Download pdf of data and commentary. More censorship by "scientists". Waldemar Julsrud, a German hardware merchant in Acambaro, Mexico, was riding his horse on the lower slope of El Toro Mountain on a sunny morning in July Suddenly he spotted some partially exposed hewn stones and a ceramic object half buried in the dirt. He dismounted and dug out of the ground the hewn stones as well as a few ceramic pieces.
Julsrud, who was archaeologically astute, immediately realized that these ceramic pieces were unlike anything that he had seen. The objects he held in his hand were distinctively different than any other known Indian culture. When a few ceramic fragments were found there, Julsrud hired diggers to excavate. This discovery brought world wide attention from archaeologists who at first mistakenly defined them as Tarascan, but later they were correctly identified as a whole New Indian culture - the Chupicuaro. Julsrud at age sixty-nine was on the brink of making a discovery that may prove to be the greatest archaeological discovery ever made.
He hired a Mexican farmer, Odilon Tinajero, to dig in the area where the ceramic figurines were found and bring him any other similar objects. Soon Tinajero had a wheelbarrow full of ceramic pottery that had been excavated on El Toro Mountain. Charles Hapgood notes that "Julsrud was a shrewd businessman and he now made a deal with Tinajero that is very important for our story.
He told Tinajero that he would pay him one peso worth about 12 cents for each complete piece he brought in. Among the thousands of artifacts excavated were items that turned Julsrud's mansion into "the museum that scared scientists. The objects were made of clay and stone, varying in size from a few inches long to statues three feet high, and dinosaur objects four to five feet long.
In the collection, that now numbered over 20, objects, not one could be found to be a duplicate of another. Each of the clay pieces had been individually made, without molds, skillfully sculptured, and carefully decorated. Several hundred of the figurines were scientifically identified as representing many species of dinosaurs, including duck billed Trachodon, Gorgosaurus, horned Monoclonius, Ornitholestes, Titanosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus Paleococincus, Diplodocus, Podokosaurus, Struthiomimos, Plesiosaur, Maiasaura, Rhamphorynchus, Iguanodon, Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, Dimetrodon, Ichtyornis, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Rhynococephalia and other unknown or as yet unidentified dinosaur species.
These remarkable dinosaur figurines threaten orthodox concepts and time scales in many fields of study. Sanderson was amazed in to find that there was an accurate representation of the American dinosaur Brachiosaurus, which was almost totally unknown to the general public at that time. Sanderson wrote about the figurine in the Julsrud collection. It is about a foot tall. The point is it is an absolutely perfect representation of Brachiosaurus, known only from East Africa and North America.
There are a number of outlines of the skeletons in the standard literature but only one fleshed out reconstruction that I have ever seen. This is exactly like it. Eventually over 33, ceramic figurines were found near El Toro as well as Chivo Mountain on the other side of Acambaro. In , Arthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr.
The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2, B. In a letter dated September 13, , addressed to Mr. Young, Dr Rainey said: Now after we have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the dependability of the thermoluminescent method. I should also point out, that we were so concerned about the extraordinarily ancient dates of these figures, that Mark Han in our lab made an average of 18 runs on each one of the four samples.
Hence, there is a very substantial bit of research in these particular pieces All in all the lab stands on these dates for the Julsrud material, whatever that means in terms of archeological dating in Mexico, or in terms of 'fakes verse's authentic' pieces. But when the lab at the University of Pennsylvania found out that dinosaurs were part of the collection, they retracted their thermoluminescent dates. They asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old.
A thermoluminescent technician admitted that no other ceramics existed, in his experience, that produced regenerated light signals, and no other thermoluminescent dating of ceramics had ever been done by utilization of a regenerated light signal. In short, the excuse was a hocus pocus, laboratory trick to avoid the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs and man lived together.
John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures. Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud-type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro, and in , in Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Bortulot determined the pieces' upper limit age to be 2, years old, thus, invalidating the Masca report which claimed the objects were made thirty to one hundred years ago.
John Tierney took a half dozen samples of Julsrud ceramics of different clay composition to a team of experts at Ohio State University. They consisted of Dr. Caley among the world's most respected archaeological chemists , and Dr. The short half-life of carbon means it cannot be used to date fossils that are allegedly extremely old, e. The question should be whether or not carbon can be used to date any artifacts at all? The answer is not simple. There are a few categories of artifacts that can be dated using carbon; however, they cannot be more 50, years old.
Carbon cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air. This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock. The age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in the air and makes carbon dating data for those organisms inaccurate under the assumptions normally used for carbon dating.
This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diet. As stated previously, carbon dating cannot be used on artifacts over about 50, years old. These artifacts have gone through many carbon half-lives, and the amount of carbon remaining in them is miniscule and very difficult to detect. Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always allegedly too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism that has been fossilized. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures.
Scientists attempt to check the accuracy of carbon dating by comparing carbon dating data to data from other dating methods. Other methods scientists use include counting rock layers and tree rings. When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon has not been constant over the years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has fluctuated. Nuclear tests, nuclear reactors and the use of nuclear weapons have also changed the composition of radioisotopes in the air over the last few decades.
This human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms. The various confounding factors that can adversely affect the accuracy of carbon dating methods are evident in many of the other radioisotope dating methods.
Although the half-life of some of them are more consistent with the evolutionary worldview of millions to billions of years, the assumptions used in radiometric dating put the results of all radiometric dating methods in doubt. The following is an article on this subject.
Although the half-life of carbon makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 50, years old, there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts. These isotopes have longer half-lives and so are found in greater abundance in older fossils. All of these methods are accurate only back to the last global catastrophe i. The assumptions are similar to the assumptions used in carbon dating.
The mathematical premise undergirding the use of these elements in radiometric dating contains the similar confounding factors that we find in carbon dating method. Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the evolution of all life is based entirely on the hypothetical and non-empirical Theory of Evolution.
All dating methods that support this theory are embraced, while any evidence to the contrary, e. Prior to radiometric dating, evolution scientists used index fossils a. A paleontologist would take the discovered fossil to a geologist who would ask the paleontologist what other fossils searching for an index fossil were found near their discovery. If it sounds like circular reasoning, it is because this process in reality is based upon circular reasoning. The process of using index fossils is describes by the late Creationist author and Ph.
Henry Morris as follows:. All radiometric dating methods use this basic principle to extrapolate the age of artifacts being tested. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock, and inferring an age based on this ratio.
This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance say, uranium gradually decays to the daughter substance say, lead , so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. While there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, e. Geologists assert that generally speaking, older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older.
But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column which is open to question , this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger.
Other possible confounding variables are the mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios.