Radiocarbon in dino bones
International conference result censored
Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10)
Wikimedia commons/Julian Fong, LA Natural History museum
A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists.1 But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them.
Two of the report’s physicist co-authors … are urging colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones.
This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS). It appears that the researchers approached the matter with considerable professionalism, including taking great pains to eliminate contamination with modern carbon as a source of the 14C signal in the bones. The lead presenter was Dr Thomas Seiler, a German physicist whose PhD is from the Technical University of Munich. The video of his presentation was up on YouTube at the time of writing this report.
The researchers seem to be associated with Catholic creationist groups, which have reported the conference earlier and more vocally than evangelical creationists. One of these reports states that afterwards, “the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won’t be restored.”2
Indeed, one can go online to see a screen shot of the original program. But going to the official conference site, the talk has clearly been removed. (Go to Wednesday, room Leo 2, double-click on BGO2, which is the session that had the presentation. The numbers go from 4 to 6, omitting 5, which was the one on 14C in dino bones.) So much for science’s alleged openness to the data. The ‘power of the paradigm’ can be clearly seen.
The public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth.
Two of the report’s physicist co-authors, Professor Dr Robert Bennett and Dr Jean de Pontcharra, till recently with the French Atomic Energy Commission’s Grenoble Research Centre, are urging colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. They say that the media should be encouraging scientists to do this also, presenting the findings openly and honestly at similar conferences. This would certainly be in the interests of scientific truth—especially following the repeated findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and now even seemingly irrefutable DNA in dinosaur specimens.3 The public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth.
Of course the people you know will generally not get to hear this powerful information from regular sources. We have been repeatedly surprised when on ministry tours how few people even know about the soft-tissue finds by secular scientists. This is an exciting time to be a creationist, both getting this sort of information, and being able to pass it on. So it’s more important than ever to be not just subscribing to but actively supporting reputable, non-sensationalistic creation organizations committed to this important task. Please, keep helping us defend and proclaim the real history of the Bible, on which the credibility of the Gospel itself depends.
Blood and soft tissue in T. rex bone:
- 01 Dec 1993 Dinosaur bone blood cells found
- 01 Sep 1997 Sensational dinosaur blood report!
- 25 Mar 2002 Evolutionist questions CMI report—Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils?
- 25 Mar 2005 Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of ‘millions of years’
- 28 Mar 2005 “Ostrich-osaurus” discovery?
- 16 May 2005 Squirming at the Squishosaur
- 01 Sep 2005 Dino soft tissue find
- 01 Dec 2005 Answering objections to creationist ‘dinosaur soft tissue’ age arguments
- 19 Jul 2006 ‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’
- 16 Dec 2006 Why don’t they carbon-test dino fossils?
- 20 Apr 2007 Squishosaur scepticism squashed: Tests confirm proteins found in T. rex bones
- 02 Aug 2008 Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur
- 06 May 2009 Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!
- 09 May 2009 Dino proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal?
- 01 Dec 2009 More confirmation for dinosaur soft tissue and protein
- 11 Dec 2012 DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone
- 22 Jan 2013 Radiocarbon in dino bones
Other examples of soft tissue preservation in fossils:
- 01 Jun 1992 Fresh dinosaur bones found
- 01 Aug 1998 Exceptional soft-tissue preservation in a fossilised dinosaur
- 01 Dec 1998 Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?
- 30 May 2000 ‘Sue’ the T. rex: another ‘missionary lizard’
- 01 Dec 2002 Feathered or furry dinosaurs? Soft tissue preservation
- 01 Apr 2004 Bone building: perfect protein (See paragraph six re osteocalcin in Iguanodon bones.)
- 01 Apr 2006 A fossil is a fossil is a fossil. Right?
- 07 Dec 2007 Hadrosaur hi-jinx: Will this find reveal more unfossilised soft tissues?
- 01 Jun 2008 The real ‘Jurassic Park’?
- 11 Nov 2009 Best ever find of soft tissue (muscle and blood) in a fossil
- 25 June 2013 Created or evolved?
- A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood, which removed virtually all living carbon from the biosphere through burial. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text.
- Press release “Dinosaur bones’ Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years—Censored international conference report” and additional information, newgeology.us/presentation48.html, accessed 27 December 2012. Return to text.
- See Sarfati, J., 11 December 2012, DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, and the list of related articles at the bottom of that article. Return to text.
(Also available in Greek)
There are be many (well 2) differing worldviews on the origin of the world, but they are not all equal. Big kudos to Dr Thomas Seiler, but it would be best if he would publish his findings in detail in an appropriate journal.
I suspect he is well aware of that, and would almost certainly have submitted the findings. The experience of many has shown that if the findings of a paper support the Bible, unfortunately it is not very likely to get through the secular review process, regardless how good the science. I.e. ‘there must be something wrong with it, even if we can’t work out what it is.’
Did you ever think that perhaps they removed it with the foresight that creationists would immediately jump to conclusions, and use itas ammunition against old-earthers? The only problem that I can see with this act is now it is being used as propaganda.
Lol and when did you guys begin to trust the results that Carbon-14 dating yields anyway?
The results are not even within the biblical timeframe so why are you people complaining? A harsh accustion of fraud and censorship coming from people that strictly moderate comments.
Please stop acting as if there is a conspiracy.
If you had done more than just glanced at the article on which you are commenting, you would have seen footnote 1 and what it refers to, namely that the radiocarbon ages are smack in the right ballpark biblical creationists would expect, and it also explains why. Notice that the word conspiracy was not used once; prejudice is the word I would use.
This article might resonate more were it not for the fact that the ‘researchers’, once one does the simplest search on the internet, turn out to be committed creationists. So they would get those results, wouldn’t they?
Andrei T is right. They should put up their results for peer review, in the full light of the media, so they can’t be misrepresented. What's to be afraid of?
Sorry, you still do not convince!
It’s an interesting comment you make more for what it says about human nature and the nature of this debate. As I read you, you’re saying that just because someone is a creationist (who one would think was committed to seeing untruthfulness as a sin) one assumes that these ‘so-publicly-presented’ results are fudged—because they support the presenters’ worldview. Whereas when an evolutionist presents data which supports their worldview, (which for most of them has no objective basis for regarding lying, or anything else, as right or wrong) most creationists I know would a priori assume that they are not lying or fudging, but would seek to engage with the data at face value. BTW, I would hope that such a brief report would indeed be insufficient to convince, so please search our site for much, much more. …
I’ve been waiting for this, more radio carbon dating of dinosaur bones & I understand there’s more on the way. However there’s not one single line of evidence or data that will faze an ardent atheist, no matter how exciting or convincing to a creationist. The atheist’s faith is such that when they have no logical answer, they fall back into a faith position, e.g. ‘How can the majority of scientists be wrong?’ or ‘What about all the peer reviewed evidences proving evolution?’ Christians can learn something from ardent atheists, many Christians panic when challenged, why is it that atheists don’t panic when challenged. They just make up some excuse, contamination or fraud etc. Why do they think creationists encourage them to do their own radio carbon research on dinosaur bones? Are they afraid? I wonder what their response would be if we questioned their safe haven, one of which is ‘peer review’ otherwise known in the origins arena as a ‘naturalistic filter’. Is it surprising that they believe naturalistic explanations always fit best... when that is the only brand of explanations they allow? Evolution is not falsifiable, that’s why it’s a religion. The future will reveal them as fools. Don’t they know what’s at stake?
Hi ... good news indeed. But can you explain the "degrees of variance" that may be expected in the C14 test. Obviously, a finding of less than 6000 years would be consistent with the Bible. 20 000 years is vastly different to 85 or 250 million years, but is it close enough?
Yes, definitely - as the article explains in footnote 1, the variance is actually what would be expected. If someone came with a chunk of wood claiming to be from the Ark, and it carbon dated to 4,500 years say, rather than getting excited, one would be wiser to get suspicious. The anticipated C14 age from a specimen from the flood would be expected to be tens of thousands of years. The detailed explanation is in the radiocarbon chapter of The Creation Answers Book, see front page for free downloads chapter by chapter, or wiser still, get your own copy of the whole book from our online store.
Is there any way to get a copy of the transcript of the presentation these gentlemen did, or a copy of their paper containing their hypothesis, methodology, results, and conclusions? Even though it was rejected by those board members and removed from their site, the paper is still something of great interest to any Christian scientist, like myself.
Indeed, and to us. I think one can expect that any developments we know of will appear on this site, most likely at this paper and with an appropriate email newsletter reference. However, I am even more excited at the anticipated C14 dating of a chunk of soft tissue from a Triceratops which chunk is in the possession of our friends in the Creation Research Society, and to my knowledge it is going to be carefully analyzed for
Our prediction would be that it is highly likely that all three will be present.
Wow! Why am I repeatedly surprised at the dishonesty and/or bias of evolutionists in protecting their theory? I've seen over and over how they suppress data which question evolution, yet I still live in hope that they will eventually see the light and am always surprised at their antics in quenching that light.
I am continually amazed at the willful disregard of such evidence by "powers that be." I have a good friend, a professor of Geology in a certain University in Virginia who is currently unwilling to even consider anything contrary to what he has observed in his studies concerning rock glaciers in the Rockies. Each year he makes a trip there for his ongoing research, and he has no doubt that he has discovered much more time through stipulation in his findings that the Biblical account will allow. He believes peer review settles the question. Consequently, he does not accept a literal understanding of Genesis, even though he strongly believes in God and even the infallibility of the Bible. I realize that his career almost certainly depends on his views on this subject, and I cannot discount that this may put extreme pressure on him to avoid any evidence which would force him between a rock and hard place of having to be either intentionally dishonest or unemployed. I am not a Ph.D in Geology like he is, and knowing this, I avoid entering into a discussion with him on a level at which I would be unable. I have no doubt, however, in the truth of the Bible, and I want to help my brother in any way that I can. Do you have any recommendations to help get through to someone in such a situation?
I notice how you say 'what he has observed'. Here is the thing; no-one observes long ages (or short ages) per se in the data. Data are silent; facts are neutral. It is their interpretation that is the issue. So many times we have heard from people, including geologists, that when the 'penny has dropped', they suddenly realize that the evidence is there (though both paradigms will always have unanswered problems and challenges, that's normal in a complex world with incomplete information). A common phrase is, "If I hadn't believed it, I wouldn't have seen it." I would suggest asking him, as a professing Bible-believer, to read the classic Refuting Compromise, and 'tell me what's wrong with it'. If he is loath to read such a tome, suggest to him that 15 Reasons Why Genesis is History can be read in an evening, and add the article Jesus and the Age of the Earth. Then if you see some chinks in the armour, ask him to really seriously consider how open he is to the evidence, and how well he really understands the case for Flood geology and how many allegedly insuperable objections have been answered with further research.
Still too old at 22,000 years. I assume the Flood makes C14 dating unreliable.
See reply to Anthony S. above.
I watched his video presentation on youtube and it was boring, but the results were interesting!
He said the motivation for their research on dinosaur bones was these recent unexpected finds:
+C14 has been reported from Mesozoic, Paleozoid carbonaceous earth materials.
+ Original biochemistry (soft tissues) in fossils reported, including dinosaurs.
+ Jurassic squid ink verified as original eumelanin
+ Hemoglobin remnants observed in Tyrannosaur Rex and Mosasaur
* Collagen and osteocalcin reported from Jurassic Archaeopteryx
Suppression of evidence can be effective at times unfortunately, but at least his presentation is available for people to see - for now anyway!
So, basically this age is the background estimate age that is due to contamination that is not eliminated. They aren't really dating the dinosaur bones, but only the contamination. In this case, they might be able to wash off contamination due to contact with modern carbon, but any younger carbon that is chemically bonded would more difficult. To claim this is as evidence for a young earth is nonsensical.
You are clearly unaware of the way modern labs overcome this, using the Delta 13 C PBD correction. See earlier comments in this thread, also the chapter on radiocarbon in the Creation Answers Book. Further, how about diamonds, supposedly billons of years old and never part of the biosphere, consistently showing C14? Diamond is so hard because the atoms in the crystal lattice are so tightly packed together that no bacteria can 'squeeze in', for example. Contamination in such circumstances as an excuse is truly 'nonsensical'. See Diamonds: a creationist's best friend
So no chance that over the years fossiles would not be contaminated?
The whole point of the presentation was that excruciating steps were taken to avoid the possibility that this was contamination with modern carbon (for a fossil to have a contamination say 10 million years after it were deposited would be irrelevant, because the point is that all such carbon14 would vanish in the next 100k years, for the same reasons as it is not supposed to be in the original). Labs take huge care in cleaning specimens, but also do (and publish) special corrections known as the δ13CPDB correction. (See footnote 15 in Radioactive Dating in Conflict)
Fifteen years ago, I began sending bones of various dinosaurs, trees, mammoth, mastodons, Gobi rhinos, Gobi dinosaurs and more to Hugh Miller. He was having them tested for C-14 in four major labs. Hugh and I went to the 2011 AGU meet to protest our paper not being accepted on these results. We talked to hundreds of members outside and invited all to our suite. The president of AGU came and we gave him the story. He didn't know what to say. Another PhD student said that if she told her boss, a major evolutionist, that she thought there was any credibility to these dates, that she would be fired.
From my understanding, this research may have far greater implications for Biblical creationists than the finding of soft tissue on dinosaur bones. If all dinosaur bones contain radio carbon, then this indicates that all dinosaur bones are young and that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago. The research team sampled dinosaur bones from eight specimens, perhaps further research needs to be undertaken to confirm this crucial research.
I agree it is very significant, but so is the fact that just about everything one tests that is supposed to be millions of years old has C14 in it. This has been the case for many years, and still they fall back on 'contamination'. (See earlier comments and responses re contamination, corrections, diamonds and more).
I suggest that now that there is not only soft tissue, but identifiable protein, C14 and DNA, the case becomes overwhelming. And yes, let's have more and more tested, which is started to happen.
While Dr Weiland makes claims that he has "taken steps to eliminate contamination" at most the dates he is getting show the degree of failure of those steps. There is no reason to accept the dates done by him or his group as being anything more than that. Creationists doing radiometric dating are similar to terrorists flying airplanes----the goal is to crash, not do arrive safely at a destination.
Pardon me, but I can't help saying, 'Huh'? Even the most cursory read of this article would surely have told you that 'Dr Wieland' (note spelling) was not involved in the tests or even the gathering or treatment of the samples. And such discordant results as we report in our literature are only ever done by standard, recognized radiochronology laboratories--precisely so that they can't be caricatured like this due to the extreme philosophical prejudice. (Note its demonstration here; by definition, if the dates are not what we expect in our worldview, then the steps have failed, period, regardless of what they are. Time to educate yourself about what some of these steps involve, I suggest. The search engine on our site will reveal much discussion and many examples of such discordant (by long-age standards) dates--for C14, they are the rule, not the exception. Countless instances of oil and gas and even diamonds all show C14 when they 'should not'.
[PS added later: I guess it's seeing this way some people think about the issue that makes it more than understandable when one sees this apparent censorship. For many documented examples, see the DVD of Expelled: the Movie, and Dr Jerry Bergmann's book Slaughter of the Innocents, both available at our store.
Of course, Dr. Wieland, I am aware that you are only reporting news here. I would point out to your readers that Dr. Wieland has zero expertise in any field of earth science, let alone geochronlogy, so any comments that he may make regarding the competence of the research performed are the opinions of a biased and uneducated amateur.
Funny how creationists always trot out the old worldview argument and claim that there is "censorship" of their materials when they meet
Dr. Sellers (the actual researcher) should be encouraged to publish his results and his data. It would be interesting to see what peer review would have to say about his work. His work might show something interesting regarding contamination issues, assuming that it is competent.
The work does not however have any relevance whatsoever to the actual age of the specimens or the efficacy of radiometric dating. To imply otherwise is dishonest, Dr. Wieland.
I would have thought that the presentation at such a forum was in effect a submission for publication, in this case publication by oral presentation, followed by publication in the proceedings of the conference. Of course, that has now been cut off at the pass. Re your last comment, to say it has no relevance to the actual age is very hard to understand, to put it very gently; neither you nor I have to be a specialist in the field to acknowledge that it is either the result of contamination or it is very relevant to the age of the specimen. In fact, the whole reason why everyone is so keen to insist that this (and all the other C14 ages that 'shouldn't be there' on specimens allegedly millions of years old) are the result of contamination is precisely because everyone recognizes how very relevant it is to the age of the specimen, which is why it is so disturbing and otherwise inexplicable to a long-ager. And of course it is why the presenters in this case went to so much trouble to cover those bases, so that even specialists in geochronology would be able to see the very strong case that contamination was highly unlikely (for one thing, the delta 13C corrections which all competent labs undertake as a matter of routine. As far as your accusations of 'dishonesty' are concerned, I'm more than happy for the onlookers to this exchange to be the judge.
The various objections made against the article shows that prejudice is rife and the facts are ignored. Remember we are talking about a scientific study not religion. Strange those non-believers argue against real science using hypothetical and nonsensical arguments. It's as though the tables have turned and the atheists or non-creationists are using faith based arguments while the creationists are using factual science based arguments. This shouldn't be a surprise since the creationist point of view is the correct one according to the scientific evidence as well as the book of truth; the Bible.
The suppression story looks like a beat up. The miniscule audience heard the talk go ahead without interruption. The YouTube is available. Presumably the ‘Paper’ is, or could be, if the authors bothered. And did anyone from CMI contact the conference organisers for their explanation of the alleged deletion? Why the absence of such a basic requirement of honest reporting?
Meanwhile, the underlying issue is this. On countless occasions, experts have dated dinosaur fossils at 60 million years or more. Many of those opinions were arrived at after using more than one dating method. None arose from the use of 14C which has a usable range of up to 50,000 years. So whatever these gents might be saying about 14C, they are not touching the conventional wisdom about dinosaur antiquity. The possibilities include that they got their method wrong and produced false results. Or they have dated various objects at less than 50,000 years. So what?
This is like trying to dispute telescopic observations of the moon, by pointing a microscope at it.
Actually, most dinosaur fossils themselves are not dateable by any of the radiometric methods normally used to obtain 'millions of years', since they mostly don't contain radioactive isotopes. Where e.g. K-Ar dates are given, this comes from dating nearby volcanic outflows or ashfalls. Of course, the 'conventional wisdom' about millions of years is so crucial to the naturalistic worldview that it is no surprise that the reactions are to protect it at all costs. Doing so with auxiliary hypotheses (a la Lakatos) is of course normal, but in this case it is getting increasingly difficult with the following being found in dino fossils:
Soft tissue, including flexible, transparent branching blood vessels;
Proteins that shouldn't be there anymore, based on known rates of their decay under perfect conditions for preservation, and most 'damning' of all for longagers, the complex and fragile molecule, DNA.
Isn't it time to start to question the paradigm, rather than blindly following the herd in defending it? But then, that would be rational and scientific, and there's a lot more than that at stake, it seems...
"The Bible declares: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1"
It's impossible to reason with this argument...
And you say that you do Science???
"Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?" Conversations With Carl Sagan
By Carl Sagan, Tom Head
That would have some semblance of being reasonable, if it were the case that 'evidence speaks for itself', a common misunderstanding that seems to be evident in the idea that the universe 'teaches' us things. In this I agree with Michael Shermer of the American Skeptics, that evidence never speaks for itself. It is always interpreted. And nowhere is this more acutely obvious than in the study of the unobservable, unrepeatable past, i.e. one-off events. But I also can't help notice how a discussion about whether dino bones are old or not, based on evidence, suddenly swings to a sermon about worldviews--which is what it's all about anyway.
Dr. Wieland has made the comment regarding the work of Dr. Sellers suggesting to the effect that Dr. Sellers work has been subjected to "sufficient" peer review and should be accepted as is, and further that this work has some groundbreaking relevance to age determination of dinosaur fossils.
For those who are unaware of how these things actually work, papers presented at proceedings have been subjected to very little peer review. The author submits an abstract for the presentation, which is usually a fairly terse document. Peer review in this case is nowhere nearly as comprehensive than that for papers published in a bonafide technical journal. We are talking a quick read through and a decision that this is interesting enough for inclusion. We are not talking about exhaustive peer review.
Furthermore what is actually presented orally at a meeting may be quite different from the abstract. Publicatiosn of a paper in the proceedings may be followup paper, but usually these are extended abstracts, again with very little in the way of peer review.
Authors with sufficiently interesting material are often encouraged to submit a more formal paper to an associated technical journal.
As to the relevance of Dr. Sellers' work to the actual age determination of dinosaurs, his method is simply the wrong tool for the job.
Fair comment as far as it goes, although I should have commented earlier to your first comment that it was Seiler (Sellers is the name of a late comedy actor I used to enjoy) and he was the presenter, not one of the researchers involved. But the point was less to do with peer review during the process of paper acceptance, than with the peer review that takes place due to peer interaction and criticism where needed following such a presentation, which is now cut off. Note that for all I know for certain, the work may have been of poor quality, or otherwise. But the censorship means that we will never know. Fortunately, further C14 dating of dino specimens (with every base covered re alleged contamination with modern carbon) is in the wings and we will see what emerges over the next few years. Prediction: Just as with oil and coal, there will be a C14 signal, because they simply aren't that old.
I am curious if the C14 could be present in the Dino bones from microorganisms, which have come in contact with the bone sometime after dinosaur died. Also, salamanders have algae that grows inside their cells. So, I would think it would be possible that dinosaurs could have similar microorganisms that lived inside their cells, which continued to live on after the actual dinosaur died, and then showed up in C14 dating. Please let me know your thoughts.
Michael, all the comments on this thread and in the article and footnotes about potential 'contamination' refer primarily to micro-organisms, the main potential for such contamination (This point was made concerning the C14 dating of diamonds, that the gaps in the lattice do not allow penetration by such creatures). Hence the Delta 13C calculation, for instance, because reputable labs are aware of the contamination issue. Re microorganisms living on after the dinos died, remember they were fossilized. How long could the organisms keep on living after they were cut off from everything except the finite nutrients in the dinosaur? I think that evolutionists would not likely want to accept that explanation, since it makes the vast timespans even harder to swallow than discovering mere DNA.
It appears to me that peer review should be changed to smear review when evolutionists read a creation article
"That would have some semblance of being reasonable, if it were the case that 'evidence speaks for itself', a common misunderstanding that seems to be evident in the idea that the universe 'teaches' us things."
Hum, you miss the point being made by Carl Sagan. The Universes doesn't REALLY teach us anything!!! Hum, it was a lesson on humility!!! Ouch... What do they say about when someone points to the Moon and some people only see the finger??? Straw men indeed, you didnt said anything about my real argument: your Mantra ("The Bible declares: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1") vs the response of Carl Sagan in is interview.
Like I said, It's impossible to reason with your (real and only) argument...
Add to that what "John S., United States, 1 February 2013" said, "(...) actual age determination of dinosaurs, his method is simply the wrong tool for the job." This is well known in Science, the dating process using Carbon has limitations and to see someone use this, as a smoking gun or something similar... No Portuguese Paleontologist uses Radiocarbon dating when studying Dinosaurs fossils.
And you say that you do Science???
Again, "John S., United States, 1 February 2013" and is argument. "For those who are unaware of how these things actually work, papers presented at proceedings have been subjected to very little peer review." I have done this! And like me, many others!!! It's normal!!!
Hum, you do know that one of the terms that we agree when attending this type of meetings is that the organizers can cancel or refuse our presentation, dont you???
It's not the same thing as a published article in a peer review magazine!!!!!
What did you call It? "(...) secular review process?
You say "so much for science’s alleged openness to the data" but you (the site) refuses to allow posting of links to outside information...
I personnaly view this as religious review process...
One is loathed to have to point out the obvious, but to say that the method won't work is the logical fallacy known as begging the question; it assumes something in order to prove something. What is the reason why the method 'won't work' on dino fossils? Because the fossils are millions of years old. But the whole point here is that if the fossils were that old, there is not supposed to be a C14 signal. So there are only two likely possibilities now one knows there is one: 1) They are not that old or 2) There is contamination with modern carbon. Thus the report of C14, once it does the appropriate work to deal with the contamination question, e.g. the delta 13C correction, is very significant, and to brush it off with a logical fallacy is inappropriate.
Let's see what future work shows; to rigorously apply the method to many dino samples and show with appropriate scientific rigour that it is contamination would be fair game, but to just say 'the method won't work' because of one's presuppositions is, to any thinking person, well, pathetic, frankly.
Thanks for the interesting news!
Tell me, please, can we see a continuation of the video with questions from the audience?
Can I read the article published researchers (even in non-scientific magazine)?
The comment just published from Hugh M below yours may be helpful.
I would like to add to Joe Taylor's report of our cooperative research in excavation, collecting of dinosaur and other fossil specimens for testing for C-14 content. Joe is a field paleontologist and specialist in reconstruction, molding and casting of fossils from the Le Brae Tarpits of LA to director of his own museum in Texas - Mt Blanco Fossil Museum. I am a consulting field and lab chemist with several decades of lab and field research. I learned the basics during 18 years with Battelle Mem. Inst. Labs in OH.
Regarding a request for a technical paper on this blog here is what can be considered the major peer reviewed one, in Italy from 2009 and so published in Italy and Germany along with other conference papers http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm. I had given a 12 minute PP presentation in Feb. 2009 at a conference held at the National Research Council of Italy with coauthors in nuclear and geophysics.
When a conference abstract or paper does manage to slip through main stream science filters, damage control sets in as was done by the AOGS in Singapore. I asked why when I learned after returning from Singapore that our abstract had been deleted and received an explanation several weeks later: “There is obviously an error in these data. The abstract was apparently not reviewed properly and was accepted in error. For this reason we have exercised our authority as program chairs and rescinded the abstract. The abstract will no longer appear on the AOGS web site.”
For those interested in the lab reports and excavation photos go to http://youtu.be/TgM_p9UfOeI. The primary areas for the advancement of science studies of C-14 content in dinosaur and other fossils would be Alberta, Canada, Gobi Desert and Zhucheng, China as suggested in our abstract.
First off I'd like to make a few additions to my previous post as there was a limit on the number of characters. (1) Joe Taylor, like the famous Jack Horner of Montana has no college degree in Paleontology; both are in their late 60's. Now days, one needs a degree. (2) Horner is director of the paleontology section of Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman MT and was consultant to the movie, Jurassic Park but both are classified as paleontologists because of their excellent research and field studies. (3) Among many discoveries by the Horner team was the research of Mary Schweitzer and her assistants who observed soft tissue in a T-Rex femur bone after EDTA treatment. Horner encouraged further research. Joe Taylor is director of his own Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton TX. His team encouraged me and our Paleo Group to continue our C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils. (4) I understand that Horner and Taylor have met at Paleontology conferences and whereas Horner gets the publicity, Joe's research is, of course no less important. http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/100/newsmakers/article_8f1bbd86-e701-11e0-9ef7-001cc4c03286.html
Our Paleo Gp. research on dinosaur chronology is very important as it demonstrates why soft tissue has survived – the bones of dinosaurs are 2000 times younger then what the science community has accepted as a fact. Such data needs to be cross checked by main stream science and not swept under the rug. Thus we have repeatedly urged them to C-14 date the fossils in letters to Jack Horner and University paleontologists and in six conference abstracts.
CONTINUED: Regarding peer reviewed abstracts at conferences vs. peer reviewed technical papers: We have submitted six abstracts of our C-14 data and all were reviewed and turned down until finally one was accepted for oral and poster presentations at the Asia Oceania Geophysics Society-American Geophysical Union Assembly [AOGS-AGU] of 2000 scientists in Singapore in August of 2012 for the Biogeoscience session.
Regarding why there were no questions on the YouTube presentation – the hotel conference projectionist stopped taping without our knowledge. There was one question or rather a statement which was then responded to by Dr. Seiler. A geology professor from Germany seemed to have some doubts about the data and suggested it was most unusual. The next day we met him and a cohort from Canada and they expressed their doubts about the validity of the data as a result of our poster session with all the data on it. We think they complained to the two chairmen.
The technical paper link noted in my first posting was published by the prestigious National Research Council of Italy in Italian along with other scientific papers in a book entitled " Evoluzionismo: Il tramonto di una ipotesi (Evolutionism: The demise of an hypothesis). Editor, Roberto de Mattei, Edizioni, Cantagalli s.r.l. Siena, nell’ottobre 2009 and in Germany in English by Brandenstein-Zeppelin and Stockhausen. 2012. Evolution and the Sciences: A Critical Examination. p 295-321. (English) Gerhard Hess Verlag, 88427 Bad Schussenried, Germany. Because the research council in Italy was a government agency the book became quite controversial and hit the International science news http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/italy-science-a.html - I hope this info will result in further C-14 studies.
I did an audio on this article.
Radiocarbon in Dino Bones Data Censored
By rescinding the abstract, the AOGS has made the unscientific decision that C-14 cannot exist in dinosaur bones simply because of their presumed age, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Yet the widely documented evidence of preserved biomolecules in dinosaur bones and other presumably ancient fossils strongly suggests that C-14 should be present as well.
If scientists don’t like the conclusions of the presenters, they should make a case that the underlying data is faulty, instead of censoring it outright. There are plenty of dinosaur bones out there that could be tested for C-14—one would hope that other researchers will take up the challenge and perform similar analyses to these researchers. That is the scientific way to confirm error, as opposed to blatant censorship of data simply because it appears to contradict the established paradigm.
Dr. Wieland seems only able to criticize my typing. He has nothing else to offer.
Having submitted abstracts, reviewed abstracts, and having served on the committees that decide what papers get into a symposia (something I doubt Dr. Wieland has done this), I speak for experience. The peer review of papers submitted to symposia is not as stringent as that for papers published in journals.
Most papers are not accepted, because there is a limit to the number of slots available. Typically symposia have a smaller number of oral presentation slots. There are also poster session slots. Again, the criteria is usually for newer, and sometimes more controversial presentations.
the ball is in Dr. Seller's court. He is free to write a paper and submit that to a journal. There is no guarantee of publication, but if his paper does shed light on contamination issues, then it may get published.