Fossil Backs Theory Linking Dinosaurs To Birds

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/4/09 | David Perlman

[Gator113]

Two weeks ago I purchased 8 baby dinosaurs. I am looking forward to their brown dinosaur eggs.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...they fail to address the one crucial element that is rooted in the scientific method. Observation. Starting with Carbon 14, who has observed Carbon 14 decaying to 1/2 of its original component 5,730 years ago? How about Thorium 232 and 14 billion years?..."

With all due respect, you're displaying a complete lack of understanding about radioactive decay processes, and how to measure their rates. Any chunk of matter you can see contains TRILLIONS of atoms. If these atoms are of the radioactive variety, some of them are ALWAYS POPPING OFF. You can measure and even "count" the decay events.

If you are dealing with a really unstable variety of atom, these "decay events" will be happening quite rapidly. If you are dealing with a more stable variety, the events will occur less frequently. You can measure the rate of the events, and calculate the amount of time it would take for 1/2 the sample to decay.

Now, while it is true that if you ISOLATED a SINGLE Thorium 232 atom and WATCHED JUST THAT ONE, it might take 14 billion years to see it fizzle. However, if you have a good sized chunk of Thorium 232, out of the zillions of atoms in the sample, some are ALWAYS popping.

Would you make the same foolish argument that NO ONE has sat and watched a 4000 year old redwood tree grow? How can you be SURE that it takes that long to grow such a tree? We do it because we OBSERVE zillions of other specimans at different stages in their lifecycle. (well, in the case of trees, it is not zillions, but a whole forest full, anyway).

There is more than one way to measure the time it takes something to occur than to sit and watch just one speciman.

[DannyTN]

It’s humourous that you didn’t notice I was responding to someone else who brought up Carbon dating.

[stormer]

Well, you could read the original paper,

Arnold, J. R., & Libby, W. F. (1949). Age Determinations by Radiocarbon Content: Checks with Samples of Known Age. Science, 110, 678-680.

but basically they compared their computed results to a “curve of knowns” (historically verified objects). Libby recognized an error and revised the method to arrived at the Cambridge Half-life (5730+/-40).

I don't know about thorium 232, but comparing the ratio of uranium 234 and thorium 230 is used as a dating method (one is soluble, the other is not).

[microgood]

There will always be Carbon present in an organic sample, no matter how old. It is only the UNSTABLE Carbon atoms that decay. Now, after several million years, you won’t find much of any Carbon-14, as it has a half life of about 5700 years or so.

Thanks for the info. So that means if there are any Carbon-14 molecules in that remaining tissue then that would be a problem, but not the fact that Carbon-12 is there.

[rjsimmon]

It is not a foolish argument but one that needs explaining to those who do not understand the scientific method and simply take a scientists word for it since they hold a PhD.

I have worked with myriad PhDs from a variety of disciplines and all have their opinion on radiometric dating.

Indeed there are lots of ways to measure aging, but not one single method is without serious flaws that need mitigating, or at the very least require a great deal of explaination.

Trees are a poor example because they can be observed, rings are also considered a mere guideline to age, not actual age since environmental factors can modify the ring. Radiometric dating allows for no such variable and is flawed in this respect. A prime example is the dating of igneous rock being dated from recent volcanic activity. One could hardly debate the age of such a rock if it is taken from a lava flow. However, radiometric dating puts its age at hundreds of thousands to millions of years old.

Using the example of watching the forest for the trees, you fall into the same logical fallicy as the scientific community that says a fossil is 650 MYO because the rock around it is 650 MYO, and they date the rock at 650 MYO because the fossil is 650 MYO.

[rjsimmon]

Thank you, I will have to look up the paper.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...So that means if there are any Carbon-14 molecules in that remaining tissue then that would be a problem, but not the fact that Carbon-12 is there..."

The presense of C-14 would mean 1 of two things:

The sample is not so old as to allow ALL the C-14 to decay

or

The sample is contaminated with C-14 from external, younger sources.

[antiRepublicrat]

I forgot to put both names in the To:.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...Trees are a poor example because they can be observed..."

Trees are an excellent example. Trees are simply EASIER to observe than ATOMS, since trees are so big. You brought up OBSERVATION of Thorium decay. The implication was that no one has sat and watched a SINGLE Thorium atom decay, and as such, the figure for it's Half Life could not be trusted. No one has sat and watched a single tree grow for 4000 years either. The AGE of existing trees are INFERRED by observing OTHER TREES during their life cycle.

Similarly, the HALF LIFE of atomic isotopes is INFERRED by observing OTHER ATOMS during their life (decay) cycles. We don't watch ONE Thorium atom, we watch a ZILLION at once.

The PRINCIPLE is exactly the same.

There are MANY things that take longer than a human lifespan to complete. The orbit of Pluto for example. In fact, since it has been discovered, NO ONE has sat and watched Pluto completely orbit the Sun. Should I call into question the calculated orbital period?

[rjsimmon]

There are MANY things that take longer than a human lifespan to complete. The orbit of Pluto for example. In fact, since it has been discovered, NO ONE has sat and watched Pluto completely orbit the Sun. Should I call into question the calculated orbital period?

I understand orbital periods and the inference you are talking about, however, it does not answer the question of observation. The root of any scientific method is observation. At some point in time, observation occurred with trees and rings in order to postulate the theorem to derive the formula. Thorium dating is nothing more than SWAG.

[Dutchboy88]

Look...a dinosaur has nearly as much physical complexity as a human body (save for the workings of the mind). The dino has to have a synchronized heart/respiratory system, immune system, digestive system, temperature modulation system, binocular vision with distance computations, eye-hand (claw?) coordination, transportation system, okay you get the idea.

If you want to believe that each of these systems arose from unguided, random accidents (they cannot be “induced” by the environment, but simply “favored” once they accidentally occurred, according to evolutionists), have at it. It is fairly “religious” to look at the collection of systems and claim that it is utterly plausible that all of them happened in thousands of variations, driven by nothing more that time, chance, & matter and, due to their interdependancy, fired off within seconds of one another.

Honestly, I have no idea what that track implies or whether it is real or staged. Do you?

[SunkenCiv]

Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, More
National Geographic | May 1, 2009 | John Roach
Posted on 05/01/2009 11:43:11 PM PDT by nickcarraway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2242582/posts

[DogBarkTree]

I think the track is a fake. fwiw I dont see a problem with evolution and creation coexisting. The bible says the Lord created the universe in 6 days. Who is to say how long a day is to the big guy upstairs?