Video: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Bones

32min video. JUL 2016.

For now I can’t muster the faith to still believe official datings of fossils.

How did they arrive at numbers like 65 million years age in the first place? I know the claim is in every book but where did it come from? I think it’s simply “a geologist says this rock is that old so that bone must be that old”. Well so that would mean, geology might be just as wrong. One interesting idea here is: Ideas of geologists come from a time when the effects of electricity on minerals had not been explored. Formation of certain minerals can be accelerated under presence of electric currents. This is even now not part of geologic research for all I know.



5 thoughts on “Video: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Bones”

  1. That’s pretty much it. Radioactive decay events can be counted and a half-life plotted. Doing this necessitates using measurement devices that have in-built errors and suffer from failures. Thus the measurements have inherent uncertainty. I have noted that the half-live numbers these days are often published without the necessary uncertainty shown. Dating is done by measuring the relevant decay mode’s counts and comparing that to a standard sample. Two sources of errors and biases here. The counts now have to be analyzed. That implies a model. This adds another source of error and bias. Does the analytical model have adequate controls and have relevant ‘decay’ modes other than radioactive decay been considered, evaluated and incorporated into the models? This is another source of error and bias.

    Geologists date rocks by depth and use chemical means to constrain the estimate and the errors therein. If one uses a steady accumulation rate (aka sedimentation rate) but the sample did not undergo that kind of a process and there were other processes that leached out the radioactive element, then your date will be incorrect. [Remember, living things alter the environment they occupy. They extract some chemicals and excrete others. Microbial life forms are good at excluding poisonous (to them) forms and including useful (to them) forms.] Do the geologists ask themselves did inorganic processes (water leaching, chemical weathering powered by photochemistry, other forms of chemical weathering) and/or organic processes alter the conditions that this rock sample was formed in? Most of the stuff I’ve read seem to posit a uniform and low sedimentation rate (derived from current conditions) and exclude chemistry) to date layers. So when they say a layer was formed 65 million years ago yet don’t include the uncertainty, say 65 million years ago +/- 100 million ;p, a false impression may be made in the minds of others, especially those not willing or able to dig deeper into it. 

    I have looked for literature showing the chemical processes and conditions required for fossilization. I’ve yet to find anything useful empirically. What I’ve seen looks like hand-waving or inserting (figuratively) ‘then a miracle happens’.


  2. I don’t think I’ve posted this one before, on fossil whales that pose a challenge to radiometric dating. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

    P.S. – I usually can’t stomach anything with Lawrence Krauss in it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s