Dinosaur collagen has been Carbon 14 dated to be like that of mammoths putting deep-time narratives in doubt. Carbon 14 should be undetectable past 60,000 years but the readings is far short of the th... View MoreDinosaur collagen has been Carbon 14 dated to be like that of mammoths putting deep-time narratives in doubt. Carbon 14 should be undetectable past 60,000 years but the readings is far short of the theorized depletion levels.
Another thing? There are no secular scientists making counter-comments, counter-arguments, or counter-test results that appears in PEER REVIEW with carbon 14 testing and dinosaur tissue/collagen in the same context in ANY paper. Complete silence. It shows fear and knowledge it is not evolution-friendly with the results. Go ahead and web search it. Only Christians who are scientists have had them tested by not telling the accelerator mass spectrometry labs [AMS] what they were dating.
Several AMS around the world blind-tested dinosaur collagen samples including University of Georgia that was sent by the Hugh Miller team. In the table in the link below look for the 'GX' designation for their results as an example.
The common skeptic 'refutation' of 'they don't test them for Carbon 14 when they're that old' is circular and is a non-point. There is nothing stopping it. If it was an actual legit 'refutation' there would be scientists saying why and what THEIR Carbon 14 results were and be in peer-review papers with dinosaur collagen in the SAME context.
The other common 'refutation' by skeptics is 'it is contamination'. That is not a legit refutation because the inventor and Noble Science Prize winner says it is IMPOSSIBLE to falsify a Carbon 14 test on collagen. Why? There is a collagen filtration method that purifies it to being 100% collagen. Then it goes thru a test to be sure it is pure with no, as a for instance, bacteria or human DNA in it.
So there is the challenge for our skeptics. Web search for peer-review counter-statements or statements to Hugh Miller's obtained test results. Keep your refutations to links in our 21st century. If you like to attack the source or the person instead of engaging the evidence inside my link, it would show our open-minded spectators your lack of critical thinking skills and the need of rescue excuses because of your weak position. That will be great!
via Robert Ackerman, whose comments I have copied here
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html
