Absolute age dating lab steve

Carbon dating dinosaur bones

absolute age dating lab steve

Results 1 - 24 of 79 Wish List · Earth/Space Lesson III PowerPoint "Absolute Ages of Rocks" Wish List · Earth Science Absolute Dating Lab Steve Kerst by. Relative dating in science - Is the number one destination for online dating with Index fossils and absolute dating is about time scale using the first thing is the age dating were formed. is a science lab ebook earth science, as a collection of absolute quantification standard. vs absolute dating by steve mattox july Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age.

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.

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 Februaryhe was asked to teach a full graduate course in Biological Imaging for the Biology Department. In MarchDr. 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 JuneDr. Ernest Kwok was made chairman of the committee overseeing the microscopy lab, and became Armitage's new supervisor. In the summer ofArmitage 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 Novembera 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. More soft tissue 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. Commentary 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 aboutyears, 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.

absolute age dating lab steve

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.

Geology 111: Understanding the Earth

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. 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. The argon failed to degas from the minerals before the dacite solidified.

Because all but one of the dates in the above table are below the 2 million year lower dating limit established by Geochron Laboratories, the dates may be nothing more than contamination artifacts from the mass spectrometer at Geochron Laboratories. IF the Geochron mass spectrometer was exceptionally clean on the day that Austin's samples were run that is, IF hypothesis 2 is not a factorthe dates may be approximately accurate.

Even if the absolute values of the dates are highly erroneous, the relative order of the fractions' dates from oldest to youngest may be roughly correct. That is, the various minerals phenocrysts in the dacite may have grown in the parent melt at different times and the entire crystallization process may have taken as much as a few million years.

Additionally, somewhat older xenoliths foreign rocks and xenocrysts foreign minerals, Hyndman,p. Any or all of these hypotheses are possible. Austin strongly argues that steps were taken in his laboratory to protect the samples from contamination and that xenoliths foreign rocks, hypothesis 3 were removed from the samples before analysis. He also claims that microscopes were used to scan for 'foreign particles' xenocrysts?

Of course, he and his assistants may have missed many of the xenocrysts if they were small.

absolute age dating lab steve

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer hypothesis 2 and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the AD eruption hypothesis 3. Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals.

This is the logical fallacy of composition Copi and Cohen, The validity of either hypothesis 2 or 3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid. In the caption of Figure 4, Austin identifies the grains in the photograph as phenocrysts and microphenocrysts, which is probably generally correct.

Phenocrysts and microscopic phenocrysts microphenocrysts are crystals that grow in a melt magma deep within the Earth. In some cases, the entire melt solidifies before reaching the Earth's surface and an intrusive igneous rock develops Hyndman,p. Because intrusive rocks solidify deep within the Earth away from cool water and air, volcanic glass is absent and the grains may be fairly large that is, easily reaching lengths of one centimeter or more. In other cases, such as Austin's dacite, a partially crystallized melt erupts on the Earth's surface and produces a volcanic rock, which may be a mixture of rapidly quenched volcanic glass and coarser phenocrysts Hyndman,p.

Although Austin and Swenson will not admit it, some of the grains in Figure 4 may be xenocrysts rather than phenocrysts. In some cases, the magma may not be hot enough to melt or entirely dissolve the xenocrysts and they may survive after the melt cools.

For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish for example, Hyndman,p. As clearly shown in Figure 4 of Austin's essaymany of the mineral grains are zoned. The zoning appears as a series of concentric rings of various shades of gray within the grains see the two obvious examples in the middle of Figure 4.

Zoned crystals also may show Carlsbad twinning, which is typical of feldspars Perkins and Henke,Plate 10; Klein and Hurlbut,p.

In thin section and under crossed-polarized light, Carlsbad twinning has a 'half and half' appearance, where one half of the grain is darker than the other half Perkins and Henke,Plate As the sample is rotated on a microscope stage, one twin will darken as the other lightens in crossed-polarized light.

A large grain with very noticeable Carlsbad twinning is located at the top of Figure 4. Well-established laboratory studies Klein and Hurlbut,p. That is, as the magma cools, calcium-rich plagioclases crystallize first, which causes the remaining melt to become depleted in calcium and relatively enriched in sodium.

Once temperatures further decline, more sodium-rich plagioclase begins to solidify from the melt and may surround the calcium-rich grains. This process produces zoning, where the older and more calcium-rich plagioclases are located in the core of the grains and the younger and more sodium-rich plagioclases occupy the rims.

Because of their crystalline and chemical differences, the calcium-rich plagioclase cores have somewhat different optical properties than the sodium-rich rims, which produce the noticeable concentric zoning in the grains in Austin's thin section photograph.

Besides plagioclase feldspars, chemicals in cooling magmas deep within the Earth may organize into pyroxenes, amphiboles and a large variety of other minerals.

In contrast, any melt that reaches the Earth's surface during an eruption will immediately quench into volcanic glass if it comes into contact with seawater or other surface waters. The quenching process freezes the atoms in place and prevents them from organizing into crystals. In the presence of air, the lava may cool slowly enough that some VERY small minerals may grow.

The highly disorganized volcanic glass matrix in Austin's Figure 4 appears black or 'isotropic' in crossed-polarized light. Unlike most minerals, which lighten and darken in crossed-polarized light as the microscope stage is rotated, volcanic glass always remains consistently dark under crossed-polarized light.

Furthermore, unlike disorganized and quickly chilled volcanic glass, well-zoned and developed feldspar crystals, such as those shown in Figure 4, don't form overnight. On the basis of the glass and mineral textures and elementary melt chemistry, we know that the zoned plagioclases and other relatively large and well-developed minerals in Austin's dacite must have taken more time to grow than the surrounding glass matrix.

By using high-temperature ovens in undergraduate university laboratories or even crystal-growing kits and kitchen chemicals, a normally intelligent person can verify that coarse crystals take more time to grow than finer-grained materials. Clearly, basic crystal chemistry and physics dictates that zoned and other relatively large phenocrysts grew deep within the Earth and existed before the glass matrix that rapidly formed during the eruption.

Nevertheless, it is clear from Austin's essay that he has failed to incorporate the obviously diverse ages of the phenocrysts and the volcanic glass into his explanation for the origin of the dacite.

Similarly, Swenson also fails to comprehend the indisputable history that is associated with the plagioclase zoning and to properly recognize the important age differences between the coarsest phenocrysts and the volcanic glass. Even when phenocrysts as in Austin's Figure 4 and xenocrysts can be seen with an optical microscope, they can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively separate from the glass.

I've attempted to separate very fined-grained minerals from glass in coal ashes by using magnetic separation and hydrofluoric and other acids. Specifically, Austin admits that most of his fractions are impure when he includes the term 'etc. Furthermore, Austin's descriptions in the following statements clearly indicate that he FAILED to adequately separate the phenocrysts and possible xenocrysts from the volcanic glass.

Because Austin clearly understands the heterogeneous composition of this 'fraction', he should have known that a K-Ar date on this mess would be meaningless. Again, the mineral textures, as well as the laws of chemistry and physics, dictate that the calcium-rich plagioclase cores grew at higher temperatures before the sodium-rich rims and that glasses only formed once the melt erupted at the surface.

Mafic microphenocrysts within these glassy particles were probably dominated by the strongly magnetic Fe-Ti oxide minerals. The microscopic examination of the 'heavy-magnetic concentrate' also revealed a trace quantity of iron fragments, obviously the magnetic contaminant unavoidably introduced from the milling of the dacite in the iron mortar.

No attempt was made to separate the hornblende from the Fe-Ti oxides, but further finer milling and use of heavy liquids should be considered. Although the contamination might have seriously affected any iron analyses, K and Ar analyses may not have been affected.

The description of another one of Austin's 'fractions' indicates that it is also highly impure: These mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts evidently increased the density of the attached glass particles above the critical density of 2. This sample also had recognizable hornblende, evidently not completely isolated by magnetic separation. Because it was composed of finer particles meshit contained far fewer mafic particles with attached glass fragments than DOME-IH.

Creation Science Rebuttals, Dacite Dating

This preparation is the purest mineral concentrate. Therefore, instead of dating the ages of the pyroxenes, he probably dated a mixture of mostly pyroxenes along with other minerals and volcanic glass. Again, a K-Ar date on such an impure 'fraction' would be meaningless and a waste of time and money. That is, Austin is not dating the volcanic glass or the pyroxenes in the dacite, but artificial mixtures, which result from incomplete separations. Because Austin admits that his separations were impure, how can he, Swenson and other YECs justify their claims that these dacite samples were a fair test of the validity of the K-Ar method?

Why did Austin waste precious time and money analyzing samples that were known to contain mineral and glass impurities? As a geologist, Austin should have known that minerals, especially zoned minerals, take more time to crystallize than quenched disorder glass. How could he expect the relatively large and sometimes zoned minerals to be as young as the glass?!! The following additional comments by Swenson demonstrate that he does not understand the mineralogy and chemistry of the dacite: However, Dalrymple [] found that even volcanic glass can give wrong ages and rationalized that it can be contaminated by argon from older rock material.

In any debate, the debaters should provide the references or Internet links for their opponents so that the readers can evaluate both sides and really understand what's going on. Clearly, Swenson simply assumes that the volcanic glass contains 'excess argon. In his essay, Austin even admits that the glass still needs to be separated and analyzed for argon.

absolute age dating lab steve

Furthermore, many studies for example, the Haulalai basalt; Funkhouser and Naughton, demonstrate that Swenson and other YECs cannot automatically assume that modern volcanic glass contains excess argon.

Although hypothesis 1 is plausible, until the argon isotope concentrations of the PURE glass are accurately measured for Austin's dacite if this is even possible we cannot properly evaluate this hypothesis. Because Swenson does not provide a page number for his citation of Dalrymplethe identity of the volcanic glass with excess argon is uncertain. Perhaps, Swenson was referring to the following statement from Dalrymplep.

Because the centers of the flows cool more slowly, any excess 40Ar and other gases can disperse out of the remaining melt before solidification. While YECs explain geology by invoking talking snakes, magical fruit, and a mythical 'Flood', Dalrymple discusses legitimate chemistry and fluid physics, which is hardly relying on flimsy 'rationalizations' or implausible excuses.

Furthermore, contrary to Swenson's claims, nothing in Dalrymple excuses Austin's sloppy approach to K-Ar dating. In particular, YECs have no justification for automatically assuming that the dacite glass contains excess argon.

Even if the dacite glass does contain excess argon, Dalrymplep. Furthermore, if abundant excess argon is present in older rocks, Ar-Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can detect and eliminate its effects as examples, McDougall and Harrison,p. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase.

While Austin claims that orthopyroxenes should retain the most argon followed by hornblende an amphibole and finally plagioclase, he provides no references to support this claim.

absolute age dating lab steve

In reality, the crystalline structures of amphiboles, unlike feldspars and pyroxenes, contain open channels, which can hold argon gas and other fluids Klein and Hurlbut,p.

I'm skeptical that the defects and fractures in the orthopyroxenes and feldspars of Austin's dacites could hold more excess argon per mineral volume than the relatively large open structures within the hornblendes Dickin,p. Therefore, IF hypothesis 1 was the only factor influencing the dates of Austin's samples, I would expect the hornblende-rich 'fraction' to provide an older date than the pyroxene- and feldspar-rich 'fractions.