This is part 10 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh. This material was presented at a church that I attend. It has been presented other places as well.
For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video:
In this we have two things:
For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video:
Not Just What, but How
I have made many blog posts about this. For this one, I'll go a little deeper into how I researched this topic, and why my dismissals tend to be short and, at times, seem incomplete.
Claims of Early Dating of Dinosaur Bones
At 48:45, McIntosh claims:
People who are on our side of the fence have done some C14 dating of dinosaur bones. And found significant amounts of C14. So when you combine both issues, soft tissue and C14 significant measurements, what is that telling you? That these bones are not 65 million years old. By their own reasoning, concerning C14 decay, it has to be less than 100,000 years.He states this while displaying the following:
In this we have two things:
- Part of a picture of a document that claims "Dinosaur Bones" were dated with C-14
- A web link to http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm
Red Flag
This is a major red flag. We are being presented with a major claim: there is evidence produced by and known to the scientific community that dinosaur bones have been dated to as young as 22,000 years old. The document labels one example as "Acro" with a dating of about 25,000 years old. "Acro" is probably an acrocanthosaurus. A simple web search shows this should be about 110 Ma (million years) old.
This is a major claim, and this evidence scrolls off the bottom of the screen - not even warranting being fully presented.
This tactic will tend to make you think there are a lot of examples (so many they don't even fit on the screen!), and that it has some legitimate backing (the web reference).
But always be careful when thinking you know someone else's motivations. You don't. You really don't. You can guess, and you might guess right, and you might guess wrong. But you don't know. So what we are left with is research. Check the source.
This is a major claim, and this evidence scrolls off the bottom of the screen - not even warranting being fully presented.
This tactic will tend to make you think there are a lot of examples (so many they don't even fit on the screen!), and that it has some legitimate backing (the web reference).
But always be careful when thinking you know someone else's motivations. You don't. You really don't. You can guess, and you might guess right, and you might guess wrong. But you don't know. So what we are left with is research. Check the source.
The Web Link
The next step is to check out the web link and see what the evidence actually is. And boy, does it not disappoint.
Almost all paleontologists never date dinosaur bones, because they have assumed for some time that the bones have to be millions of years old.What complete bovine feces. The claim here is that paleontologists "never date dinosaur bones". What they don't do is destroy dinosaur fossils for pointless tests. They absolutely do date the fossils through non-destructive means by dating surrounding materials. Now, maybe you disagree that they date them properly, but that is not the claim. But I digress, let's look at their actual data, and ignore their commentary.
The Data
The data that they provide is three charts (labelled Table 1, 2, and 3). These seem to document the claim that radiocarbon dating of some samples are in the carbon range (0 - 60,000 years). In addition to that, there is some back-and-forth commentary between several critics and Hugh Miller. His name keeps coming up, we should look into that.
The back-and-forth seems to be about whether Miller's samples were contaminated. They don't even address the biggest problem: Miller didn't date dinosaur bones. He dated fossils. He dated rocks that formed after the bones were gone. There are accusations that what he really dated was an organic preservative that was put on the fossils by the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. He denies this.
The back-and-forth seems to be about whether Miller's samples were contaminated. They don't even address the biggest problem: Miller didn't date dinosaur bones. He dated fossils. He dated rocks that formed after the bones were gone. There are accusations that what he really dated was an organic preservative that was put on the fossils by the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. He denies this.
Hugh Miller
Hugh Miller was a somewhat famous geologist. This is not that Hugh Miller.
This Hugh Miller is a chemical equipment salesman who claims to have disproved core tenets of the field of geology and paleontology. Now, his past doesn't make his argument wrong, for that would be an ad hominem fallacy. But it does give us cause to slow down, and really consider this. We should not accept this lightly.
This Hugh Miller is a chemical equipment salesman who claims to have disproved core tenets of the field of geology and paleontology. Now, his past doesn't make his argument wrong, for that would be an ad hominem fallacy. But it does give us cause to slow down, and really consider this. We should not accept this lightly.
Now, I'm no expert here. I'm really, really no expert here. Well, not at many things. One related thing I am quite good at: Google.
Searching for Data
We start by typing in "Hugh Miller". That leads us to pages and pages about the wrong Hugh Miller - a geologist from the 19th century.
So let's refine that. One of the claims related to this was the preservative on the bones: shellac. Let's add that to our search: "Hugh Miller shellac".
So let's refine that. One of the claims related to this was the preservative on the bones: shellac. Let's add that to our search: "Hugh Miller shellac".
The first hit is reddit titled "What went wrong with the dating of the allosaurus by the University of Arizona?" Ok, we're on the right track. But reddit is not really a great source for anything but opinion (at least in this case). The second hit is from the National Center for Scientific Education (NCSE). That should be relevant criticism.
I read the article from the NCSE, but we need to consider the source. NCSE is an organization that is ideologically opposed to creationism. So, while they are probably informed, they're also biased. Everyone is biased, that doesn't mean you throw it out. But maybe another source would be good as well - especially because the NCSE source (which is linked below) is light on references.
So continuing the search, I used the name of the museum that Miller supposedly used to obtain the dinosaur bones: "Hugh Miller Carnegie Museum". This turns up another document, more well documented, basically telling the same story.
Both of these documents are linked below:
I read the article from the NCSE, but we need to consider the source. NCSE is an organization that is ideologically opposed to creationism. So, while they are probably informed, they're also biased. Everyone is biased, that doesn't mean you throw it out. But maybe another source would be good as well - especially because the NCSE source (which is linked below) is light on references.
So continuing the search, I used the name of the museum that Miller supposedly used to obtain the dinosaur bones: "Hugh Miller Carnegie Museum". This turns up another document, more well documented, basically telling the same story.
Both of these documents are linked below:
NCSE
Pages 10-16: http://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf
This paper discusses the problems with Miller's work, and the flaws in his argument. The conclusion is generally that he effectively dated an organic preservative on the fossils, not the fossils.
Fleming Group
http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Radiocarbon%20Dates%20for%20Dinosaur%20Bones.pdf
This paper is better referenced. In the acknowledgements section it appears that the author actually contacted many of the related parties. In their conclusion they state:
This paper is better referenced. In the acknowledgements section it appears that the author actually contacted many of the related parties. In their conclusion they state:
Such deliberate disregard of the warnings from both the Carnegie and Arizona suggests not mere ignorance of the limitations of radiocarbon dating nor even simple incompetence, but a premeditated intent to deceive. CRSEF researchers must have known the radiocarbon dates on the Carnegie specimens would be hopelessly compromised by contaminants. They knew the “dates” would be meaningless, but they also knew they would appear recent. And an apparently recent radiocarbon age for a dinosaur fossil could be used to support the creationist myth that “dinosaurs lived with man.”To be clear, these are not my statements, and I do not fully back them. I think accurately judging someone else's motivations is a dangerous thing to do. It is really hard to tell the difference between someone that is lying to others, someone that is lying to themselves, and someone that is just right where you are wrong. It is better, in my opinion, to stick to the quality of the argument presented.
What about the other samples that weren't Miller's?
And here's one place where I'm sure many people will disagree with me. It doesn't matter. None of that matters, because the inclusion of Miller's research invalidates it all. It isn't my job to make a valid argument for McIntosh. It is his job. And when he includes things like Miller's research, it puts a black stain on everything. A stain that makes me not willing to go further.
If he wants to go through these sources himself, weed out the bad science, and re-present something, I'd be happy to consider it. But I'm not going to do this kind of deep dive on sources 2, 3, and 4 when source 1 was so bad.
I honestly hope McIntosh does just that. Like most science advocates, I would love if we found out our age of the Earth was incorrect. That's new data, I love new data. That would be awesome. But this evidence doesn't do that.
If he wants to go through these sources himself, weed out the bad science, and re-present something, I'd be happy to consider it. But I'm not going to do this kind of deep dive on sources 2, 3, and 4 when source 1 was so bad.
I honestly hope McIntosh does just that. Like most science advocates, I would love if we found out our age of the Earth was incorrect. That's new data, I love new data. That would be awesome. But this evidence doesn't do that.
Comments