Our investigation has shown that the pretreatment of bone with diluted acetic acid following a proscribed technique allows the separation of the bioapatite fraction from diagenetic carbonates. The lab might not have been able to completely isolate the fossil’s original bioapatite, so the result may have contamination in it.Please note that “diagenetic carbonates” refer to contaminants that occur during the fossilization process. Since the lab specifically reported a date for the fossil’s bioapatite, I have to assume that the investigators who actually did the preparation and dating think they were dating the fossil’s original bioapatite, not a mixture of bone and contaminants. However, I think it adds to the case that the bone is not millions of years old.This update isn’t about the lawsuit; I have no knowledge of how that is going. Since the current half-life of carbon-14 is “only” about 5,700 years, there should be no detectable levels of it in the original parts of the fossil, if the fossil is millions of years old. Cherkinsky’s lab found very detectable levels of carbon-14.In fact, there was so much carbon-14 in the fossil that it was given a date of 41,010 ± 220 years.The report then gives a method by which original bioapatite can be extracted from a fossil. When you also consider the fact that many other dinosaur bones (and other things that are supposed to be millions of years old) are dated as only being 22,000-41,000 years old, you have to at least conclude that there is something wrong somewhere.
I wanted the soft tissue that was found in the fossil to be dated, but it was not.
It will be interesting to see what future research says about this.
For right now, however, I am reminded of something that happened at one of the creation/evolution debates I participated in.
Instead, the fossil’s bioapatite (a mineral found in bone) was dated.
According to a 2009 report in the journal Contamination of the organic fraction in the process of the burial or during museum preservation treatment generally prohibits the use of the collagen fraction for dating.
I had presented some carbon-14 dates of dinosaur bones during the debate, and in his rebuttal, the evolutionist (Dr.