14C Calibration and Correlations

Finding tiny chunks of collagen proteins (just a few amino acids long if memory serves) is not the same as finding intact tissue. They may have very well found small peptides that bound to the apatite matrix of the bone and were therefore preserved. Same for heme proteins. This, in now way, puts the age of the fossil in doubt. The fossil is 65 million years old as determined by the radiometric dating of the rocks above and below the fossil itself. What these fossils are showing is that small amounts of biological material could be preserved over millions of years. Can you dig up the original references for these claims?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We need the original references for a rebuttal. All we have is the claims being made as to what those references actually say. Given the track record of creationists, I don't think we should accept these claims at face value.For example, Kent Hovind used to claim that pieces of the same mammoth had very discordant dates:"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old. Another part of the same mammoth carbon dated at 44,000 years old."--Kent HovindWhen people actually checked his references they found that the dates were from different mammoths, not the same one.Angelfire - error 410That is the type of misrepresentation that we are used to, so I think it is prudent to work from the original sources instead of what the creationists claim the sources say.