Mark H Armitage Still Has a Point About Soft Tissue

He may have somewhat less of a point about carbon 14.

DSTRI_25SummerUpdate-sm
MarkHArmitage | 8 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_uLaKmokI

Now, don't get me wrong. Insofar as fungi and microorganisms feed on the soft tissue in a dino bone, they certainly live off the carbon from inside the bones.

But at some point, they entered and the first specimens had their carbon from elsewhere, which is a probable cause of carbon 14 contamination.

If the colonies of living things hadn't been recent, the to them consumable material in dino bones would by now already have been consumed. It's not as if the colony could have been thriving in there since the Flood.

It has bothered me when carbon 14 in dinosaur bones carbon dates to as young as 22 000 years ago. Was it a post-Flood dino dying in a post-Flood landslide? Was the place contaminated by extra neutrons (a k a radioactivity!) from Uranium? Other theory: that extra amount of carbon 14 could have come with some organisms that are or recently were alive.

In my calibration, a sample from the Flood should date to 39 000 BP or 37 000 BC.* Which is the carbon date for Campi Flegrei.

20 000 BC is some decade of years before Eber or Heber was born, not from the Flood./HGL

2958 BC,

1.6277 pmC, dated as 37 000 BC

2738 BC

11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC

2725 BC

14.329 pmC, dated as 18,786 BC

2691 BC

Eber born

Taken from my: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

* Or older. Reservoir effect.