Oh look, more dinosaur tissues

[6days]

I thought you said the dates were merely conclusions they started with, but here you're saying they might have come from "other dating".

Which is it?

Evolutionists start with their conclusion of millions of years. They resist the evidence showing these fossils to be just thousands of years....
Like Mary Schweitzer said upon discoveri g soft tissue..."it can't be".
Why can't it be?... She started with the conclusion and now tries to shoehorn the data to fit.

So... once again...evolutionists start with the conclusion....always.

 

[gcthomas]

JOSE... you keep dodging the answer.
Yes evolutionists are committed to their millions of years so resist doing tests such as C14 which shows soft tissue in dinos is thousabds of years old.....not millions.

Tell me, why do you trust C14 dates when you have rejected all the other radiodating methods that disagree with your predetermined she of the earth?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, rather than chase another creationist around trying to get him to answer a simple question that an honest participant would have answered the first time, I'll just note that this is a good demonstration of why creationism has lost so consistently in the arenas of science and law.

In both those arenas, ignoring and dodging questions will cost you a lot of credibility. Do it consistently enough and well.....you'll end up like creationism is today.

 

[User Name]

Evolutionists start with their conclusion of millions of years. They resist the evidence showing these fossils to be just thousands of years....
Like Mary Schweitzer said upon discoveri g soft tissue..."it can't be".
Why can't it be?... She started with the conclusion and now tries to shoehorn the data to fit.

Are you going to help Mark Armitage?

 

[CherubRam]

6days, you're still dodging. You said "evolutionists start with the conclusion" of millions of years. I'm trying to get you to explain what that means, specifically if you really think the ages of the fossils we've been talking about were just made up out of thin air.

So how about you stop playing kid games and explain your statement beyond a simple rote phrase?

In the past it has been discovered that Evolutionist have falsified the facts. Dino bones not classified as such have been carbon dated as being 6000 to 16000 years old.

 

[6days]

Tell me, why do you trust C14 dates when you have rejected all the other radiodating methods that disagree with your predetermined she of the earth?

Strawman ...I haven't rejected any radiodating methods. They all are reasonably accurate at determining the present rate of decay from parent, to daughter element.

 

[gcthomas]

Strawman ...I haven't rejected any radiodating methods. They all are reasonably accurate at determining the present rate of decay from parent, to daughter element.

Why do you want C14 dating to be used for the fossils, but reject the dates provided by a variety of other radiodating systems?

 

[6days]

Strawman ...I haven't rejected any radiodating methods. They all are reasonably accurate at determining the present rate of decay from parent, to daughter element.

Why do you want C14 dating to be used for the fossils, but reject the dates provided by a variety of other radiodating systems?

Radiodating is reasonably accurate at determining the present rate of decay from parent, to daughter element. (See my above reply). The measurable amounts of C-14 in dino soft tissue is one more evidence of our young earth - and the truth of God's Word.

 

[gcthomas]

Radiodating is reasonably accurate at determining the present rate of decay from parent, to daughter element. (See my above reply).

Radiodating isn't about determining the present decay rate. You said that before and I assumed it was a typo. My bad. You really are that stupid.

The measurable amounts of C-14 in dino soft tissue is one more evidence of our young earth - and the truth of God's Word.

Measurable, but insignificant amounts in bone. I don't think that the soft tissue had been dated as it has been too processed.

Why do you want C14 dating to be used when all the other methods show that C14 is the wrong method for such old specimens? Why do you favour one over the others? (You have avoided this question several times now, so I suspect you don't want to say the answer as it will undermine your claims)

 

[6days]

Radiodating is reasonably accurate at determining the present rate of decay from parent, to daughter element. (See my above reply).

Radiodating isn't about determining the present decay rate.

Its about measuring the present rate of decay. We can determine that rate accurately. You believe you can extrapolate that info back millions of years. You are wrong.

The measurable amounts of C-14 in dino soft tissue is one more evidence of our young earth - and the truth of God's Word.

Measurable, but insignificant amounts in bone.

You are wrong.*A date of 30,000 years IS significant.

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed.* Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

I don't think that the soft tissue had been dated as it has been too processed.*

Of course you think that but you are making excuses to deny evidence that doesnt support your beliefs.*

Why do you want C14 dating to be used when all the other methods show that C14 is the wrong method for such old specimens?

C14 testing shows that the other methods using assumptions of long ages is wrong.

Why do you favour one over the others? (You have avoided this question several times now, so I suspect you don't want to say the answer as it will undermine your claims)

C14 shows that evolutionary beliefs and asssumptions are false. Why are evolutionists afraid to C14 test dino tissue? *Why won't Jack Horner take Bob Enyarts cash? Why did Mary Schweitzer claim 'it can't be'? Why do evolutionists contine to be "shocked" and "surprised"? Answer is the evidence does not fit their belief system?...In the beginning, God created.

 

[Jose Fly]

So this is how it works...

Scientists go out and conduct radiometric dating on the Hell Creek formation, where these fossils are found.

The use 40Ar/39Ar total fusion and get a result of ~64 million years old.

They use 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum and get a result of ~66.0 million years old.

They use 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum again and get a result of ~65 million years old.

They use 40Ar/39Ar total fusion again and get a result of ~65 million years old.

They use K-Ar and get a result of ~65 million years old.

They use Rb-Sr isochron and get a result of ~64 million years old.

They use U-Pb concordia and get a result of ~64 million years old.


Then a group of creationists conduct C-14 dating on bones from the formation and get dates of around 30,000 years. Why would they do such a thing? The above results clearly show that the formations in the area are over 60 million years old, and we know C-14 dating isn't useful for dating things that old.

So basically you have a group of creationists who misuse a tool, and when they get anomalous results, expect everyone else to just blindly toss out all the work that has been done before and go with their results, even though they were derived incorrectly.

Good job creationists!

 

[Greg Jennings]

https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/

Yeah, they'll find ways to deny it.

This is a well-understood phenomenon. And it's not the only way animals get preserved so well. Tar pits can preserve bones for millennia and spit em out like they were new.

Heck, if you're allergic to scientific sources that will explain this tissue thing to you, just watch Jurassic World instead. They give a pretty basic description of the process

 

[musterion]

This is a well-understood phenomenon. And it's not the only way animals get preserved so well. Tar pits can preserve bones for millennia and spit em out like they were new.

Heck, if you're allergic to scientific sources that will explain this tissue thing to you, just watch Jurassic World instead. They give a pretty basic description of the process

Yeah, thats why the first reaction from evilutionists to news of T-rex tissue a few rears ago is that it was a hoax or, at best, some kind of fungus or algae that had contaminated the find. Some fairly recently here on tol insisted the same.

Keep on lying, though. You're heaping wrath for yourself.

 

[Jonahdog]

So basically you have a group of creationists who misuse a tool, and when they get anomalous results, expect everyone else to just blindly toss out all the work that has been done before and go with their results, even though they were derived incorrectly.

Because: The Bible.

 

[6days]

So basically you have a group of creationists who misuse a tool, and when they get anomalous results, expect everyone else to just blindly toss out all the work that has been done before and go with their results, even though they were derived incorrectly.
Good job creationists!

Jose... it is against forum rules to quote others and not give them credit. I am not positive, but I think you are quoting the Pope that disagreed with Galileo?

 

[User Name]

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed.* Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Here's why those claims don't pan out: https://youtu.be/CrnhUZWTaWY?t=45s

 

[gcthomas]

Its about measuring the present rate of decay. We can determine that rate accurately. You believe you can extrapolate that info back millions of years. You are wrong.

The decay rate of radioisotopes has been observed to be constant for billions of years, from observations of supernova light curves with the decay chain of Ni-56 → Co-56 → Fe-56.

Unless you can show some evidence that decay rates of everything except C-14 has been consistently multiplied by a factor of at least a hundred thousand, then you are banking on moonshine.

Oh, and you still haven't explained why you trust C-14 decay but not all the other more suitable radiodating methods. :think: Four slippery avoidances, and counting.

 

[6days]

The decay rate of radioisotopes has been observed to be constant for billions of years....

Really?..... it must have been Piltdown mans great grandmother?

Unless you can show some evidence that decay rates of everything except C-14 has been consistently multiplied by a factor of at least a hundred thousand, then you are banking on moonshine.

Unless you know what the starting ratios of all elements are, you are drinking moonshine.

Oh, and you still haven't explained why you trust C-14 decay but not all the other more suitable radiodating methods. :think: Four slippery avoidances, and counting.

You keep on asking gc
C14 shows that evolutionary beliefs and asssumptions are false. Why are evolutionists afraid to C14 test dino tissue? *Why won't Jack Horner take Bob Enyarts cash? Why did Mary Schweitzer claim 'it can't be'? Why do evolutionists contine to be "shocked" and "surprised"? Answer is the evidence does not fit their belief system?...In the beginning, God created.

 

[6days]

Here's why those claims don't pan out: https://youtu.be/CrnhUZWTaWY?t=45s

Here's why those claims don't pan out
Http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

But even more importantly please read Genesis chapter 1

 

[gcthomas]

Really?..... it must have been Piltdown mans great gandmother? Unless you know what the starting ratios of all elements are, you are drinking moonshine.

When the daughter product is a noble gas, it is easy to know what the starting ratio was when the rock melted for a long period, since the argon out-gasses. Didn't you know that? It is harder for C14 dating, since the original C14/C13 ratio depends on callibrations against other methods, like tree ring sequences.

You keep on asking gc
C14 shows that evolutionary beliefs and asssumptions are false.

IOW, you trust it because it naïvely seems to support your preexisting belief?