Oooh, Stripe doesn't like my analogy. Because he willingly ignores the science.
For the record, I have yet to see a rational discussion with Dr. Stripe.
Real Science Radio: More Soft Tissue Confirms RSR Dino Prediction
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Oooh, Stripe doesn't like my analogy. Because he willingly ignores the science.
For the record, I have yet to see a rational discussion with Dr. Stripe.
Nope. You haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about.
It takes two to tango. Retract your nonsense analogy and we can get started. :up:
It's a fair question, and applicable to the topic of this thread. Why won't you answer it?
I know exactly what I am talking about, and so do you. You just refuse to be honest because it calls your need for a literal Genesis into question. Must be difficult to really understand but have to fake it to make your theology fit.
Nope.
You implied that C14 dating could not be used on dinos just as a car could not be weighed on a bathroom scales. This is clearly in error: The amount of C14 decreases with time, meaning if your evolutionism is accurate, none would be left to "break the scales." Indeed, the test is not done because of fear that significant C14 will be found.
And we notice you've chosen to post nonsense instead of a retraction. I guess that will continue.
6days
New member
How can Dino soft tissue date at 32,000 years if you believe it is 70,000,000 years?
(Btw...50,000 +/- is consistent with the creation flood model)
Why can't 50,000 years be consistent with YE creationism?
And if 50,000 years isn't consistent with YE creationism, then how can C14 dating accurately measure back 50,000 years?
Last edited:
Evolutionists hate responding to challenges.
When was the Flood?
So when are you going to retract your nonsense analogy, or is my prediction going to continue to be fulfilled?
6days
New member
wait.... I will answer your question after you answer mine.
And... I think Strip[e has been asking you something also.
Stripe's claim is that my analogy was improper. sorry it was not. When one uses the wrong tools to get data, the data is suspect. He wants to use C-14 to date dinosaurs as I recall. He knows the reasons why C-14 is not a proper tool for that, as do you. but you ignore that because recognizing the science would put your particular theology at risk.
Was this your question?
"How can Dino soft tissue date at 32,000 years if you believe it is 70,000,000 years?
(Btw...50,000 +/- is consistent with the creation flood model)"?
If so, can you provide a citation to the 32K date?
And when was the Flood?
Although I am confused with the 50K +/- being consistent with your stated creation flood model. Care to explain?
For him who has eyes to c14
For him who has eyes to c14
That's why I offered Jack Horner $25k to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex (hear that conversation at that same link, toward the bottom of the page). Your analogy was backwards, but I presume, unless you smoke rsr.org/pot, that you are fully aware of this and are trying to finesse the point of your analogy, hoping no one will notice, because you just don't want to acknowledge your error due to both a lack of humility and in solidarity with the evolutionists' zero concession policy.
To take even further the observation of 14c all over the place, we can conduct an experiment based on an observation from the discoverer of carbon dating. Libby discussed that radiocarbon atoms found embedded as part of a collagen lattice CANNOT be contamination, because those atoms get into that protein complex through a sophisticated biological assembly process. When that lattice decomposes, into humic acid, then sure, if handled improperly, a number of those 14c/one-out-a-trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere could contaminate the specimen. But such atoms are not going to fall into the specimen and replace atoms originally placed into the collagen complex. This is why we creationists have been moving toward doing this additional testing on dinosaur collagen, a scientific test that evolutionists (like Horner) would never do and would prefer that no one ever do (for of course it would yield significant 14c, as expected by Ph.D. young-earth creation geologists, nuclear physicists, biochemists, etc.; see also rsr.org/predictions). And if this laboratory experiment is done, evolutionists of course would try to discredit the testing or preferably, bury the results.
That is how tightly shut an evolutionist's eyes are.
- Bob Enyart
rsr.org
p.s. Pleased to make your acquaintance Jonahdog.
For him who has eyes to c14
Hi Jonahdog. 14c is being found EVERYWHERE it is not supposed to be, including in specimens that discount any hypothesized contamination. For example 14c is found inside of the hardest naturally occurring stuff on earth, i.e., inside of diamonds. And from natural gas extracted from wells miles below the Earth's surface. And from a small mosasaur bone that still also contains original soft tissue allegedly 80-million years old. And then 14c is also found in coal, and oil, and allegedly billion-year-old chert, and from many countries and locales and various continents: all the dinosaur bones ever tested. See rsr.org/14c.
That's why I offered Jack Horner $25k to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex (hear that conversation at that same link, toward the bottom of the page). Your analogy was backwards, but I presume, unless you smoke rsr.org/pot, that you are fully aware of this and are trying to finesse the point of your analogy, hoping no one will notice, because you just don't want to acknowledge your error due to both a lack of humility and in solidarity with the evolutionists' zero concession policy.
To take even further the observation of 14c all over the place, we can conduct an experiment based on an observation from the discoverer of carbon dating. Libby discussed that radiocarbon atoms found embedded as part of a collagen lattice CANNOT be contamination, because those atoms get into that protein complex through a sophisticated biological assembly process. When that lattice decomposes, into humic acid, then sure, if handled improperly, a number of those 14c/one-out-a-trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere could contaminate the specimen. But such atoms are not going to fall into the specimen and replace atoms originally placed into the collagen complex. This is why we creationists have been moving toward doing this additional testing on dinosaur collagen, a scientific test that evolutionists (like Horner) would never do and would prefer that no one ever do (for of course it would yield significant 14c, as expected by Ph.D. young-earth creation geologists, nuclear physicists, biochemists, etc.; see also rsr.org/predictions). And if this laboratory experiment is done, evolutionists of course would try to discredit the testing or preferably, bury the results.
That is how tightly shut an evolutionist's eyes are.
- Bob Enyart
rsr.org
p.s. Pleased to make your acquaintance Jonahdog.
A long time ago.
How far back can carbon-14 dating accurately measure?
6days
New member
Nonsense and pseudoscience.
Why is C14 not a proper tool for dating soft tissue?
The answer is because results will contradict your belief system.
Soft Dino tissue dates 22,000 years...30,000 years. You somehow believe soft tissue survives millions of years, rejecting the evidence it is only thousands of years.