Starchild bump

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

You have one machine output that you are saying is data. That's the only thing your whole argument relies on. The rest is believing what they're telling you and not believing what was said by scientists previously.

Ahhh...ya know; that is all you have too...ultimately we are talking about the same dataset.

And, no, I don't necessarily believe what they say; I rely on science, my education, and what new knowledge I pick up to evaluate the available data and gain an understanding...

Previous scientific commentary that I've seen were poor/improper evaluations of obsolete and/or contaminated data, thus they are invalid reports.

I understand that you like what they say, but, typically the science used is third rate at best, and only amounts to a massively unfounded attack on what is otherwise mediocre science reporting.

a reply to: tanka418

You say all of that and don't think the subsequent tests that have been done are mediocre? Is that because they have shown you the mountains of proof or because you believe this skull isn't human?

Either way.....

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

You say all of that and don't think the subsequent tests that have been done are mediocre? Is that because they have shown you the mountains of proof or because you believe this skull isn't human?

Either way.....

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

Tell ya what kid, I'll stop responding to you until you show some remote indication that you have any idea what I've said...

Try reading my last post again, and revise your response.

a reply to: tanka418

So now your down to calling me kid? Ok sport, I can play that game too.

You have said you believe the skull is not human based on available data. The only data presented is a single machine output.

So, you either believe it's not human based on a single piece of evidence (that can be due to contamination or degradation) /andor because Pye and his team says so.

You know Christian faith is based off of the bible and what other people say?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So, you either believe it's not human based on a single piece of evidence (that can be due to contamination or degradation) /andor because Pye and his team says so.

You will have to prove that there was such "contamination or degradation" present...and, you can't; your argument is moot.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So, you either believe it's not human based on a single piece of evidence (that can be due to contamination or degradation) /andor because Pye and his team says so.

You will have to prove that there was such "contamination or degradation" present...and, you can't; your argument is moot.

1999 tests states there was contamination. Pye himself said there was contamination.

Also, something left in a mine for 800 years then handled (bare handed) by the original founder, the following founder and then Pye would cause contamination.

Let alone all of the extra environmental contamination there is outside of the mine.

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79

1999 tests states there was contamination. Pye himself said there was contamination.

So when are you actually going to show some data?

As has been stated numerous times; we are using 2011 data not 1999.

You have seen the data, if you choose to not accept, and, process said data; that is entirely on you.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

1999 tests states there was contamination. Pye himself said there was contamination.

So when are you actually going to show some data?

As has been stated numerous times; we are using 2011 data not 1999.

You have seen the data, if you choose to not accept, and, process said data; that is entirely on you.

Tests done in 1999 found contamination.

Tests done in 2003 found contamination.

Tests done in 2009 found contamination.

Tests done in 2010 found contamination.

It's all on their own website. Maybe you should read it?

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Tests done in 1999 found contamination.

Report contains some discussion of contamination and degradation.

Tests done in 2003 found contamination.

report has little mention of contamination...

Tests done in 2009 found contamination.

There are no 2009 reports

Tests done in 2010 found contamination.

report has no mention of contamination or degradation.

It's all on their own website. Maybe you should read it?

Indeed it is! Perhaps you might like to read it...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Tests done in 1999 found contamination.

Report contains some discussion of contamination and degradation.

So there is contamination

Tests done in 2003 found contamination.

report has little mention of contamination...

Still mentions it. Must mean it's there.

Tests done in 2009 found contamination.

There are no 2009 reports

That was a typo on my part.

Tests done in 2010 found contamination.

report has no mention of contamination or degradation.

Oh yes there is.

Here's the quote from THEIR OWN SITE to prove it.

In February 2010, the geneticist was provided with a bone sample from the Starchild Skull. In March, he had recovered dozens of fragments of DNA from the sample, much of which resulted from the inevitable bacterial contamination.

Pretty sure it says inevitable bacterial contamination.

It's all on their own website. Maybe you should read it?

Indeed it is! Perhaps you might like to read it...

Funny how you ignore evidence so this skull fits your and Pyes team bias. How about you look at ALL the evidence?

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.
Please tanka, show us some data.
(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

It is as if there is no actual data......

Oh!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.
Please tanka, show us some data.
(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

It is as if there is no actual data......

Oh!

That's why I keep asking for it lol.

There is some data on the site that tanka doesn't present though. There are some gels that prove it isn't related to the older skeleton it was found near. Apart from that it's all speculation as there's no data to prove the skull is or isn't human (apart from the 1999 and 2003 tests that are now being ignored).

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Here's the quote from THEIR OWN SITE to prove it.

In February 2010, the geneticist was provided with a bone sample from the Starchild Skull. In March, he had recovered dozens of fragments of DNA from the sample, much of which resulted from the inevitable bacterial contamination.

Pretty sure it says inevitable bacterial contamination.

Uh huh...and which document was that in?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Here's the quote from THEIR OWN SITE to prove it.

In February 2010, the geneticist was provided with a bone sample from the Starchild Skull. In March, he had recovered dozens of fragments of DNA from the sample, much of which resulted from the inevitable bacterial contamination.

Pretty sure it says inevitable bacterial contamination.

Uh huh...and which document was that in?

I guess you can't do a simple search and have other people do it for you? Lazy, just lazy.

HERE

That's 3 times they speak about contamination. Are you still going to say there wasn't any?

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

originally posted by: TerryDon79
There is some data on the site that tanka doesn't present though. There are some gels that prove it isn't related to the older skeleton it was found near. Apart from that it's all speculation as there's no data to prove the skull is or isn't human (apart from the 1999 and 2003 tests that are now being ignored).

And this is you problem. You don't understand "why" that old data is no longer used. Yet those very reasons are as obvious as the nose on your face.

The areas of DNA that were tested in 1999 and 2003 were retested. This replaced the old data, making it obsolete. This new data was likely significantly more precise due to technological evolution, thus "better" than the old data.

Got it? The 1999 and 2003 datasets are archived data, and, not applicable to the present analysis. And, in the present discussion we are using the 2011 dataset...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
There is some data on the site that tanka doesn't present though. There are some gels that prove it isn't related to the older skeleton it was found near. Apart from that it's all speculation as there's no data to prove the skull is or isn't human (apart from the 1999 and 2003 tests that are now being ignored).

And this is you problem. You don't understand "why" that old data is no longer used. Yet those very reasons are as obvious as the nose on your face.

The areas of DNA that were tested in 1999 and 2003 were retested. This replaced the old data, making it obsolete. This new data was likely significantly more precise due to technological evolution, thus "better" than the old data.

Got it? The 1999 and 2003 datasets are archived data, and, not applicable to the present analysis. And, in the present discussion we are using the 2011 dataset...

You mean the 2011 dataset that shows no information?

Gotcha!



So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

a reply to: tanka418

Yes, please show us the data you constantly claim to have. I'd love to see it.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: tanka418

Yes, please show us the data you constantly claim to have. I'd love to see it.

already posted...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: tanka418

Yes, please show us the data you constantly claim to have. I'd love to see it.

already posted...

You're whole 1 bit of machine printout that showed there were anomalies? So much data!

So when are you actually going to show some data?

You keep saying its there, yet you've not once shown any.

Please tanka, show us some data.

(I will constantly reply with the above until you either admit there is no data or provide data)

I thought I would leave these 3 quotes here from Dr. Robert Carter (who has a PhD pertaining to genetics) in reference to the 2011 BLAST tests.

Quote 1

The BLAST program does not do the analyzing by itself and the NIH does not run BLAST queries for people. Someone from this UFO organization, or their mysterious geneticist, had to go to the website, enter the DNA, select a bunch of parameters, run the query and then interpret the results.

Quote 2

It is easy to get a BLAST result like they did. All you have to do is enter jibberish. Or, you can set the parameters to something absurd (like demanding a 100% match for a chicken gene while searching the human genome). Or, sometimes the servers are busy and they kick back with the generic statement.

Quote 3

Regarding these results, how do we know they sent a bone fragment from the ‘Starchild’s’ skull to the lab? And, for that matter, how does the lab know the bone they analyzed came from said skull? And, how do we know the skull is not a Piltdown-like fraud? And, how do we know these tests were actually done by the company? And, how did anyone rule out DNA contamination from the people who have handled the skull since its discovery? That last point alone invalidates any and all claims about DNA coming from the supposed skull …”Trust us” is not good enough for science…

All can be found HERE