It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 25
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

When and where did I ever say that (hands contaminated C-14 samples)?



You said that here:


originally posted by: Phantom423
The "chemists", who were frauds, knew that the samples had seen a lot of hands and were contaminated.


But AMS cleaning techniques remove these minor contamination.




originally posted by: Phantom423



originally posted by: Barcs
Even fundamentalist Muslims aren't that stupid.


Be careful on that pedestal it's a long way down. Just because someone doesn't hold your same beliefs doesn't mean they are "idiots" or "stupid". You guys are dangerously close-minded
edit on 21-10-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




originally posted by: Phantom423 The "chemists", who were frauds, knew that the samples had seen a lot of hands and were contaminated.


This was a generalized comment, not specific to "hands". The samples were exposed to a myriad of contamination possibilities, not just "hands". This shows again very graphically your lack of knowledge and experience with how science works. You didn't bother to read the protocol I described, so why would I expect you to understand that contamination can come from a wide variety of sources. That's why we have a protocol to isolate samples from environmental contamination.

As for the monkey jpg, you were the one who brought up monkeys. I simply added to your comment. It was self explanatory - and for the most part true about Creationists.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

This was a generalized comment, not specific to "hands". The samples were exposed to a myriad of contamination possibilities, not just "hands". This shows again very graphically your lack of knowledge and experience with how science works. You didn't bother to read the protocol I described, so why would I expect you to understand that contamination can come from a wide variety of sources. That's why we have a protocol to isolate samples from environmental contamination.

As for the monkey jpg, you were the one who brought up monkeys. I simply added to your comment. It was self explanatory - and for the most part true about Creationists.


I don't understand what your point is. You are being like Trump and just saying how great you are without giving any actual information. I have read AMS protocol, and they are fully capable of removing shellac and other types of archaeological preservatives. You think the samples were unresolvably contaminated because you refuse to believe the possibility that dinosaurs are 4,000-40,000 years old - also, Miller et al were not the only ones to find these results.

Carbon dating dinosaurs


edit on 22-10-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



Be careful on that pedestal it's a long way down. Just because someone doesn't hold your same beliefs doesn't mean they are "idiots" or "stupid".

No one is saying you're stupid. But, ideas and beliefs that have no foundations in reality can be considered stupid or idiotic.



You guys are dangerously close-minded

You are projecting. You and your creationist friends are instructed to be closed minded (see below).
Being open minded in science is a necessity, all scientific theories are subject to intense scrutiny and stand or fall based on the evidence. Unlike creationist dogma that cannot change, regardless of the evidence, creationism is the epitome of closed mindedness.

Belief regardless of the evidence

Section 4:
General The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


The funny thing is, the bible contradicts its self and was written by fallible people.
edit on fSunday1734101f343601 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

No one is saying you're stupid. But, ideas and beliefs that have no foundations in reality can be considered stupid or idiotic.


I presented counter evidence, such as depictions and descriptions of dinosaurs, carbon-dating results from respected AMS labs, and certain logical paradoxes that riddle evolutionary theory. These ideas get immediately scrutinized as idiotic because they do not fall in line with the particular dogma that was jammed into our brain throughout our schooling. True scientists would be thrilled to see new empirical evidence such as soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and carbon-dating results in the 4,000-40,000 year old range - yet evolutionary dogma is preventing people from addressing the evidence without bias.



You are projecting. You and your creationist friends are instructed to be closed minded (see below).

Belief regardless of the evidence

Section 4:
General The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


The funny thing is, the bible contradicts its self and was written by fallible people.


Unfortunately Christians who do not understand what they believe have made the entire ideology to lose credibility. I left the church when I was 12 because I was confused by the hypocrisy that I saw... I followed logic and empirical evidence which led me to atheism, then agnosticism, then back to God. I know many cannot explain their belief and will relieve it as blind faith, but I came to my conclusions through reasonable discourse and analysis of the evidence... It required that I did not dismiss any evidence due to old bias.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So if you walked us through what evidence supported steps that makes you think God is the answer, what would they be??



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22793448]cooperton[/post

You don't understand my point??? You were the one who mentioned "hands". I responded that samples are exposed to a variety of environmental contaminants. What don't you understand about that?

Regarding shellac, you are dead wrong. First shellac is an organic compound. Manufacturing organic compounds DOES NOT reduce the concentration of C14 which is found naturally in ALL organic compounds. C14 has INCREASED in the environment over the last 80 years due to nuclear testing. Therefore, any organic compound synthesized today will have concentration of C14 isotope.

Below is an excerpt from a physics website which discussed the Miller "experiment":



Note the presence of SHELLAC.

The Museum of Natural History in New York publishes instruction manuals for amateur and professional archaeologists. Here is an excerpt on removing shellac from fossil bones:



Note that the solvents used to remove shellac are ETHANOL and ACETONE. Both solvents are carbon-based and also contain a level of C14 contamination. The United States Bureau of Standards requires that all chemicals commercially available in the United States have a complete chemical profile to include CONCENTRATION OF C14 isotope. The C14 isotope can be identified in the mass spectra of acetone and ethanol. Even the water used in the lab has C14 isotope.

So here's the point: There is absolutely NO possibility that the bone sample fraudulently acquired by Miller did not contain a concentration of C14 derived directly from the shellac, ethanol and acetone. Shellac EMBEDS into the bone. It does not sit on the surface. You can consult any archaeological museum in the world and they will confirm that. There is absolutely NO WAY TO EXTRACT ALL THE SHELLAC from the bone without damage to the sample. The use of ethanol and acetone would also contribute the C14 isotope concentration.

So why did the University of Georgia refuse to accept any more samples from this fraudulent group and returned the sample to them? Because if they had known that the sample was a dinosaur bone, they would have setup the correct protocol to analyze it. That protocol would require an algorithm to DEDUCT natural C14 contamination from the results based on statistical data used by every spectroscopy lab in the world. This is standard operating procedure for any carbon-based sample when the true concentration of C14, if any, is present.

Miller et al scammed the museum by posing as chemists to obtain the sample. They then scammed the University of Georgia lab by not revealing the true nature of the sample.

The fraud you people perpetrate is unconscionable.


edit on 22-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
I have read AMS protocol, and they are fully capable of removing shellac and other types of archaeological preservatives.


Can you link me to AMS protocol, and link us to the exact scientific research papers that show the results for the carbon dating of the fossils?


Be careful on that pedestal it's a long way down. Just because someone doesn't hold your same beliefs doesn't mean they are "idiots" or "stupid". You guys are dangerously close-minded


No. I am the exact opposite of close minded. If legitimate research were to come about showing evidence for creation or that disproved the evidence for evolution, I would be on board. Whereas with you, all the research in the world couldn't convince you that it's correct, even though you accept the conclusions for most other fields of science you continue to deny evolution as if they don't use the scientific method. The problem is you guys don't do evidence, you just post assumptions and rhetoric. Yes, I do think it is idiotic to deny a field of science as substantiated and well backed as evolution is. Gotta call a spade a spade. Spreading ignorance and denial of science is harmful to society.


True scientists would be thrilled to see new empirical evidence such as soft tissue in dinosaur bones,


It's not soft tissue. There were very trace amounts that were preserved and it wasn't SOFT. Why do you continue to project that lie?
edit on 10 23 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Post an actual peer reviewed article not a kitschy website (on a kitschy website). All I see is pseudoscience in your "Evidence"



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: [post=22793448]cooperton[/post

So here's the point: There is absolutely NO possibility that the bone sample fraudulently acquired by Miller did not contain a concentration of C14 derived directly from the shellac, ethanol and acetone.


The samples were tested by the University of Georgia's AMS lab... they know how to remove contaminants. You are blindly accusing the samples as having unsolvable contaminants because you can't consider for a minute that the results are true - this is as biased as it gets.



Shellac EMBEDS into the bone. It does not sit on the surface. You can consult any archaeological museum in the world and they will confirm that. There is absolutely NO WAY TO EXTRACT ALL THE SHELLAC from the bone without damage to the sample.


I can't share the whole paper but if you have a subscription you can look into this for your self:

Recent advances in dealing with Shellac contamination

Shellac is no longer a problem for labs to deal with. As I said earlier, I learned this from talking to lab directors when I was looking to get samples tested for my self. They showed me this paper^, among others, to ensure me they could deal with Shellac contaminants.



The use of ethanol and acetone would also contribute the C14 isotope concentration.


Maybe in an 8th grade science experiment, but the experts at Georgia's AMS lab know what they're doing.


So why did the University of Georgia refuse to accept any more samples from this fraudulent group and returned the sample to them?


Because they know the scientism elitists would rain almighty judgement upon their empirical evidence that conflicts with the infallible dogma of evolution. Most telling was how they were fully confident in the results until they found out it was a dinosaur bone, then they had to backtrack and say, well no, nevermind, that doesn't agree with our mutant monkey lord's philosophy. It is an absolute mockery of the scientific process and you are defending such fraud.
edit on 24-10-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

As I said previously, if the University of Georgia lab knew that the bones were dinosaur in origin, their preparation and protocol would have been much different. A fossil which is probably millions of years old is easily friable. The lab would not use aggressive techniques like drilling or soaking extensively in HCL. The lab was scammed by your friends into thinking that the samples were recent and were NOT from the fossil collection in the museum. Fraud, plain and simple.


The paper you cite is a research project focused on Caspian Sea burials. They are NOT millions of years old. The samples were estimated to be from the late Pleistocene-early Holocene era which would be approximately 11-12,000 years ago.

The protocol for the radiocarbon testing procedure used in your citation is referenced in the following paper:



Below is the table of the Age Standards used to compare the fossils from the Caspian Sea area. Note that that the age limit is 60-70 ka, which is approximately 65,000 thousand years – not millions.



This protocol is not intended for fossils that are millions of years old. In addition, this paper referenced soft tissue and collagen which was analyzed. The samples given to University of Georgia were bone and had no collagen.

This paper also does not resolve the removal of shellac. It only addresses the removal of shellac from samples from the Holocene era the lower limit of which is approximately 65,000 years.



As to your comment about the 8th grade experiment, perhaps you should call the CEO of Perkin Elmer and let him know that their laboratory can only perform grade school experiments:



Perhaps you should also send this jpg to Dr. Cherkinsky at the University of Georgia. I'm sure he'll appreciate your expert input.





In conclusion, you lost, I won. Get over it.


edit on 24-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



edit on 24-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
The lab was scammed by your friends into thinking that the samples were recent and were NOT from the fossil collection in the museum. Fraud, plain and simple.


You are assuming this because they got results you don't like.



The paper you cite is a research project focused on Caspian Sea burials. They are NOT millions of years old.


Yeah but neither are dinosaurs.



Below is the table of the Age Standards used to compare the fossils from the Caspian Sea area. Note that that the age limit is 60-70 ka, which is approximately 65,000 thousand years – not millions.


If the C-14 dates received were millions of years old the results would have given 75k+, and not in the range of 4,000-40,000 years. The rest of your argument is based on the assumption that dinosaurs are millions of years old. If you really wish to prove that is the case, attempt to nullify the results by reproducing the experiment. Until then, empirical evidence triumphs over your biased claims of foul play



In conclusion, you lost, I won. Get over it.


Humility, or at least common courtesy, would suit you better.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Prove that dinosaurs are not millions of years in the past. Because you have yet to do so, beyond a debatable paper.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Look believe what you want. I'm done with this. You've bought into a fraud and it doesn't seem to bother you.

Good luck with that.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Prove that dinosaurs are not millions of years in the past. Because you have yet to do so, beyond a debatable paper.


I have shown evidence that dinosaurs are carbon-dated to 4,000-40,000 years old. IF this is not true, there should be evidence of dinosaur remains being carbon dated as 75k+, which would mean it is way older than the C-14 dating range. I have yet to find a C-14 date for dinosaur remains that doesn't fall in the range of 4,000-40,000 years old.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Do you understand how carbon dating works? In that 50K years is about as old as one can date. Because of the half life of C14.

Coupled with this, the fact that most fossils have had all the Carbon replaced due to Permineralization. Hence no carbon will be there to date. Unless you date things found incident with the fossil.

Thus if you had a carbon containing sample for a dinosaur, which would be around 65 million years ago (give or take a few 100k years). There will be no Carbon.

So what happens when one carbon dates dinosaurs? When one has something containing carbon, rather than minerals? When one treats the samples in the appropriate manner (given the age, and condition)?

Yep no Carbon 14 is detected.

Yet Creationists look at these poorly handled samples, and point out that "AH HA its proof the buggers lived much closer to now, and thus God"

Nope, it is wrong.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Nope, it is wrong.


The process of falsifying a claim insists repeating the experiment and showing that it is false. There are no examples of this in the literature.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So where did they publish the data again? You know peer reviewed papers, where one can access the data.
EDIT

Oh and you ignored the rest of my post. This implies you can't argue.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

So where did they publish the data again? You know peer reviewed papers, where one can access the data.


Don't you understand how the system works? Nothing that is evidence against evolution is considered for publication:

Publication Bias

Notice^ there is no mentioning of poor technique or anything, just outright denial of the results regardless of their authenticity. Such is the monstrosity. So naturally this is going to take a lot of time to authenticate, as shown by how furious phantom gets at the idea that dinosaurs might be younger than we thought they were. God forbid you admit the potential for fallibility in the scientism priesthood.




top topics



 
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join