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: 43
16
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

No...no they wouldn't (Get fired for producing evidence counter to evolutionary theory).


Yes they would, and they already have. Mark Armitage is currently suing the university for firing him over such results.


Not if the results can be reproduced independently and verified by others.


Yes, and it has YET to be falsified, instead the issue is ignored totally. Multiple labs including University of Arizona, and The University of Georgiahave indicated Dinosaurs are less than 40,000 years old. I have yet to see any C-14 data that indicates that dinosaur bones are older than 40,000 years old. I dare any open-minded scientist to attempt to falsify such data. Let the science do the talking.
edit on 15-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Yes they would, and they already have. Mark Armitage is currently suing the university for firing him over such results.

The college already settled and maintains that they fired him due to budgetary concerns. They say they settled to avoid protracted legal fees


Yes, and it has YET to be falsified, instead the issue is ignored totally. Multiple labs including University of Arizona, and The University of Georgiahave indicated Dinosaurs are less than 40,000 years old. I have yet to see any C-14 data that indicates that dinosaur bones are older than 40,000 years old. I dare any open-minded scientist to attempt to falsify such data. Let the science do the talking.

Sooooo... C14 doesn't date older than about 45,000 years. So the reason you haven't seen anything older using C14 is because you are using the wrong radiometric dating method to date fossils. This is like using a yard stick to calculate how wide the US is then saying it is impossible because the yard stick isn't long enough.
edit on 15-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Sooooo... C14 doesn't date older than about 45,000 years.


To clarify, usually readings are difficult over 50,000 years old, but the data would conclusively state that the samples are that old. If dinosaur bones were older than 50kya, the C-14 results would say so. But they always indicate a younger age.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Sooooo... C14 doesn't date older than about 45,000 years.


To clarify, usually readings are difficult over 50,000 years old, but the data would conclusively state that the samples are that old. If dinosaur bones were older than 50kya, the C-14 results would say so. But they always indicate a younger age.

But they don't. You are just making that up. Your two examples don't even say what types of bones are analyzed btw.
edit on 15-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

But they don't. You are just making that up. Your two examples don't even say what types of bones are analyzed btw.


What don't you guys get? They could not say they were dinosaur bones, otherwise the lab would have refused to test them. Look into it... UGA refuses to accept dinosaur bones for C-14 testing.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So what makes you say they were dinosaur bones? Clearly UGA isn't going to test dinosaur bones because you don't test dinosaur bones for C14.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

So what makes you say they were dinosaur bones? Clearly UGA isn't going to test dinosaur bones because you don't test dinosaur bones for C14.


Obviously fraud is always a possibility, but multiple results from multiple doctorates and multiple AMS labs all show a young result for dinosaur bones. So far all the data is confirming such results with no falsifications.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

So what makes you say they were dinosaur bones? Clearly UGA isn't going to test dinosaur bones because you don't test dinosaur bones for C14.


Obviously fraud is always a possibility, but multiple results from multiple doctorates and multiple AMS labs all show a young result for dinosaur bones. So far all the data is confirming such results with no falsifications.

Fraud? What evidence do you have that it is fraud? All I see are two papers showing unidentified samples and the years they've been dated at. You are the only one who seems to be suggesting that those are dinosaur fossils. So how do you know? Do you somehow believe that only dinosaur bones have fossilized and nothing more recent has done so?
edit on 15-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Fraud? What evidence do you have that it is fraud? All I see are two papers showing unidentified samples and the years they've been dated at. You are the only one who seems to be suggesting that those are dinosaur fossils. So how do you know? Do you somehow believe that only dinosaur bones have fossilized and nothing more recent has done so?


I don't believe it is fraud. I think they are genuine results. Here is the full story if you are interested: C-14 Dinosaur remains

extra information
edit on 15-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Fraud? What evidence do you have that it is fraud? All I see are two papers showing unidentified samples and the years they've been dated at. You are the only one who seems to be suggesting that those are dinosaur fossils. So how do you know? Do you somehow believe that only dinosaur bones have fossilized and nothing more recent has done so?


I don't believe it is fraud. I think they are genuine results. Here is the full story if you are interested: C-14 Dinosaur remains

extra information

A creationist site... What a surprise... That explains the document from 1990.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Obviously fraud is always a possibility, but multiple results from multiple doctorates and multiple AMS labs all show a young result for dinosaur bones. So far all the data is confirming such results with no falsifications.


What multiple results and labs? Please provide a list. I have the labs in AZ and GA - that's it.




I have yet to see any C-14 data that indicates that dinosaur bones are older than 40,000 years old. I dare any open-minded scientist to attempt to falsify such data. Let the science do the talking.


There is literally a mountain of spectroscopic evidence for dinosaur sample dating which definitively shows that dinosaurs are millions of years old. Are you nuts? Don't you ever read the posts or research online??




To clarify, usually readings are difficult over 50,000 years old, but the data would conclusively state that the samples are that old. If dinosaur bones were older than 50kya, the C-14 results would say so. But they always indicate a younger age.


Difficult for C14 because C14 cannot date much further than 75,000 years. Not difficult at all with other spectroscopic methods. I absolutely can't believe after all this time that you have so little knowledge of scientific methods. It's F&(^%^%cking unbelievable.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


There is literally a mountain of spectroscopic evidence for dinosaur sample dating which definitively shows that dinosaurs are millions of years old. Are you nuts? Don't you ever read the posts or research online??

Clearly not. As he just showed me, he combs creationist sites for precompiled lists for him and feels like that is good enough.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Difficult for C14 because C14 cannot date much further than 75,000 years. Not difficult at all with other spectroscopic methods. I absolutely can't believe after all this time that you have so little knowledge of scientific methods. It's F&(^%^%cking unbelievable.



You need to understand this point: C-14 will not be present in organisms over 100,000 years old, and if this is the case, the accelerator mass spectrometer will indicate such a result. So far, no accelerator mass spectrometry result has indicated that any of the samples are older than 40,000 years old
edit on 15-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

No...no they wouldn't (Get fired for producing evidence counter to evolutionary theory).


Yes they would, and they already have. Mark Armitage is currently suing the university for firing him over such results.


Sorry, I thought the discussion was about scientists. Armitage wasn't a scientist, he maintained and cleaned scanning electron microscopes.

He didn't produce evidence that contradicted evolution, he did no dating on the tricerotops horn he found and decided on his own that it was 4Ka. He made up the determination for the age, he's a liar. He claims he worked at the school as a published scientist, he lied. The "paper" he wrote on huge tricerotops horn... It's garbage and has been pulled by the publisher after it was peer reviewed.

The real reason Armitage was fired was for misappropriation of resources because he didn't have authorization to use the labs, equipment or materials used in putting together his paper filled with substandard science. Not because he provided evidence that contradicts evolution because he did no such thing. He's merely a cause célèbre for proponents of YEC because they Iike to claim he was fired for being a creationist. Anyone promoting this version of the story is as much a liar as Armitage is.


Not if the results can be reproduced independently and verified by others.


Yes, and it has YET to be falsified, instead the issue is ignored totally. Multiple labs including University of Arizona, and The University of Georgiahave indicated Dinosaurs are less than 40,000 years old. I have yet to see any C-14 data that indicates that dinosaur bones are older than 40,000 years old. I dare any open-minded scientist to attempt to falsify such data. Let the science do the talking.



And yet you refuse to acknowledge the lies and deceit that the creationists used to obtain their samples illegally. You're ok with that as long as it meets the expectations of your confirmation bias huh? The bottom line is that chain of custody and provenance of the samples can not be accounted for and that makes the results worthless.


Oh...BTW, your poor Mary Schweizer, she's an evangelical Christian and yet she still promotes the geologic ages of the earth of 4.5+ Bn years.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

So what makes you say they were dinosaur bones? Clearly UGA isn't going to test dinosaur bones because you don't test dinosaur bones for C14.


Obviously fraud is always a possibility, but multiple results from multiple doctorates and multiple AMS labs all show a young result for dinosaur bones. So far all the data is confirming such results with no falsifications.

Fraud? What evidence do you have that it is fraud? All I see are two papers showing unidentified samples and the years they've been dated at. You are the only one who seems to be suggesting that those are dinosaur fossils. So how do you know? Do you somehow believe that only dinosaur bones have fossilized and nothing more recent has done so?


Not only that but the dating report clearly says bone. I've never worked with any professionals who couldn't tell the difference between a bone and a fossil. Nobody is going to 14C date a fossil. And if they did, they would write thst it was a fossil in the Radiometric report just as they do in K-Ar, Uranium series etc....



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




What don't you guys get? They could not say they were dinosaur bones, otherwise the lab would have refused to test them. Look into it... UGA refuses to accept dinosaur bones for C-14 testing.


That is blatantly false. The lab refuses to take samples - any samples - from religious quacks. It's clearly stated in the letter from the lab. I have the letter and will upload it later - in fact, I think I uploaded it previously in this very, very redundant conversation.

Below is a copy from an email between "lonewolf8634" and Dr. Cherkinsky. Dr. Cherkinsky is Russian.
This is from the horse's mouth.



lonewolf8634 Mar 18 (1 day ago)

to acherkin

Greetings Dr. Cherkinsky.

Sir, I know you must be busy man and I hate to impose upon you but my search for this information online has been fruitless.

I am currently engaged in a debate about a situation regarding certain dinosaur bones that were submitted to your lab for 14C dating by the Paleochronology Group. My opponent maintains that the dating was accurate and appropriate for the samples and continues to state that this "proves" that dinosaurs still walked the Earth 35,000 years ago. He also states that your lab stands by the results.

I, of course, maintain that the results are in error simply because the method used was inappropriate for the specimens tested and furthermore there seems to be some evidence of fraud if you consider the fact that this method would not have been applied had your lab known what they were testing.

I also maintain that , while you may certainly stand behind your method of 14C dating in the appropriate circumstances, you would not stand behind this particular date since, once again, the method was inappropriate to the sample.

A short note from you with your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated, but I understand if you have better things to do than settle online debates. Either way, I thank you for your time.

Dear larry,

These people do not want to understand that I have explain them many times.

In the some case it was not bone at all in some case ones were so badly preserved and did not suitable for the the dating but the ask us to analyze them and I told them many time that these dates came from contamination but they do not want here that. I have stopped any communication and analyses with these group.

best regards,

Alex

Dr. Alexander Cherkinsky
Center for Applied Isotope Studies
University of Georgia
120 Riverbend Road
Athens, GA 30602



edit on 15-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

Sorry, I thought the discussion was about scientists. Armitage wasn't a scientist, he maintained and cleaned scanning electron microscopes.


Oh Icarus, calm thy Pretentiousness before you fall to the mud which you throw at the humble seekers of knowledge.


The "paper" he wrote on huge tricerotops horn... It's garbage and has been pulled by the publisher after it was peer reviewed.


Because it was evidence against evolution. I have exhaustively tried to explain how the scientific priesthood doesn't allow any dissension in their manuscripts



The real reason Armitage was fired was for misappropriation of resources because he didn't have authorization to use the labs, equipment or materials used in putting together his paper filled with substandard science.


Said the lawyers who wished to avoid litigation for the university.




And yet you refuse to acknowledge the lies and deceit that the creationists used to obtain their samples illegally. You're ok with that as long as it meets the expectations of your confirmation bias huh? The bottom line is that chain of custody and provenance of the samples can not be accounted for and that makes the results worthless.


Take a deep breath and wait for some more results then if the preliminary results leave you exasperated.



Oh...BTW, your poor Mary Schweizer, she's an evangelical Christian and yet she still promotes the geologic ages of the earth of 4.5+ Bn years.


Yeah because she wouldn't have a job or consideration in her field if she thought otherwise. The hounds were on her quick saying her soft tissue findings were bunk and bias due to her Christian background. Then it was found to be normal to discover soft tissue in dinosaur remains so as usual the goalposts are changed by the scientism priesthood and now iron can magically preserve organic tissue for hundreds of millions of years



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




You need to understand this point: C-14 will not be present in organisms over 100,000 years old, and if this is the case, the accelerator mass spectrometer will indicate such a result. So far, no accelerator mass spectrometry result has indicated that any of the samples are older than 40,000 years old


This is truly a joke, right? C14 can be found virtually everywhere including deep trenches. What's so special about your dinosaurs???? And remember you're talking about YOUR samples, not independently submitted samples.

The whole thing is a farce and an intentional fraud.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

This is truly a joke, right? C14 can be found virtually everywhere including deep trenches. What's so special about your dinosaurs???? And remember you're talking about YOUR samples, not independently submitted samples.


C14 accumulates in living organisms from plants creating macromolecules through the conversion of CO2. This radioactive carbon is then ingested by animals and is incorporated into their tissues. It is wonderful because this is a ticking clock that is fairly accurate and once the organism dies it no longer ingests any more C14 so the C14 found in a dead organism can determine the approximate age in which the organism died because the half life of C14 is known.

C14 is also found in coal demonstrating that such processes occur very quickly. You will blindly refuse any data I present that isn't from your beloved priesthood so I realize the futility of addressing observed findings that contradict your dogma.
edit on 15-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

This is truly a joke, right? C14 can be found virtually everywhere including deep trenches. What's so special about your dinosaurs???? And remember you're talking about YOUR samples, not independently submitted samples.


C14 accumulates in living organisms from plants creating macromolecules through the conversion of CO2. This radioactive carbon is then ingested by animals and is incorporated into their tissues. It is wonderful because this is a ticking clock that is fairly accurate and once the organism dies it no longer ingests any more C14 so the C14 found in a dead organism can determine the approximate age in which the organism died because the half life of C14 is known.

C14 is also found in coal demonstrating that such processes occur very quickly. You will blindly refuse any data I present that isn't from your beloved priesthood so I realize the futility of addressing observed findings that contradict your dogma.


Don't lecture me as to how it works. Read the email from Dr. Cherkinsky. This is from the horse's mouth - literally.







 
16
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join