Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

LOL newgeology.com!!!!

You literally just diverted away from what you posted to post that bull# which also has already been refuted extensively on this very site. Just stop it bro. Nobody's buying your nonsense.

Sigh... don't forget to breathe man.

I posted pictures of dinosaurs made by our ancient ancestors. You said they were hoaxes without any reason why. So I showed that carbon dating dinosaur remains also shows they are too recent to allow the evolutionary narrative. Again, you dismissed it without reason. Now here is soft tissue from a T-rex bone (remember, soft tissue doesn't last millions of years)



Im sure you will blindly ignore this evidence also.

But also, can you suggest how the AMS C14 labs at Arizona, Georgia, Geochron, and Germany all got the data wrong?? Dinosaurs were carbon dated between 4,000-40,000 years old.

You never offer any reasonable rebuttal. Just barcing like a dog

a reply to: cooperton

Don't be obtuse we have had this exact discussion multiple times. Go back to those threads for what is wrong with thhe methods. But a little more

(a) Your source is from a creationist site, from a creationist "Scientist". Who was dishonest in the first place with his requests for testing.
(b) He has not supplied secondary materials for alternative testing methods. That is a standard protocol for "unusual" results. You have to verify the findings. That is scientific method.

There is much more than that, but as I said, we have been over this many times before, You ignore what is typed. I am not wasting bandwidth on doing it again.

You also conveniently forget my religion is Polytheistic and Celtic. My Job is science. Science fails the tests of what a religion is and does.

So no, the fairy tale would be your bible, or my Lore. Not the science.

You claim to be trained as a scientist, hell a chemist like me, yet you can not talk to the C14 methods, and have to cut and paste. I thus refute you being a chemist of any ilk.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Did you actually have a point here? Because this discussion steams from the fact that Humans use computers to find the patterns in DNA, not their eyes.

a reply to: Noinden

Are you a bot? You seem to be talking to yourself.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Neighbour, you really are out of your comfort zone I did not post a reply with no content, a blatant violation of ToS .

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

LOL newgeology.com!!!!

You literally just diverted away from what you posted to post that bull# which also has already been refuted extensively on this very site. Just stop it bro. Nobody's buying your nonsense.

Sigh... don't forget to breathe man.

I posted pictures of dinosaurs made by our ancient ancestors. You said they were hoaxes without any reason why. So I showed that carbon dating dinosaur remains also shows they are too recent to allow the evolutionary narrative. Again, you dismissed it without reason. Now here is soft tissue from a T-rex bone (remember, soft tissue doesn't last millions of years)

Im sure you will blindly ignore this evidence also.

But also, can you suggest how the AMS C14 labs at Arizona, Georgia, Geochron, and Germany all got the data wrong?? Dinosaurs were carbon dated between 4,000-40,000 years old.

You never offer any reasonable rebuttal. Just barcing like a dog

I've found quite a few articles on this issue actually... apparently it depends on what you're reading...

I am suspicious in all cases but the sites have "science" in them... not that it really means anything but anyways...

Turns out the dating on this subject wasn't in question... the date of the bone remains around 68-70 million years old... but they had trouble figuring out exactly how said soft tissue was preserved... turns out it was the iron rich blood of the dinosaur in question that managed to preserve said soft tissue... from what I've read it seemed legit

Then we flip over to sites like "creation.com" and of course "answers in genesis" (Ken Ham...Nuff said) pretty sure hes affiliated with both sites... in any case, you have these idiots trying to shoehorn this data into their narrative..

"Ironically it fits perfectly with the "flood" that happened 4-6 thousand years ago" etc etc... which actually never happened anyways... so theres that on top of the asshat presenting said fraudulent information

SO... the soft tissue that was found in this particular case wasn't dated wrong... the dating stands firm, it wasn't dated to 4000-40000 years ago as you state... said soft tissue was from a T-rex which did not live with humans...ever

70 million years ago... no humans anywhere on the planet

a reply to: Noinden

Why is it you post no content? It's all my fault!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Don't be obtuse we have had this exact discussion multiple times. Go back to those threads for what is wrong with thhe methods.

So is there any carbon dating data that dates dinosaur bones to being outside the range of C14 dating? I'll save you time, there are none. All attempts to carbon date dinosaurs has returned a date less than 40,000 years old. I asked a technician at the lab what would happen if the sample were outside the range of C14 dating, and she said they would know and the result would indicate that.

Be a good scientist and follow the evidence, not some out-dated dogma.

originally posted by: Akragon

Turns out the dating on this subject wasn't in question... the date of the bone remains around 68-70 million years old... but they had trouble figuring out exactly how said soft tissue was preserved... turns out it was the iron rich blood of the dinosaur in question that managed to preserve said soft tissue... from what I've read it seemed legit

If you really wish to go down the rabbit hole mr cheshire, you're gonna have to dig in this one on your own. Find the original research article and find what methods they used to date it to 68 million years old. Unfortunately in this case I don't have access to the original research paper to see how they determined that date, but I know there is no reliable way to date something that old. Besides, carbon-dating dates dinosaurs between 4,000-40,000 years old

a reply to: Barcs

Let me get this straight, you were responding to a post I made 7 years ago and responded with a scientific paper from a few months ago? No wonder it didn't make any sense and I didn't even recognize it.

Not my problem you were lazy or you need to work on your reading comprehension. I provided the link to your post and gave a detailed explanation, as can be seen below:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Even though I didn't have anything solid to back up my hypothesis, at the time, you still showed interest. I have always remembered that post and I admired you for it.
A short while back I ran across a paper and I thought of you and this thread (well part 1). Then, oddly enough, Akragon started the thread back up with part 2.

Even with this information you still claimed:

That wasn't even a reply to me.

All you needed to do was click the link yet you would rather put your short comings of on me.
Need another example?

you could have just said that I posted the wrong link. It was a genuine mistake. LMAO @ your fake outrage over a simple mistake in copy pasting.

My response to your post (that you presumed to be "fake outrage") was actually about your consistent failure to check links, this includes YOUR OWN. As I said, it is a sign of extreme laziness or lack of reading comprehension.

As for the rest of your little rant, may I suggest getting off of talkorigins for a little while and doing research of your own. Ask your own questions.
You have been using talkorigins as your main talking point for years. Anyone who goes to the site can easily tell it is more about disproving creation than it is about proving evolution.

They ABSOLUTLY do cherry pick the "evidence" and leave out anything that does not fit the narrative. They make the evidence fit the theory. If it does not fit they discard it.

We will start with birds evolving from therapods and can move on to anything else you think proves Macroevolution once we are done.

www.newscientist.com...

en.wikipedia.org...(paleontology)

Here are a couple of links. Read through them and tell me, honestly, that they are not trying to make the evidence fit the theory.

Of course mutations can be caused by the environment, but it's not caused by us, it's caused by radiation or replication errors.

Perhaps you would like to give this another go:
here
Also this for some lite reading:
www.smithsonianmag.com...

a reply to: Quadrivium

No thats not being lazy, that is being dishonest. It would be like a student trying to repeat my PhD work today, complaining my citations were not recent.

Science evolves, and changes with the evidence.

So it really does go back to you using a dishonest tactic. NOT Barcs being Lazy.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

No thats not being lazy, that is being dishonest.

Valuable the things we learn from you.

a reply to: cooperton

Stop it.

Dinosaur "bones" don't generally have carbon in them, because they have been fossilized. Being tens of millions of years old and all that jazz.

No other bones have been dated by C14, due to the half life of C14 being what it is, and Fossils having a different chemical natures than extant bones .Now before you bring up the unexpected soft tissue find, soft tissue is not bones, and that was an exceedingly unlikely find.

So list all non creationist examples of bone dating. K thanks bye

Be a good scientist, and use critical thinking.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Don't be obtuse we have had this exact discussion multiple times. Go back to those threads for what is wrong with thhe methods.

So is there any carbon dating data that dates dinosaur bones to being outside the range of C14 dating? I'll save you time, there are none. All attempts to carbon date dinosaurs has returned a date less than 40,000 years old. I asked a technician at the lab what would happen if the sample were outside the range of C14 dating, and she said they would know and the result would indicate that.

Be a good scientist and follow the evidence, not some out-dated dogma.

originally posted by: Akragon

Turns out the dating on this subject wasn't in question... the date of the bone remains around 68-70 million years old... but they had trouble figuring out exactly how said soft tissue was preserved... turns out it was the iron rich blood of the dinosaur in question that managed to preserve said soft tissue... from what I've read it seemed legit

If you really wish to go down the rabbit hole mr cheshire, you're gonna have to dig in this one on your own. Find the original research article and find what methods they used to date it to 68 million years old. Unfortunately in this case I don't have access to the original research paper to see how they determined that date, but I know there is no reliable way to date something that old. Besides, carbon-dating dates dinosaurs between 4,000-40,000 years old

but I know there is no reliable way to date something that old.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Journal of Palaeogeography
Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2016, Pages 72-99

Biopalaeogeography and palaeoecology
Detrital zircon dating and tracing the provenance of dinosaur bone beds from the Late Cretaceous Wangshi Group in Zhucheng, Shandong, East China
4. Zircon U–Pb dating results

A total of 536 analyses were performed on zircon grains from six samples, and 362 had a concordance ranging from 90% to 110% (Fig. 5; see Appendix for analytical data). The obtained zircon grains are transparent to translucent. Most of the zircon grains are long columnar, with a euhedral or subhedral shape. The aspect ratios are about 2:1–3:1. Most of the zircon grains are angular to subangular. CL images reveal that most of the prismatic zircons possess simple oscillatory zoning (Fig. 4), which indicates that they were derived from igneous sources. The Th/U values of the magmatic zircon were generally >0.4, while the Th/U value of the metamorphic zircons was 0.1, and most were >0.4, which also indicates that most of them were derived from igneous sources.

I'd like to remind you once again that we are in the 21st century. There are a number of highly reliable ways to date materials that are millions of years old.


Other techniques for dating materials which are outside the C14 range:

Second-harmonic generation (SHG)
Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy
Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
Quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMS)

The paper above as well as the list I posted are all 21st century methods. I'm not surprised that you don't recognize them. It would upset your apple cart.

originally posted by: Noinden

Dinosaur "bones" don't generally have carbon in them, because they have been fossilized. Being tens of millions of years old and all that jazz.

Well they were carbon-dated to be between 4,000-40,000 years old, which requires the presence of carbon. Unless you want to deny science.

Now before you bring up the unexpected soft tissue find, soft tissue is not bones, and that was an exceedingly unlikely find.

No it's actually common now that they know to look for it.

Dinosaur remains in China were found to contain collagen and protein (which contain carbon)

Dinosaur remains in Canada were also found to have red blood cell fragments and soft tissue

Soft tissue in dinosaur bones proves they are young. It also proves they contain carbon. It's obvious, straightforward evidence.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'd like to remind you once again that we are in the 21st century. There are a number of highly reliable ways to date materials that are millions of years old.

So glad it was you to bring this up. How do they determine initial isotope concentration for any of the radioactive dating methods? Carbon dating is somewhat reliable because they can estimate via current atmospheric concentrations of C-14, but what about the other radioactive dating methods?

a reply to: cooperton

So glad it was you to bring this up. How do they determine initial isotope concentration for any of the radioactive dating methods? Carbon dating is somewhat reliable because they can estimate via current atmospheric concentrations of C-14, but what about the other radioactive dating methods?

We went over that several times. Every time you were shot down. It was quite simple calculus. Get over it.

What about the other methods? Look them up.

So... the bones which can not be carbon dated are millions of years old

Yet the soft tissue inside are only 4000-40k

Hmmm... wonder how that happened?

originally posted by: Phantom423

We went over that several times. Every time you were shot down. It was quite simple calculus. Get over it.

What about the other methods? Look them up.

Stop it with the vague condescending answers. If you're as smart as you seem to think you are, just figure out basic algebra then:



How could you possibly unambiguously determine final amount (A), if the initial amount (Ao) is also unknown?

You can't. It requires speculation or assumptions.

originally posted by: Akragon
So... the bones which can not be carbon dated are millions of years old

Yet the soft tissue inside are only 4000-40k

Hmmm... wonder how that happened?

Do you actually want to know?

the 4,000-40,000 date range was given by C14 dating, which has a semi-reliable isotopic start date based off the current C14 concentrations in the atmosphere. Other radioactive dating methods have no initial concentration that they can accurately use to solve the half-life formula.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

No thats not being lazy, that is being dishonest. It would be like a student trying to repeat my PhD work today, complaining my citations were not recent.

Science evolves, and changes with the evidence.

So it really does go back to you using a dishonest tactic. NOT Barcs being Lazy.

1) Thank you for agreeing barcs is being dishonest.
2)Show me the "dishonest tactic" you are referring to.
(Warning, you and your PhD are out of your league. Best to just move along.....)

a reply to: Noinden

OH MY!!!!!
Did YOU seriously just type this????????

Be a good scientist, and use critical thinking.

HELLO POT!!

originally posted by: Quadrivium

2)Show me the "dishonest tactic" you are referring to.

They use blanket statements like that to wiggle out of situations where their theory is proven wrong. You get them pinned against a wall, so they yell out "hoax"! It's getting exhausting. If they were to just have a logical debate without bias they would realize that the intricacies of biology are totally incompatible with mutative sequential modifications proposed by evolutionary theory