The Dinosaurs: Bothering scientists since the 1800s

Anyone that confuses the big bang theory (sic) with evolution is just plain wrong.

The big Bang theory that most folks here subscribe to is 50 years out of date.

Learn the new stuff, or don't bother posting.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

i find it humorous that you sought to mock me, when you were actually wrong.

When did I attempt to mock YOU specifically? I was mocking their results.

The hadrosaur sample that resulted in a date of 1,950 BP was listed as being contaminated... but I thought they had a fool-proof system to prevent that? Also the site asserts that the materials recovered from the T-Rex was definitively collagen when that is not the case. The finds of collagen by Dr. Schweitzer are still disputed by some scientists who believe that more recent molecular or bacterial growth is the culprit. So the possibility of contamination is not only real it is possible that some of the samples themselves aren't even from the dinosaurs but are from bacterial growth that occurred after fossilization.

you said evolutionists would follow where the evidence leads...obviously not.

Science does follow where the evidence leads, however scientists are also aware of the danger of tricksters, hoaxes, biased data and results, etc. Science works on peer review and most papers have to make it past said review to even be published. A website called evolutionvsscience is hardly a place where peer reviewed academic papers would appear.

Again if you're so sure of yourself go ahead and email Dr. Schweitzer about this, she's an authority on the matter, I'm not.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

The hadrosaur sample that resulted in a date of 1,950 BP was listed as being contaminated

it appears that they contaminated it, and marked it as such. the testing of that sample was done by geochron laboratories. they retested with a larger sample with both AMS and standard c-14, and got around 31-34 thousand years old. testing with AMS is a little more complicated than "push button, receive bacon". its actually incredibly complicated.

The finds of collagen by Dr. Schweitzer are still disputed by some scientists who believe that more recent molecular or bacterial growth is the culprit.

anything to reject the findings that don't agree.

reply to post by WhatAliens


i'm not sure where you see me being wrong "so many times", but if that can be said of any ideology, evolution would receive top honors.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

you must have not read the source i gave.

You must not understand your own source.

multiple methods of dating were used c-14 and AMS multiple times on each sample.

AMS is how you measure the amount of 14C in the sample. You thought they were different methods? Amusing.

bio-apatite, charred bone, and collagen were all tested for each sample. the clay around the bones was tested to insure no contamination of the bio-apatite. collagen cannot be contaminated. university of georgia did the testing. all three numbers came back very close.

Emphasis mine. This just confirms your bias. What Libby said was that no natural source of contamination existed. There are other ways the samples can become contaminated, which is why you always crosscheck with another dating method. So I'll pose the same question as my previous post -- were the creationist pseudoscientists stupid or lying?

i'm not going to type it all out again, see my other post. in short, no contamination present, testing done by reputable source, accurate and concise dates.

Assumptions made of no contaminations and not crosschecked using another dating method adds up to lazy "science". Garbage in gives garbage out -- I've already shown that contamination by a modern carbon source will reduce the apparent age of a specimen.

AMS and traditional c-14 dating both measure c-14, but in different ways. they're both based on carbon 14 decay, but they are different methods. they even count c-14 atoms differently. its sad you didn't know that.

There are other ways the samples can become contaminated

which is why multiple samples from different sources were tested at two different labs.

Assumptions made of no contaminations and not crosschecked using another dating method adds up to lazy "science".

your argument is born out of the assumption that they were all contaminated. its simply a way to reject what you don't want to believe. c-14 is the most reliable dating method for relatively young things.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

AMS and traditional c-14 dating both measure c-14, but in different ways. they're both based on carbon 14 decay, but they are different methods. they even count c-14 atoms differently. its sad you didn't know that.

They're both radiocarbon methods. Maybe you just don't understand what "crosschecking with a different dating method" means.

your argument is born out of the assumption that they were all contaminated. its simply a way to reject what you don't want to believe. c-14 is the most reliable dating method for relatively young things.

No, my argument is born out of the fact that there's a plausible explanation for why their radiocarbon results disagree with other radiometric results from other similar specimens. Again, either they didn't bother to crosscheck their results with a different method and they're incompetent, or they did and aren't reporting the results because they didn't like the answer and they're dishonest.

Very nice discussion guys.. kudos. Only one moronic juvenile post by one poster.. a new ATS record for this subject! Almost felt like the old ATS whilst reading this exchange.

The conflict initiated here when the OP confused his questioning and injected the biblical things into what could be a sound scientific discussion only using religious texts as supporting evidence. The Bible is NOT the only religious text on the planet that gives descriptions and ideas about creatures and events, but some here forget that. In fact, its not even the most ancient or the most documented. Plus, Im still loling over the dinosaur civilizations..

For me, without bending my brain or fingers this early in the morn, I feel its a little of both of the arguments. The bible isnt the definitive scientific text on this issue and "modern science" is still being defined. Our "facts" change.. which all good science should as we gain more data within scientific advancements and expound on our previous theories. Science just wouldnt be science if we held to particular beliefs as desperately as some hold on to religious beliefs. It seems some shed christianity and take up a new religion.. science.. and are just as fervent and blind as the zealot stiff necked xtian. Please recognize that not everyone on ATS can be shoved in the creationist/christian box. Many of us here are not xtian bible believers but believe in a sort of creation.. through our cultural beliefs or religions... yet do not have conflict with the more sane evolutionary theories either. The only conflict between religion and evolution is in the mind of the fervent adherent of either. For many of us.. they do not exclude each other. Both the xtians and the evolutionists have made this a polarized discussion, when if you look outside a little, your understanding of the timelines and possible events in sequence may broaden. There are many creationist beliefs.. just as there are a plethora of evolutionary theories and changes over the yrs to Darwin's original thoughts and additions by other evolutionists. I have noticed here and elsewhere many do not even know that Darwin was NOT the father of evolution and there were many before him with sound theories.. and after him. To hold hard and fast to a few things within Darwian evolution without looking for the larger picture would mean you believe Darwins idea of blacks being a separate predatory species just as ridiculously as xtians would believe certain things youd find absurd. Just an example...

I guess all Im meaning to say is.. dont make this a xtian versus science argument ( as it typically becomes on here) alone because you are missing out on many possibilities that you may not have considered because they have not been presented to you and spoon fed by the "all knowing" academe who have made Darwin and carbon dating the end discussion of this subject.

Carry on.. Im loving it.. and going to email the link to this thread to a few who this would interest. Very nice to see on ATS in contrast to the recent idiotic discussions within threads.

They're both radiocarbon methods. Maybe you just don't understand what "crosschecking with a different dating method" means.

c-14 is a very accurate method. using both conventional and AMS c-14 dating IS crosschecking. its the recommended procedure. what else would you want it dated with, potassium argon? because you only get "accurate" dates AFTER 100,000 years. it has the opposite curve that c-14 dating has due to a longer half life. what you think of as "crosschecking" is more of a "spray and pray" method of dating. test for lots of different substances, and use only the dates that fall within the range of age the fossil is assumed to be. differences in dates are dramatic ranging from 10 million to over 100 million years. that's how evolutionary "scientists" conduct research.

No, my argument is born out of the fact that there's a plausible explanation for why their radiocarbon results disagree with other radiometric results from other similar specimens.

you're plausible explanation is that all the samples were contaminated, dispite the evidence. the clay was tested, and came back statistically negative, and the expensive acid/pulverizing treatment. you're saying that multiple samples from each dinosaur were contaminated, and somehow they all give very similar dates? highly improbable. so improbable that your explanation isn't plausible.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

c-14 is a very accurate method.

For samples less than 50kBP. So every other dating method that says they’re older is wrong and the only one that you’ll recognize as correct is the one that gives you the answers that you want.

using both conventional and AMS c-14 dating IS crosschecking.

Only if you want to ignore other radioisotopes that might

its the recommended procedure.

Only if you want to ignore the possibility that the specimens are older than you’re willing to admit.

what else would you want it dated with, potassium argon?

Good start.

because you only get "accurate" dates AFTER 100,000 years. it has the opposite curve that c-14 dating has due to a longer half life.

So it’s perfectly reasonable and good science to ignore any radiometric method that conflicts with your radiocarbon data point. Good to know.

what you think of as "crosschecking" is more of a "spray and pray" method of dating. test for lots of different substances, and use only the dates that fall within the range of age the fossil is assumed to be. differences in dates are dramatic ranging from 10 million to over 100 million years. that's how evolutionary "scientists" conduct research.

So, again, you’re willing to ignore the methods that give ages older than what you want and cherry pick the one method that gives you the ages you like. Also good to know.

you're plausible explanation is that all the samples were contaminated, dispite the evidence. the clay was tested, and came back statistically negative, and the expensive acid/pulverizing treatment. you're saying that multiple samples from each dinosaur were contaminated, and somehow they all give very similar dates? highly improbable. so improbable that your explanation isn't plausible.

It’s at least as plausible as “every dating method is wrong except the one that gives me answers I like”.

Seriously, I love stuff like this. Creationists spent decades bashing science as being inherently flawed. Now they want to play in the sandbox with the rest of the kids, but can’t be bothered to play by the same rules. You can’t have it both ways.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

anything to reject the findings that don't agree.

Would you prefer that science proceed by accepting any data and findings that come along without peer review, healthy skepticism, or repetitive experimentation? I can imagine how quickly science would come to a grinding halt, not to mention massive paradigm shifts would take place every few weeks. One week we'd think dinosaurs lived 22,000 years ago, the next week we'd get results in the millions again. To quote a famous phrase I happen to agree with:

We must be open-minded, but not so open our brains fall out.