Scientists discover single gene mutation which led to multi-cellular animal life

originally posted by: cooperton

The following did not conclude younger earth, they just concluded the data is correct. I feel were on a revolutionary turn in geology, and a close mind is the worst thing we can have going into it:

Harvard: A comparison of Ten Cretaceous dinosaur bones

What a surprise, another citation that has nothing to do with you claim.

originally posted by: Barcs
How does such an uninformed post get that many stars? I swear all you have to do is post early in a topic and people just blindly give you star after star after star. Come on people... Deny ignorance. Don't condone it.

Ain't that the truth.

originally posted by: cooperton


This is why it has taken so long for this knowledge to come to the surface, scientists usually did not try dating this stuff because they were under the presumption that it is millions of years old. The C-14 data on it is consistent; its in the thousand year range.

Just stop. Its is not an assumption. The rock formations and subsequent laws of geology prove the dates are millions of years old.

a reply to: Barcs

So where is your evidence that proves it wrong? Or are you just going to keep repeating over and over that it's assumption without even looking at the evidence. You don't even get what the terminology means.

Well, with all due respect Barcs, if you've read and comprehended the study you would see that assumptions needed to be made, for instance, with regards to explaining certain aspects of GKpid/PINS binding. I'm wondering if you "get what the terminology means" to be able to suggest that someone is wrong for questioning the claims of this study? Should we always just accept in good faith the results of any study that makes a bold claim simply because scientists performed the research?

To reconcile possible issues, I always try to read the decision letters, when available. This gives a general idea of where papers may be overstating things a bit.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
Furthermore, If dinosaurs were still thriving less than 50KA, why do I not see a single cave painting, petroglyph etc... depicting them?

There are plenty, which fits the C-14 approximations:
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

If those are dinosaurs then Zeuss, Appollo and Thor are real gods.

C-14 dating can only read reliably up to about 50,000 years (give or take). Anything past that and C-14 isn't used at all.

Just a fun little fact, and this is relatively new to myself as well, but with Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, it can go back ~110KA with the potential to go back to ~180KA. It's also far more accurate because with that method, you can actually count each individual atom.

This is why it has taken so long for this knowledge to come to the surface, scientists usually did not try dating this stuff because they were under the presumption that it is millions of years old. The C-14 data on it is consistent; its in the thousand year range.

No, it's not in the 1000 year range and you've provided no credible scientific evidence in support of this per my request. You can not use 14C to date permineralized remains. Show me a peer reviewed paper dating dinosaur bones to 50KA or less. Spoiler alert... It doesn't exist.

Just a fun little fact, and this is relatively new to myself as well, but with Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, it can go back ~110KA with the potential to go back to ~180KA. It's also far more accurate because with that method, you can actually count each individual atom.

Well you learn something new everyday.

In my defence, I was referring to the traditional C-14 dating

originally posted by: cooperton
There are plenty, which fits the C-14 approximations:
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

Not a single depiction on that page is of a dinosaur. It is, however, exactly the sort of dishonest idiocy one would expect from a site called "Genesis Park". At least now we know where your bias and willful ignorance comes from. If that's the best you've got, you'd do well to just give up now, lest you make yourself look more foolish than you already have.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I had only read an article on it a few days ago so don't feel bad. I normally would have given the same answer you did.

originally posted by: peter vlar
...you've provided no credible scientific evidence in support of this per my request... Show me a peer reviewed paper dating dinosaur bones to 50KA or less. Spoiler alert... It doesn't exist.

I already posted it, you just don't read my responses, you let your knee jerk reflex do the talking.

Harvard: A comparison of Ten Cretaceous dinosaur bones

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: cooperton
There are plenty, which fits the C-14 approximations:
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

Not a single depiction on that page is of a dinosaur.

Show the pictures to anyone without bias, they will open your eyes.

originally posted by: Cypress

Just stop. Its is not an assumption. The rock formations and subsequent laws of geology prove the dates are millions of years old.

Just stop seeking the truth? You can go ahead and remain complacent, forfeiting your ability to post anything that can explain why C-14 dates are consistently young (Harvard: A comparison of Ten Cretaceous dinosaur bones), Just don't drag others down to your lethargy.

a reply to: cooperton

What other tests were done in conjunction with C-14 testing?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: cooperton
You are a #wits a wander pity your dad wasn't.
Please do us a favor and do not breed we need less #wits in the world.

...and from this heinous comment you are trying to make the argument that we need more of the likes of you in the world?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

What other tests were done in conjunction with C-14 testing?

Historical tests, testing to see if there is evidence in culture that humans observed dinosaurs:

Example 1 - Humans observed dinosaurs

a reply to: cooperton

So apart from some non-descipt pictures. What SCIENTIFIC tests were done in conjunction with the C-14 tests?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

So apart from some non-descipt pictures. What SCIENTIFIC tests were done in conjunction with the C-14 tests?

What other test would you advise?

This study was across the globe by many different research teams that reached the conclusion present in the Harvard study. Therefore it wasnt a mistake by a single research team, but a collaborated conclusion among the entire field.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

So apart from some non-descipt pictures. What SCIENTIFIC tests were done in conjunction with the C-14 tests?

What other test would you advise?

This study was across the globe by many different research teams that reached the conclusion present in the Harvard study. Therefore it wasnt a mistake by a single research team, but a collaborated conclusion among the entire field.

Based on just C-14 tests?

Nothing else? No other tests? (Not including looking at pictures that really could be a number of things)

originally posted by: TerryDon79


Based on just C-14 tests?

Nothing else? No other tests?

What other tests would you have done on the dinosaur fossil across the globe? The C-14 data is consistent. We have pictures of dinosaurs from our ancestors that insist they observed them. It fits.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerryDon79


Based on just C-14 tests?

Nothing else? No other tests?

What other tests would you have done on the dinosaur fossil across the globe? The C-14 data is consistent. We have pictures of dinosaurs from our ancestors that insist they observed them. It fits.

Well let's break it down, shall we?

Scientists use more than just C-14 tests. They use a range as they can and do get false negatives. You can actually Google some of the funnier ones.

Pictures, drawings and artwork are not reliable documentation. If you want to believe those people were attacking a dinosaur you would also have to believe that we were rake thin, no feet, round heads, no joints, no fingers and toes, no eyes and so on. Just because it LOOKS like a vague image of a dinosaur it could also be a bad drawing of a few other things.

Just because there's something on the Harvard website doesn't mean it's proof. All it's actually showing is that C-14 tests were done and the results showed around 50,000 years.

Without any other tests the C-14 tests don't prove anything.

a reply to: cooperton

Show a single scientific paper that used C14 dating for fossils.

You're talking bollocks.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Show a single scientific paper that used C14 dating for fossils.

You're talking bollocks.

But have the bones actually been tests to prove they were dinosaur bone fossils?

If not then C-14 testing could have been done. Results would be skewed three ways from Sunday, but that doesn't really matter to Creationist, does it?

a reply to: Barcs

I didn't say it's not true
I just want better evidence before I believe it

Structuring an attack on me based on what I havnt said indicates to me this argument doesn't make you feel comfortable

Please, it's not an argument and there is no need to feel uncomfortable.
I just wanted to point out a few flaws in this theory.
You are free to believe what you want to believe

Scientifically speaking, questioning new research is the foundation of science,

And no sadly science did not create the Internet or phone, people did, they utilized science.
In and of itself science can do nothing

It scares me when people say "look what science has done"
I am not sure why