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.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
Who are these REAL scientists and what makes every other scientist a fake scientist other than their ability to understand the evidence showing that evolution is a real biological process?
Real scientists follow the empirical evidence regardless of their old bias.
Because mainstream science papers do not publish papers that disprove a large portion of their past content
Every dinosaur fossil that has been carbon-dated thus far has had C-14, but this does not mean they all do (it's just very likely the case). If you can find an AMS test that found no C-14 in a dinosaur fossil I will retract such a statement.
Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils. Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan’s Museum of Paleontology examined these results and concludes that there is nothing whatsoever extraordinary about them. The predominant suite of elements present and their relative percentages (including the 3.4% carbon!) are about what one would expect to find in hydroxyapatite and calcite, two of the commonest minerals present in ordinary dinosaur fossils. There is absolutely nothing unusual about these fossils and no reason to think the carbon contained in them is organic carbon derived from the original dinosaur bone.
Robert Kalin senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens submitted by Hugh Miller and concluded that the samples identified as “bones” did not contain any collagen. They were, in fact, not bone. These results corroborated established paleontological theories that assert that these fossiles presumably were 'washed away' over long periods of time by ground water, replacing the original bones with other substances such as the minerals naturally present in the water, implying that this sample could not tell you anything about when a dinosaur lived (or rather, died).
There is plenty of evidence - You just ignore the evidence contrary to your beloved theories.
originally posted by: peter vlar
Let's look at the testing that has led to the 14C found in fossilized remains claim. The integrity of Hugh Miller from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation is highly questionable. Hugh Miller is the man who has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several tens of thousands of years old.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
Let's look at the testing that has led to the 14C found in fossilized remains claim. The integrity of Hugh Miller from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation is highly questionable. Hugh Miller is the man who has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several tens of thousands of years old.
How can anyone argue with you if everything that is presented contrary to your opinion is automatically fraudulent?
I assume it's safe to say you agree that the University of Georgia's Accelerator Mass Spectrometry team is credible??? THEY were the ones who did the testing, not Hugh Miller. There is no point in arguing with you if every shred of evidence is dismissed because it does not adhere to your precious dogma.
Finding C-14 in dinosaur bones should excite you! NEW SCIENCE. but no, you stick to the old, afraid of any contradictory evidence. It would've blown my mind if you would've said something along the lines of "wow that's interesting, we should really look into that more", rather than "nope, they're frauds, it can't be true".
Get real. Or at least be objective.
originally posted by: logicsoda
originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: cooperton
There is no grand design. Period. This comes from a mind not dissolved or effected by shear belief in science or shear belief in religion but understanding of common sense with what we have in front of us.
But im sure your about this even being true.
You don't know that there is no grand design. You keep touting that as an absolute fact, but the thing about it is that we really don't know if the universe was had some designer, particularly when you take into consideration the multiverse theory which implies the possibility of an infinite universe which subsequently implies infinite possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest a designer, but there is still that possibility, however small.
originally posted by: amazing
Why can't we have both...a belief in a Creation by God and a belief in Science and natural processes?
originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: SLAYER69
whatever it is we were designed/created to finally accomplish.
Really? Why do you think we are anything other than another branch of life? Assuming homo sapien had never come into being, assuming none of the forebears to homo sapien had come into being, do you think every other species of life - plant or animal - would have missed us? I'm not so sure an arrogance that we are somehow the best of breed holds true personally, and without our footprint, maybe the world would be in a much better place.
Well first I have never understood calling humans "arrogant". Even if its true that the world would have been better off with out humans.....well oh well. Looks like we have had several extinction level events that had nothing to do with our foot print. So yea wow let the world go on with groundhogs digging holes, birds building nests year after year animal world round about. Big deal. Anyway you have these human animals that really are quite the spectacle in the animal world. Nothing even close to humans.....unless, as some will note that apes throw rocks at stuff but haven't been found building a convenience to mars or anything......deep in their jungle lab.
This goes back to the age old story told to children. The giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the tall tree's. Religious outlook. Things are made for purpose. The giraffe has a long neck, so chooses to eat the food of tall trees. Common sense, reason.
The thing that most people do seem to agree on is that we are surrounded by both good and evil forces. I bet if we are honest with ourselves, most will admit to having "felt" both. I've experienced enough and heard enough from all walks of life. I hope we all get to learn the truth somehow. It's my opinion that this soul farm