Learn to read, buddy. You have an anti-science agenda. It was exposed when you said it is not necessary to C14 date dino bones.
Real Science Radio: More Soft Tissue Confirms RSR Dino Prediction
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Learn to read, buddy. You have an anti-science agenda. It was exposed when you said it is not necessary to C14 date dino bones.
Why is it necessary to C14 date dino bones?
So you make an anti-science claim and then protect yourself by pretending I have something to answer?
How about you just retract your assertion that it is unnecessary. :up:
Mark Armitage, a microscope technician who was working at California State University Northridge, made headlines when he was fired shortly after publishing his discovery of soft tissue forms (no actual tissues were recovered) in a triceratops horn. While his wrongful dismissal suit is pending (and may even be in his favor), this young-Earth creationist’s passionate search for soft tissue is characteristic of the movement today. In their view, soft tissue preservation constitutes irrefutable evidence that the conventional timeline is drastically mistaken, despite that no actual paleontologists have reached the same conclusion. As Greg Neyman has already pointed out, the main reason is that soft-tissue preservation is an absolute rarity in the fossil record, whereas the Flood geology paradigm would predict it to be the rule! If the majority of the fossil record were truly less than 6,000 years old, then we could have sequenced the genomes of nearly every dinosaur by now, and Jurassic Park would be the Ark Encounter’s main competition.
Nonetheless, in a desperate attempt to uphold the young age of the triceratops horn, Armitage and his co-author submitted two samples for radiocarbon dating, from which they obtained dates of 33,570 and 41,010 years. Apparently, they ignored the fact that radiocarbon dating of bone material is notably inaccurate unless significant amounts of unaltered collagen can be recovered, of which the triceratops horn contained none. What these dates actually reflect, therefore, are the varying levels of organic acids and mineral carbon (i.e. contamination) that became locked up in the bone matrix while it lay beneath a soil horizon, along with the traces of atmospheric CO2 that were inevitably introduced to the carbon-poor sample while reducing it to graphite (a preparatory step in radiocarbon analysis).
But how do we know that radiocarbon dating does not confirm, along with soft-tissue remnants, a young age for the bones? Besides the insurmountable conflict these dates produce with the firmly established age of the sediments, the radiocarbon ages obtained by Mark Armitage (along with those reported by Hugh Miller) vary by more than three half lives of 14C. But if the 14C measured by the radiocarbon lab was intrinsic to the bone (not contamination), and if these dinosaurs were all buried in the same worldwide flood, then all of the samples should yield approximately the same age. The fact that they don’t unequivocally disproves the paradigm being touted by Armitage, Miller, and young-Earth ministries like ICR and Answers in Genesis, who disingenuously continue to report such results in their favor.
Nonetheless, in a desperate attempt to uphold the young age of the triceratops horn, Armitage and his co-author submitted two samples for radiocarbon dating, from which they obtained dates of 33,570 and 41,010 years. Apparently, they ignored the fact that radiocarbon dating of bone material is notably inaccurate unless significant amounts of unaltered collagen can be recovered, of which the triceratops horn contained none. What these dates actually reflect, therefore, are the varying levels of organic acids and mineral carbon (i.e. contamination) that became locked up in the bone matrix while it lay beneath a soil horizon, along with the traces of atmospheric CO2 that were inevitably introduced to the carbon-poor sample while reducing it to graphite (a preparatory step in radiocarbon analysis).
But how do we know that radiocarbon dating does not confirm, along with soft-tissue remnants, a young age for the bones? Besides the insurmountable conflict these dates produce with the firmly established age of the sediments, the radiocarbon ages obtained by Mark Armitage (along with those reported by Hugh Miller) vary by more than three half lives of 14C. But if the 14C measured by the radiocarbon lab was intrinsic to the bone (not contamination), and if these dinosaurs were all buried in the same worldwide flood, then all of the samples should yield approximately the same age. The fact that they don’t unequivocally disproves the paradigm being touted by Armitage, Miller, and young-Earth ministries like ICR and Answers in Genesis, who disingenuously continue to report such results in their favor.
http://ageofrocks.org/2015/01/12/monday-minute-a-soft-spot-for-dino-bones/
How do we know this?
I've got links too. :idunno:
Are we to assume that every time you get caught espousing your anti-science views, you are just going to post a whole lot of spam? :spam:
AWWW, Stripe-O. Why is it when someone else posts something that makes sense you think it spam?
And your anti-science comments mean you owe me for another irony meter.
6days
New member
Hezekiah 3:19 'The altered ratios of elements as the waters receded thus transformed the earth that was'.
Hezekiah 3:19 'The altered ratios of elements as the waters receded thus transformed the earth that was'.
Well that works. Who knew.
Can you provide me with a Bible verse for quantum physics as well? Perhaps Hezekiah again? Hezekiah 4:12 "And lo, if thou knowest momentum ye cannot knowest location, lest I shew you."
A little King Jamish, and silly, but from the same book, right?
6days
New member
Ha... very good!! Rep for you.
Like Delmar's spammers wasteland, maybe the dodged questions need to be archived in Koban's dodged questions thread.
There's a dodged questions thread? Cool! Got a link? I'd like to see it. Maybe I can answer a few.
80 million-year-old dinosaur fossil has original blood vessels: http://www.redorbit.com/news/scienc...ur-fossils-has-original-blood-vessels-120215/
Quote: "This study is the first direct analysis of blood vessels from an extinct organism, and provides us with an opportunity to understand what kinds of proteins and tissues can persist and how they change during fossilization."
Quote: "This study is the first direct analysis of blood vessels from an extinct organism, and provides us with an opportunity to understand what kinds of proteins and tissues can persist and how they change during fossilization."
I'm sure you read the actual paper and not just the internet. Right?
Search function is broke for you?
6days
New member
Evolutionists start with the conclusion (millions and millions of years) then find non falsifiable explanations to fit.
The various geological techniques used to date fossils are very falsifiable: http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044
Reminds me of somebody who would say with a straight face pay no mind to that man behind the curtain.
creationists don't need any logical explanation for anything. If it's in The Book, that is all they need.