Oh look, more dinosaur tissues

[Jose Fly]

Exactly my point. Evolutionists start with the conclusion and exclude any thinking or tests that *might disagree with their belief system.

Is that really how you think scientists work? You honestly think they just made up "C-14 dating doesn't work for things older than 50,000 years" out of thin air? Do you think they just picked a number?

 

[Selaphiel]

Exactly my point. Evolutionists start with the conclusion and exclude any thinking or tests that *might disagree with their belief system.

Except that there are good reasons for determining the range of those methods. It is simply based on the half-life of the isotope. Plenty of information on it available to everyone who are interested. You can pretend that isn't the case, but that doesn't change reality.

 

[6days]

Carbon-14 dating doesn't support young earth creationist conclusions.*


YEC claims a 6,000-year-old earth, but carbon-14 dating works well beyond that timeframe.

Science and the Bible are always in harmony. When you think they disagree, then it is you who is wrong.

So c14 dating works good beyond 6,000 years? I suspect you mean that it works great except when it gets results that contradict your belief system?

Soft Dino tissue dates 22,000 years...30,000 years. You somehow believe soft tissue survives millions of years, rejecting the evidence it is only thousands of years.

 

[6days]

Except that there are good reasons for determining the range of those methods. It is simply based on the half-life of the isotope. Plenty of information on it available to everyone who are interested. You can pretend that isn't the case, but that doesn't change reality.

C14 accurately measures the decay rate of daughter element carbon 14 in dead organic material. But without a time machine we can't test it in the past.
We know that coal burning and atomic testing effects the ratio of C12 to C14. Also unknown conditions in the past such as solar rays and the strength of the earths magnetic field may effect the ratio. Another factor that would drastically effect the ratio is the global flood...Several things would change the ratios such as volcanic activity around the globe emitting C02 without the normal C14.

A C14 result of 30,000 years is consistent with Biblical creation and global flood. (Unknowm start conditions / worldwide volcanism/ all vegetation destroyed and much buried)

 

[kiwimacahau]

C14 accurately measures the decay rate of daughter element carbon 14 in dead organic material. But without a time machine we can't test it in the past.
We know that coal burning and atomic testing effects the ratio of C12 to C14. Also unknown conditions in the past such as solar rays and the strength of the earths magnetic field may effect the ratio. Another factor that would drastically effect the ratio is the global flood...Several things would change the ratios such as volcanic activity around the globe emitting C02 without the normal C14.

A C14 result of 30,000 years is consistent with Biblical creation and global flood. (Unknowm start conditions / worldwide volcanism/ all vegetation destroyed and much buried)

Your conclusion is wrong and unsupported by the evidence.

 

[6days]

C14 is being found EVERYWHERE it is not supposed to be, including in specimens that discount any hypothesized contamination. For example 14c is found inside of the hardest naturally occurring stuff on earth, i.e., inside of diamonds. And from natural gas extracted from wells miles below the Earth's surface. And from a small mosasaur bone that still also contains original soft tissue allegedly 80-million years old. And then 14c is also found in coal, and oil, and allegedly billion-year-old chert, and from many countries and locales and various continents: all the dinosaur bones ever tested. See rsr.org/14c.

That's why I offered Jack Horner $25k to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex (hear that conversation at that same link, toward the bottom of the page). Your analogy was backwards, but I presume, unless you smoke rsr.org/pot, that you are fully aware of this and are trying to finesse the point of your analogy, hoping no one will notice, because you just don't want to acknowledge your error due to both a lack of humility and in solidarity with the evolutionists' zero concession policy.

To take even further the observation of 14c all over the place, we can conduct an experiment based on an observation from the discoverer of carbon dating. Libby discussed that radiocarbon atoms found embedded as part of a collagen lattice CANNOT be contamination, because those atoms get into that protein complex through a sophisticated biological assembly process. When that lattice decomposes, into humic acid, then sure, if handled improperly, a number of those 14c/one-out-a-trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere could contaminate the specimen. But such atoms are not going to fall into the specimen and replace atoms originally placed into the collagen complex. This is why we creationists have been moving toward doing this additional testing on dinosaur collagen, a scientific test that evolutionists (like Horner) would never do and would prefer that no one ever do (for of course it would yield significant 14c, as expected by Ph.D. young-earth creation geologists, nuclear physicists, biochemists, etc.; see also rsr.org/predictions). And if this laboratory experiment is done, evolutionists of course would try to discredit the testing or preferably, bury the results.

That is how tightly shut an evolutionist's eyes are.

 

[6days]

Your conclusion is wrong and unsupported by the evidence.

Fantastic rebuttal... ha.

 

[Jose Fly]

6days,

Do you honestly think scientists just made up "C-14 dating doesn't work for things older than 50,000 years" out of thin air? Do you think they just picked a number?

 

[6days]

6days,
Do you honestly think scientists just made up "C-14 dating doesn't work for things older than 50,000 years" out of thin air? Do you think they just picked a number?

??What are you talking about?? Who said that? The strawman?
btw...theoretical limit is about 100,000 years but the practical linit is closer to 50,000

 

[Jose Fly]

About C-14 dating methods, you said...

"Evolutionists start with the conclusion and exclude any thinking or tests that *might disagree with their belief system."​

If they "start with the conclusion", that means they don't start with any research or tests, correct? Instead they just go straight to coming up with a conclusion, correct? So by what other means do you think they generate this conclusion, if not by making it up?

 

[Jonahdog]

Fantastic rebuttal... ha.

Oh the irony.

 

[6days]

If they "start with the conclusion", that means they don't start with any research or tests, correct? Instead they just go straight to coming up with a conclusion, correct? So by what other means do you think they generate this conclusion, if not by making it up?

Follow the thread.... take the quote in context. You will notice someone suggested C14 isn't a valid test. They said that because they start with the conclusion that the tissue is millions of years old.

 

[Jose Fly]

You will notice someone suggested C14 isn't a valid test. They said that because they start with the conclusion that the tissue is millions of years old.

So you think scientists started off by saying "this is millions of years old" before any other data was collected or tests were run?

 

[6days]

Oh cool. I feel pretty indifferent to it all, I believe in the young earth version hehe

Yes!!

 

[6days]

So you think scientists started off by saying "this is millions of years old" before any other data was collected or tests were run?

Not scientists...evolutionists yes...or most scientists.
Example: "I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”’

Evolutionists reject evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

6days, you're still dodging. You said "evolutionists start with the conclusion" of millions of years. I'm trying to get you to explain what that means, specifically if you really think the ages of the fossils we've been talking about were just made up out of thin air.

So how about you stop playing kid games and explain your statement beyond a simple rote phrase?

 

[6days]

6days, you're still dodging. You said "evolutionists start with the conclusion" of millions of years.

JOSE... you keep dodging the answer.
Yes evolutionists are committed to their millions of years so resist doing tests such as C14 which shows soft tissue in dinos is thousabds of years old.....not millions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Still dodging. Where do you think the 64 million year old dates for those fossils came from? How were those dates generated?

 

[6days]

Still dodging. Where do you think the 64 million year old dates for those fossils came from? How were those dates generated?

Jose Dodger....
They are sticking with their conclusion no matter where they got it from....guesstimates... other dating or whatever... they have their conclusion and refuse to believe the evidence staring them in the face

 

[Jose Fly]

They are sticking with their conclusion no matter where they got it from....guesstimates... other dating or whatever.

I thought you said the dates were merely conclusions they started with, but here you're saying they might have come from "other dating".

Which is it?