What's the creationists thought on this?

This sounds fishy, as well. Dr Schweitzer has been the person who initiated research on soft dinosaur tissue. You, Chuck77, brought it to the attention of people participating on this on this forum, but you’ve never heard about the researcher who discovered it? Weird.Educated paleontologists on this forum have actually studied her research. All those examples were fossilized. The lesson is that specialists know about her research and about her.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake

why do people constantly use the excuse, oh he's in prison nowWhat!?, so that means his material wasnt good ?Ofcourse it was he had lots of valid points in his arguementsCreation VS Evolution Debate Forum - A forum to talk about the creation/evolution debate

Oh for fuck's sake, now you're just a dirty rotten troll spammer.Let you be banned!

Pressie, that's rather an impressive debunking. No wonder Peczis/Woodmorappe is also known as "Whatmorecrap."And welcome to EvC!!

I'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate."Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/05/110518121227.htm

Sorry, scientists don't date rocks with Carbon-14 dating. That technique goes back only about 50,000 years and must be applied to something what was once alive (bone, shell, plant material, etc.).Rocks are dated using other radiometric tests.If you want to comment on science, it is best to learn something about it first as you are bound to run into folks who have learned something.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I hope you're not suggesting that radiocarbon dating is applied to non-organic, very old rocks. That would show a complete ignorance of the subject.Do you know where, why and how radiocarbon dating is used and its level of accuracy when appropriately applied?[abe] Disregard. Coyote beat me to it.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

How is the fact that he's in federal prison for flagrant tax fraud being "constantly used as an excuse"? If anything, he's probably using it as an excuse for not being able to respond to the problems with his claims. You mean like his totally bogus solar-mass-loss claim? Or like the leap-second "the earth's rotation is slowing down at an incredibly inflated rate" claim? Oh, yeah, you were going to contact the sites that repeat that claim in order to inform them that they're wrong. How's that project progressing?One mind-boggling claim is his digital watch in a mine analogy, in which he's basically saying that the age of that mine is limited to the youngest feature in it (eg, a digital watch whose battery is still good), thus the age of Niagara Falls or the Mississippi river delta means that the earth itself can be no older than they are. So do you think that's a "valid point"?About 10 years ago, Answers in Genesis printed an article listing bogus claims that creationists should not use. Hovind wrote an angry rebuttal to that article, because he still used most of those bogus claims, so they had to respond that those claims are indeed bogus and that he should not use them.The man would regurgitate any and all claims he encountered. His presentations were PowerPoint Gish Gallops. He would repeatedly present himself to his audiences as an expert in science and math, when his actual knowledge in those fields are minimal. One of the greatest difficulties that his debate opponents have with him is that his understanding of science is so substandard that they can't have any kind of intelligent discussion with him.No, his material wasn't good. And his being in prison now has nothing to do with it. His material is just not any good.

Actually, what he refers to does not involve 14C dating but does involve carbon, and is very interesting. The researchers looked at carbon particles found in metamorphic rock that is 3.8 to 4.2 billion years old. These particles have an isotopic composition and structure that indicate the presence of life, and are often cited as evidence for life on Earth being 3.8 to 4.2 billion years old. However, these researchers applied new techniques:

quote:

---

The new approach relies upon a variety of microscopy and spectroscopy methods to characterize intact micro-fabricated cross-sections of crystalline graphite removed from the rock samples.

---

They concluded that the carbon particles are younger than the rock:

quote:

---

"The characteristics of the poorly crystalline graphite within the samples are not consistent with the metamorphic history of the rock," said Boston College Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences Dominic Papineau, a co-author of the report. "The carbon in the graphite is not as old as the rock. That can only ring a bell and require us to ask if we need to reconsider earlier studies."

---

I don't know the details, I can't access the primary source. But it's totally irrelevant to 14C dating, as you knew, but as Mazzy should have known but didn't.

quote:

---

Hudson Bay region shows carbonaceous particles are millions of years younger than the rock in which they're found, pointing to the likelihood that the carbon was mixed in with the metamorphic rock later than the rock's earliest formation -- estimated to be 3.8 to 4.2 billion years ago.

---

I found it interesting also, but is a few million years much when we are talking about something that is 4 billion years old? It is a new technique also, maybe there may be problems with it.The article never says how much the dating difference was, is there an acceptable amount of error in something 4 billion years old, and if so would a few million years fall within that accepted amount of error? All it says is millions of years difference, which could mean a few or 10, 100, 500???...

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Thanks. Coragyps!It's always easy to debunk creationists, as they only have one method: deceiving by outright lying. They project their way of thinking on others, because they think that everyone is as ignorant (or plain stupid) as they are themselves.

Mazzy, could you explain to us how the article you refered to is related to carbon dating?

first of all, you have me quoting something I never said. Dr Adequate said "If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it." NOT ME.Why do YOU find it "fishy" that I've never heard of her before AND that I did not know she used to be a YEC? In the ARTICLE I provided for the forum (From which I did not do a search on the authors entire past) NOWHERE in the article does she state that she used to be a YEC. Read it...So, in short, it seems you have MISquoted me AND acused me of lying for no good reason. Pressie, it seems you lack reading comprehension skills and in doing so misrepresent others comments. Hopefully the forum can see thru this blunder of yours and not attribute it to me.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

If you look at your original message, the part from DrAdequate is not in quote so it looks like you wrote it, I guess that's where the confusion is coming from(there's the "[qs=DrA]" missing at the start of your original message).

No, Chuck77I did mess up the quote function on the first quote and included someone else’s comments with yours. This happened because the quotes in original message were incorrect. I apologize for that.I continue to find it very strange that you’ve referred to an article written on soft dinosaur tissue, where the name of the researcher, Dr. Schweitzer, is prominently mentioned several times, but then you claim you’ve never of heard of her before. You, yourself wrote that you’ve never heard of her before, here: Did you mean that you’ve never heard of her before you read that article?She’s been working for quite a few years now. In fact, I remember reading one of her articles in 2005. That’s why it is unbelievable that a creationist can claim, in 2011, that he’s never heard of her before. Creationists have continually been distorting her research for years.