|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the creationists thought on this? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 230 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Chuck77 writes: 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. If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crazynutsx Junior Member (Idle past 4445 days) Posts: 11 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
why do people constantly use the excuse, oh he's in prison now
What!?, so that means his material wasnt good ? Ofcourse it was he had lots of valid points in his arguements Creation VS Evolution Debate Forum - A forum to talk about the creation/evolution debate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh for fuck's sake, now you're just a dirty rotten troll spammer.
Let you be banned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Pressie, that's rather an impressive debunking. No wonder Peczis/Woodmorappe is also known as "Whatmorecrap."
And welcome to EvC!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4845 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
????? writes: With "half lifes" and other chemicals, we have a pretty acurate way of dating. And yes it is very accurate though people have been saying how carbon dating isn't good. It is. Well back to my question, How do you explain the age of the dinosaurs? according to the bible the earth isn't near a million years of age much more a couple billion.Just a question... ????? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2361 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
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.
Ofcourse it was he had lots of valid points in his arguements 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Coyote writes: 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. 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: They concluded that the carbon particles are younger than the rock:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4400 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
They concluded that the carbon particles are younger than the rock: quote: 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. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 230 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 230 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Mazzy, could you explain to us how the article you refered to is related to carbon dating?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
pressie writes: Chuck77 writes:If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it. Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC? pressie writes: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 4084 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 230 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
No, Chuck77
I 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:
Chuck77 writes: Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024