Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[4x4toy]

Please explain how soft dinosaur tissue exists and is being carbon dated to 30,000 yrs old and less .. And please don't insult your own intelligence ..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain how soft dinosaur tissue exists and is being carbon dated to 30,000 yrs old and less .. And please don't insult your own intelligence ..

That was already explained to you. It appears that the explanation was too difficult for you to understand.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Please explain how soft dinosaur tissue exists and is being carbon dated to 30,000 yrs old and less .. And please don't insult your own intelligence ..

It appears to be related to IRON. This acts to help preserve soft tissue (See HERE) They even followed it up with a test of preserving soft tissue in iron-rich solutions to see if the chemistry made sense.

It is interesting because as one scientist notes: the assumption was there that soft tissue wouldn't be preserved and why would you go to all the effort to dig up these bones and then destroy them with acid to get to organic materials? (LINK)

Now, as for the 30,000 year date with 14-C, well I would have to see the details of the analysis. Contamination happens and needs to be controlled.

But here's the bigger question: why ignore the VAST amount of data which dates the formation that the original dino soft tissue was found in at 68 Million years? It's like finding a bunch of data that makes sense and one that doesn't and opting to just go with the one that doesn't make sense (but could be explained by any number of problems) simply because it supports an hypothesis that has virtually no other support anywhere else on earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It appears to be related to IRON. This acts to help preserve soft tissue (See HERE) They even followed it up with a test of preserving soft tissue in iron-rich solutions to see if the chemistry made sense.

It is interesting because as one scientist notes: the assumption was there that soft tissue wouldn't be preserved and why would you go to all the effort to dig up these bones and then destroy them with acid to get to organic materials? (LINK)

Now, as for the 30,000 year date with 14-C, well I would have to see the details of the analysis. Contamination happens and needs to be controlled.

But here's the bigger question: why ignore the VAST amount of data which dates the formation that the original dino soft tissue was found in at 68 Million years? It's like finding a bunch of data that makes sense and one that doesn't and opting to just go with the one that doesn't make sense (but could be explained by any number of problems) simply because it supports an hypothesis that has virtually no other support anywhere else on earth.

Let me see if I can dig that up for you. I have debated that issue before and a group of creationists did send in some dinosaur bones to get dated recently. They actually lied to the dating company, which would seem to make the results worthless since there are steps that can be taken to remove some contamination.

And it probably was contamination. If the bones had C14 from contamination, rather from original C14 we one would expect to see dates all over the place. One guess as to how the dates agreed with each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Finding it. I found this through a creationist site (they do tend to shoot themselves in the foot). They were going to make a presentation at a meeting in Singapore which ran from August 13-17 2012. The creationist group, which did not present themselves as such, were supposedly giving a paper that measure MODERN C14 as you can see in the original program:


http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012 Abstract.pdf

The holders of the conference caught on before it happened and the creationists were disinvited. Creationists are complaining because the presenters were caught in a lie and an invitation was taken back. They were going to try to use that conference to give their find some authority, even though it would have been rejected there.

Ah! Found it. Here is the "NewGeology" article on their own shenanigans. They include the letter from the dating company which told them that due to their dishonesty they would not do any more dating for them.

It is amazing that groups like this one would "lie for Jesus" get caught at it, and actually brag about it:

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

 

[Obliquinaut]

Finding it. I found this through a creationist site (they do tend to shoot themselves in the foot). They were going to make a presentation at a meeting in Singapore which ran from August 13-17 2012. The creationist group, which did not present themselves as such, were supposedly giving a paper that measure MODERN C14 as you can see in the original program:


http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012 Abstract.pdf

The holders of the conference caught on before it happened and the creationists were disinvited. Creationists are complaining because the presenters were caught in a lie and an invitation was taken back. They were going to try to use that conference to give their find some authority, even though it would have been rejected there.

Ah! Found it. Here is the "NewGeology" article on their own shenanigans. They include the letter from the dating company which told them that due to their dishonesty they would not do any more dating for them.

It is amazing that groups like this one would "lie for Jesus" get caught at it, and actually brag about it:

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Thanks for the link! I'd seen that before from the NewGeology folks. I wish we had more information on what actually happened (looks like only the NewGeology side of the debate). I never did any radiometric dating in grad school and my stable-isotope studies were limited (enough to convince me that I really didn't want to do that, even though my girlfriend --now my wife-- had an office in the stable isotope lab. It wasn't her area either, she was fluid inclusions, but her advisor as also the stable isotope guy).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the link! I'd seen that before from the NewGeology folks. I wish we had more information on what actually happened (looks like only the NewGeology side of the debate). I never did any radiometric dating in grad school and my stable-isotope studies were limited (enough to convince me that I really didn't want to do that, even though my girlfriend --now my wife-- had an office in the stable isotope lab. It wasn't her area either, she was fluid inclusions, but her advisor as also the stable isotope guy).

There really is not too much to refute since there is no "there there". The group lied in their presentation abstract, they lied when they submitted their samples to be dated, the dates reflect what one would expect to see if they were from contamination.

As I pointed out in other debates with creationists they could do the same work again. Pay some professionals so that samples were correctly collected in the field. Be open with the dating company so that they could identify and treat any possible contamination (and how one would avoid contamination in near surface samples in porous rock is far beyond my very limited radiometric dating education) and then see if anything unusual shows up.

I have a feeling that if contamination is accounted for that there will be no measurable original C14.

 

[God's Child]

Admin Hat On
This thread has undergone a clean up due to flaming and off topic posts. If you noticed a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please keep the rules in mind when posting. Thank you.
Admin Hat Off

 

[klutedavid]

Perhaps but I doubt it. If that were the case you could simply "live in a cave". Avoid any computer technology. Drive old cars. Get off of the electrical grid. Grow your own food. etc. and so on.. I don't think it wold be worth it.

Hello Subduction Zone.

I agree, any attempt to disconnect from this electronic age would be a terrible existence.
Criminals and terrorists are caught these days because they appear on ctv, use mobiles, or leave a computer storage trail. Electronic evidence is a major tool in modern police work.

We do not have much to be concerned with at the moment, as long as the government remains stable. Though our governments are becoming less stable as the problems increase with time.

 

[Astrophile]

These life forms appear in the fossil record abruptly, then they just disappear.

If it is true that 'life forms appear in the fossil record abruptly', where do you think that the first fossilised member of a species came from? I assume that you accept that fossils are the remains of animals and plants that were once alive, that you don't think that they were planted in the rocks by God or the Devil to test our faith or to deceive us.

 

[Heissonear]

Nope. DNA has more than made up for any "missing links". Fossils are obvious evidence for the uneducated. A "missing" fossil appears to be a problem, but in reality they are not. Fossils of land based life are very rare. .......................

Sub, of the billions of land and marine fossils found by man there have been zero locals and fossil sequences which prove evolution occurred.

Again, this is no matter to brush under the rug - Evolutionists lack the most important evidence to verify that Evolution occurred. Observation across this vast Earth show zero transition fossils.

I learned this fact when I was an Evolutionist. The more people learn the more they realize Evolution is based on belief, not upon observable facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sub, of the billions of land and marine fossils found by man there have been zero locals and fossil sequences which prove evolution occurred.

Again, this is no matter to brush under the rug - Evolutionists lack the most important evidence to verify that Evolution occurred. Observation across this vast Earth show zero transition fossils.

I learned this fact when I was an Evolutionist. The more people learn the more they realize Evolution is based of belief, not upon observable facts.

Thanks for confirming that you do not understand how science is done.

No single fossil can ever "prove" evolution. But when one looks at the patter of fossilized life there is only one conclusion that one can draw:

Life is the product of evolution.

ALL creationists explanations have been refuted. Quite often by creationists themselves since they tend to be self contradicting.

And there are countless transitional fossils. Your statement only underscores the fact that you do not understand what a transitional fossil is. Please give me your definition of a "transitional fossil". I can give you the proper definition of it and tell you how we know that there are transitional fossils, but since you made your claim first you put the burden of proof upon you.

And no, you never "learned" such facts.

I am betting that you simply run away from your unsupported assertions. You can't win a debate by doing so, you can only make yourself look bad.