Did Humans Encounter Dinosaurs?

[Deadworm]

The Myth of Dinosaur Destruction 65 Million Years Ago:

If the conventional wisdom is correct that homo sapiens evolved about 100,000 years ago, then humans and dinosaurs have coexisted for at least 71,OOO years.

 

[Deadworm]

I advocate neither a "young earth" theory of creation nor Noah's Flood as an explanation of the extinction of dinosaurs. But there just might be something to this comprehensive survey of claims of\ ancient and modern dinosaur sitings. Please watch this fascinating video and share your reaction:

dinosaurs humans coexist youtube - Bing video

 

[JackRT]

C-14 dating is only good to about 50,000 years ago. It would never be done on anything suspected to be older than that.

 

[Deadworm]

C-14 dating is only good to about 50,000 years ago. It would never be done on anything suspected to be older than that.[/QUOTE0]

So I take it that you support the abundant evidence discussed in the first video about successful C-14 testing of tissue in dinosaur bones. But can we really believe that T-rexes roamed the earth with humans about 30,000 years ago?

 

[Papias]

Um, deadworm, what do you think their goal was?

Let's say it was to find out how old the dinosaur bone is - even in the range of 10,000 to 100,000 years. The way to do that is to test by several applicable method in that range. So that would be, for instance, C-14, Amino racemization, K-Ar, and U disequib. You could also do electrong spin and thermluminescence, depending on the sample.

You would then see if the methods agreed, as a check to make sure you didn't do it wrong. That's especially important with C-14 dating, since any responsible researcher knows how easy it is for a little modern bacteria to get into a sample and make it look young.

So, on the other hand, let's say your goal was to make up fake news that you could use to sell books or get money. Then use only C-14 dating. Don't check it with other methods, and don't include controls from stratigraphy, etc. Avoid actual replication to confirm the results by keeping it out of actual peer-reviewed journals. Then put it in a youtube video, with links at the end to sites asking for money, so you can get money from people who don't know any better. Be sure to use the standard methods of deception such as unverifiable claims, mysterious findings, and appeals to scripture.

It seems pretty obvious that this is a hoax. This is the kind of stuff that makes Christianity look bad. When a Christian falls for a snake oil as obvious as this, an unbeliever sees it, and reasonably thinks that the gospel is a hoax too. It makes it so much harder to witness to someone after charlatans have peddled stuff like this in the name of Christianity.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Deadworm]

Papias, I'm not a "young earther," but the first youtube video claims that the researchers corrected for the possibility of contaminated samples. I merely want the question resolved without the inevitable pro-evolution thought police dismissing all this research without evidence. A possible pro-Creationist bias does not mean the tests were invalid. The tested sample consisted of many dinosaur tissue samples and the samples were supposedly decontaminated and tested at the University of Georgia, not in some Creationist's basement! if 30,000 (+ or -) year datings are spurious, then test that fact with better methods, not with the Hammer of Scientific Heretics that, so far, has dismissed all these results without evidence.

 

[JackRT]

It seems pretty obvious that this is a hoax. This is the kind of stuff that makes Christianity look bad. When a Christian falls for a snake oil as obvious as this, an unbeliever sees it, and reasonably thinks that the gospel is a hoax too. It makes it so much harder to witness to someone after charlatans have peddled stuff like this in the name of Christianity.

Amen to that.

 

[Papias]

P the first youtube video claims that the researchers corrected for the possibility of contaminated samples. ... ..and the samples were supposedly decontaminated ......

But that doesn't make sense. How can you "correct" for contamination? One doesn't know how much is in there, so "correcting" doesn't make sense. The video also says "decontaminated", which also sounds problematic. Contamination would be carbon 14 and carbon 12 from the environment. Removing that carbon would leave no carbon left to detect, hence giving an age off the scale. Yet, it claims that carbon 14 was detected, giving an age of 30,000 years. But how could that be if they removed the carbon?

So which was it? "corrected for", or "decontaminated"? Those are two different things. Whichever it was, explain how that could make sense at all?

The tested sample consisted of many dinosaur tissue samples

Repeatedly doing something wrong is no more right than doing it wrong once.

... if 30,000 (+ or -) year datings are spurious, then test that fact with better methods,

I've already asked once why the didn't test with other methods as well, which is standard practice. Why not?

Papias, I'm not a "young earther," ....... not with the Hammer of Scientific Heretics that, so far, has dismissed all these results without evidence.

Answering reasonable questions about "research" that looks like it's using the same approach as hoaxers with statements like this one make you sound an awful lot like a young earther. If that's not your intent, then you might want to reply differently.

.... not in some Creationist's basement!

You also didn't reply as to why these results are being used to sell stuff and make money (like hoaxes) instead of being published - which is what is normally done with actual results.

In Christ-
Papias

 

[JackRT]

What concerns me is that videos like this show that the authors know just enough science to make their deliberate lie sound plausible to the uninformed. What concerns me even more is that these are Christians doing this.

 

[Radrook]

What concerns me is that videos like this show that the authors know just enough science to make their deliberate lie sound plausible to the uninformed. What concerns me even more is that these are Christians doing this.

Here is some relevant information concerning the controversy.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones carbon dated dinosaur fossils date c-14 dinosaur fossil bones by c14 dinosaur bones fossils

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors.

 

[Papias]

Here is some relevant information concerning the controversy.

I'm not sure how relevant that is. I mean, is it just the same case? As before, it doesn't look serious - they didn't follow standard procedure of testing using other methods, etc. Did you read my post #8, above? Most of that applies to your link as well.

Other things in your link suggest it is a hoax. For instance, if Thomas Seiler really has a Ph. D. from Technical University of Munich, then it should be possible to see his dissertation. I tried to do a plain old dissertation search at TUM, and found nothing.
mediaTUM - Medien- und Publikationsserver

Even more of a concern is the deception used. The article implies that Dr. Schweitzer's work is unexplained or rejected by mainstream science, when that's not the case at all. Everything agrees with her fossils being over 65 million years old, and she even states that herself. The claim that there is "soft tissue" in them plays on common ignorance of what "soft tissue" means in paleontology. It means tissue that's not bone - not that the tissue is physically "soft". She's stated that's she's pretty unhappy with creationists misleading people by lying about her data - and here we see it again. In fact, Dr. Schweitzer's own case disproves the conspiracy theory tinfoil hat stuff that makes up much of the page you linked to.

That kind of misrepresentation, deception and lying can be seen throughout the article. As mentioned before, it's lying like this that makes Christianity itself look like a pack of lies when Christians support this.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Deadworm]

Papias, your response is the pseudo-science equivalent of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Where I live, a brilliant Boeing engineer is very excited about this and the he wryly challenged me to notice the bigoted replies of the scientific community. I searched in vain for a replicated study that might have added othe dating techniques to the many samples, but found none. I find it hard to believe dinosaurs exsited 30,000 years ago. But the mindless dismissals of you and Jack have convinced me that my engineer friend is right and that the jury is now out on the date of the demise of dinosaurs. All I'm asking for is the standard scientific replication tests. The University of Georgia is a respectable research university and their findings deserve to taqke taken seriously.

 

[Armoured]

Papias, your response is the pseudo-science equivalent of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Where I live, a brilliant Boeing engineer is very excited about this and the he wryly challenged me to notice the bigoted replies of the scientific community. I searched in vain for a replicated study that might have added othe dating techniques to the many samples, but found none. I find it hard to believe dinosaurs exsited 30,000 years ago. But the mindless dismissals of you and Jack have convinced me that my engineer friend is right and that the jury is now out on the date of the demise of dinosaurs. All I'm asking for is the standard scientific replication tests. The University of Georgia is a respectable research university and their findings deserve to taqke taken seriously.

If you want to subject dinosaur remains to inappropriate scientific dating methods, may I suggest you put up the funds to do it yourself, instead of insisting that people who know it won't work, do it for you?

 

[Deadworm]

The paleontologists at the University of Georgia are far more competent in dating ancient remains than any of you who have responded. None of you have watched abd listened to the first video carefully and I doubt that any of you have watched the 2nd complementary video.

Let me repeat the simply point: scientists have dated tissue inside bones from many dinosaurs generally to a range of 30-38 thousand years in a way that corrects for the possibility of later contamination. Why would contaminants in bones 65-70 million old all fall within so relatively recent an age range? But even if you assumed undetected contamination, you need to explain why the contaminants fall consistently within the same age range.

You may uncritically accept biblical infallibility. All I'm asking is that you season your penchant for pontification with a modicum of academic rigor and recognize the need to clear up this disparity in dating evidence. Can you say "replication expeiments?"

 

[Papias]

Papias, your response is the pseudo-science equivalent of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Simply false. I pointed out their shirking of standard research methods. Those methods are there for a reason - because without them, all kinds of wrong results are likely. That's not dogmatism, that's simply being rational. In fact, isn't that the opposite of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." ?

Where I live, a brilliant Boeing engineer is very excited about this and the he wryly challenged me to notice the bigoted replies of the scientific community.

If he didn't see the obvious lack of reasonable research methods, then I doubt he's "brilliant". If he's an engineer who things expects the scientific community to be "bigoted" against Christians (even though many of them are Bible-believing Christians), then there's another reason to wonder about his "brilliance".

Might I ask how many published papers in the field of paleontology he has? Does he have any paleontological background? You know that someone who's "brilliant" in one area (say, grignard chemistry) can be completely clueless in another area (say, paleontology). It's a common method of pseudoscience to cite a clueless person who is an expert in some other field, and expect people to fall for it. What type of engineer is he?

I searched in vain for a replicated study that might have added othe dating techniques to the many samples, but found none.

And what does that tell you?

But the mindless dismissals of you and Jack have convinced me that my engineer friend is right and that the jury is now out on the date of the demise of dinosaurs.

Asking for the results of standard dating methods is not a "mindless dismissal". Asking if the person's degree is real (when the evidence suggests it's not) is not a "mindless dismissal". Noticing that so called "research" was being used to sell books and bring in donations instead of being published in a normal, peer reviewed journal is not a "mindless dismissal".

Don't blame us. It looks like the only thing that "convinced" you that your own jury was out was your own mindless dismissal of the regular fact checking examination of your claim.

All I'm asking for is the standard scientific replication tests.

That's what I asked for. You said you looked for them and didn't find them. Oh, I get it, it's shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is legitimately on the person making the claim. That means that they do the other dating methods (such as amino racemization, K-Ar, and U disequib. - or others mentioned earlier). It does not mean that you can demand that anyone skeptical of the original poor "research" then "prove you wrong".

FYI - shifting the burden of proof is a common tactic of pseudoscience.

The University of Georgia is a respectable research university and their findings deserve to taqke taken seriously.

They are being taken seriously. Everyone agrees that the samples that the University of Georgia tested had detectable C14. What's not being taken seriously are those who claim that the samples had been "decontaminated". After all - did you not read my post above explaining how that claim makes no sense? Do you understand C-14 dating? Do you know that C-12 and C-14 act the same chemically?

Why would contaminants in bones 65-70 million old all fall within so relatively recent an age range? But even if you assumed undetected contamination, you need to explain why the contaminants fall consistently within the same age range.

They don't. Rad. posted the data, and they don't overlap at all. Anyone with basic statistical knowledge knows that ages aren't "in the same age range" if their ranges with error bars don't overlap. Here's the data. When data doesn't overlap, it means they they are giving different ages. Why is it all less than ~40 to 50,000 years? Because that's the top age of the method used.

>32,400
25,750 + 280
23,760 + 270
29,690 + 90
30,640 + 90
31,360 + 100
31,050 + 230/-220
36,480 + 560/-530
30,890 + 200
33,830 + 2910/-1960
24,340 + 70
39,230 + 140
30,110 + 80
22,380 + 800
22,990 +130
25,670 + 220
25,170 + 230
23,170 + 170
37,660 + 160
38,250 + 160

You also didn't answer questions in my earlier post. Could you do so?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Deadworm]

Again, you willfully ignore the key point: the C-14 testing that consistently dates the interior of the bones of many different dinosaurs to a small 30-37 thousand year range needs an explanation. Since I make no claim about the ultimate age of these dinosaurs, I bear no burden of proof. I'm merely asking whether it is the other age tests that are seriously flawed or whether the other tests would even contradict the C-14 dating of these particular bones. I'm not claiming that dinosaurs do no date back to 65 million+ years. In science the best interpretation is the one that takes into account ALL the available evidence.

 

[Papias]

Again, you willfully ignore ....

Ad Hominim fallacy.

(Ad Hominim removed) ignore the key point: the C-14 testing that consistently dates the interior of the bones of many different dinosaurs to a small 30-37 thousand year range needs an explanation.

I'm not "ignoring" anything. I've pointed out several times now that this fits well with contamination. The fact that it is in a narrow range makes this even more clear. Here we have several samples prepared the same way by the same group in the same lab showing around the same amount of contamination. How is that surprising?

This is further supported by the data Rad gave, which were prepared by different creationists and had contamination that ranged from the smallest amount to 8 times as much in other samples!

Since I make no claim about the ultimate age of these dinosaurs, I bear no burden of proof. I'm merely asking ........ I'm not claiming that dinosaurs do no date back to 65 million+ years.

Having your cake fallacy. This is often done by politicians. Such as:

"I'm not saying that Trump committing sexual assault makes him unfit for office, I'm merely asking if it might do so. So I bear no burden of proof about whether he did so egregiously and horribly commit sexual assault on multiple occasions (as shown in these videos), which is something only a horrible craven knave would do - as we all know. I'm not claiming he did so - I'm just not sure."​

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

..... it is the other age tests that are seriously flawed or whether the other tests would even contradict the C-14 dating of these particular bones. In science the best interpretation is the one that takes into account ALL the available evidence.

Yeah, the other thousands of tests on literally hundreds of dinosaur bones, using several different methods (such as K-Ar, Geomagetic polarity, U-Pb, and other methods) all just happened to be wrong, and all gave the same wrong answers, when the right answer was a thousand times smaller? A That all the hundreds of scientists - many of whom were Christians - all bungled things the exact same way, over the many decades they've been devoting their whole careers to the accuracy of these methods and confirming them in samples of known age? That the dozens of labs around the world that did (and are doing) those tests just all happen to make the same mistakes, over and over? B

And all that is about as likely as contamination in a few bones that creationists tested by one method, which they refuse to test by other methods? Samples that were not prepared by professionals who normally do this difficult work? You really think that's about as likely, so that's why you are "just asking questions"? C

In science the best interpretation is the one that takes into account ALL the available evidence.

See the paragraph above. Yes, ALL the available evidence. Thousands of samples by many different methods, DNA clock studies agreeing with those dates as well. The evidence from whole other fields of science too. and so on.

Some of the stuff you keep refusing to answer on this thread:

D
Do you consider it relevant that they didn't bother to test a result that the evidence suggests could be due to contamination by using other methods, such as: Amino racemization, K-Ar, and U disequib. You could also do electron spin and thermluminescence, depending on the sample. If not, why not?

E What do you think of the fact that they avoided actual replication to confirm the results in actual peer-reviewed journals? Why then put it in a youtube video, which used the standard methods of deception such as unverifiable claims, mysterious findings, and appeals to scripture?

F What do you think of the fact that they including links to sites asking for money?

G Why do they claim to have "decontaminated" the sample, when anyone who understand C-14 dating knows that you can't "decontaminate" a sample, due to the nature of the test? I also asked if you could explain yourself why this is true to show that you understand C-14 dating.

H What do you think of the fact that I can't find evidence that Thomas Seiler really has a Ph. D. from Technical University of Munich? Did you check and verify his Ph.D.? If so, can you share that verification? If not, then why would you believe someone without bothering to check?

I. What do you think of all the exposed deception and lying by those claiming these bones are less than 65 million years old - detailed in post #11? Do you think lying is OK?

J. Do you think your brilliant engineer friend is being rational in supporting this, and that citing someone with no expertise in the field is relevant? (see post #15) If so, then why? If not, then why did you mention him?

K. What do you think about the dates Rad posted? Do they overlap? (see post #15).

I'll end with a phrase I've heard.
"When an honest man is shown to be wrong, he can either admit he's wrong and no longer be wrong. Or he can no longer claim to be honest."

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. just an FYI - the Methodist church supports evolution as fully compatible with scripture, and disagrees with intelligent design creationism. Here's an official statement from the Methodist Church. Evolution and Intelligent Design - The United Methodist Church

 

[Deadworm]

Papias check out these articles which provide additional evidence of more recent dinosaurs. Other relevant online articles are appended to this one:

The Curious Case of the 'Unfossilized' Bones - creation.com

Papias: "I'm not "ignoring" anything. I've pointed out several times now that this fits well with contamination. The fact that it is in a narrow range makes this even more clear. Here we have several samples prepared the same way by the same group in the same lab showing around the same amount of contamination. How is that surprising?"

First, you have not addressed their method of eliminating the contamination possibility. Second, the specific age range of 30 to 39 thousand is shockingly significant. Why that range and not,say, 100 years?

Papias: "Having your cake fallacy. This is often done by politicians."

The U of George research establishes an unexpected and consistent narrow and early range for the tissue inside a wide variety of dinosaur bones. You have ducked the questions I posed: C-14 dating is reliable. (1) So would the dating of these bones from many dinosaurs conflict with the C-14 result? You commit the fallacy of begging the question by simplistically assuming it would not. (2) So is it the other standard tests from great antiquity that are flawed?

I have been a college teaching fellow in logic. You are a constructive example of fallacious thinking. Your ad hominens directed at me and the University of Georgia scientists are fallacious and irrelevant to the question of the validity of their C-14 test results. Nor do you grasp the simple truth that an alleged burden of proof is a function of the nature of a claim. You continually overlook the fact that I merely want the dating discrepancies to be cleared up by actual testing, not by your question begging pontifications.




Papias: "Do you consider it relevant that they didn't bother to test a result that the evidence suggests could be due to contamination by using other methods..."

First, how do you know that they reject the traditional view that dinosaurs thrived 76+ million years ago. I certainly make no such assumption. Again, you are begging the question. I must assume that you didn't bother to watch the companion video making a case for human coexistence with dinosaurs. Second, the real issue is whether some dinosaurs survived until more geologically recent times. I'm skeptical. of this, but I concede that the combined force of both videos raises questions that should be explored and not irrationally dismissed without evidence, as you do.

Papias: "just an FYI - the Methodist church supports evolution as fully compatible with scripture, and disagrees with intelligent design creationism."

Another one of your many false assumptions! I have made it clear that I believe in evolution and want it taught in public schools; and of course, I'm aware of what my denomination believes.

 

[Papias]

Deadworm, your continued evasions - even after I've tried to address everything you bring up - make me wonder if you are interested in rational discussion or not. Specifically, you've still ignored these many points.

A Yeah, the other thousands of tests on literally hundreds of dinosaur bones, using several different methods (such as K-Ar, Geomagetic polarity, U-Pb, and other methods) all just happened to be wrong, and all gave the same wrong answers, when the right answer was a thousand times smaller? Note that your video lies about how dinosaur ages are established, by saying they were "assigned" using the "geologic column" - this is at 0:30.

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this? Why aren't you raising the real issue - that the original group of researchers could (and should!) be doing these tests on the bones?


B That all the hundreds of scientists - many of whom were Christians - all bungled things the exact same way, over the many decades they've been devoting their whole careers to the accuracy of these methods and confirming them in samples of known age? That the dozens of labs around the world that did (and are doing) those tests just all happen to make the same mistakes, over and over?

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?


C And all that is about as likely as contamination in a few bones that creationists tested by one method, which they refuse to test by other methods? Samples that were not prepared by professionals who normally do this difficult work? You really think that's about as likely, so that's why you are "just asking questions"?

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?

D
Do you consider it relevant that they didn't bother to test a result that the evidence suggests could be due to contamination by using other methods, such as: Amino racemization, K-Ar, and U disequib. You could also do electron spin and thermluminescence, depending on the sample. If not, why not?

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?


E What do you think of the fact that they avoided actual replication to confirm the results in actual peer-reviewed journals? Why then put it in a youtube video, which used the standard methods of deception such as unverifiable claims, mysterious findings, and appeals to scripture?

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?

F What do you think of the fact that they including links to sites asking for money?

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?

G Why do they claim to have "decontaminated" the sample, when anyone who understand C-14 dating knows that you can't "decontaminate" a sample, due to the nature of the test? I also asked if you could explain yourself why this is true to show that you understand C-14 dating.

You wrote:

First, you have not addressed their method of eliminating the contamination possibility.

Yes, I have - you claimed they were "decontaminated". I pointed out that "decontaminating" a sample renders it impossible to C-14 test. You have not addressed this problem, nor shown that you have any understanding of C-14 testing. Even worse - the video itself shows that these samples were contaminated, after 8:00, showing the samples being taken in the open air. Later work only served to remove carbonate. Anyone who knows anything about C-14 testing knows this is wrong.

H What do you think of the fact that I can't find evidence that Thomas Seiler really has a Ph. D. from Technical University of Munich? Did you check and verify his Ph.D.? If so, can you share that verification? If not, then why would you believe someone without bothering to check?

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?

I. What do you think of all the exposed deception and lying by those claiming these bones are less than 65 million years old - detailed in post #11? Do you think lying is OK? Note that they repeat the Schwietzer deception at 1:30 in your video.

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?

J. Do you think your brilliant engineer friend is being rational in supporting this, and that citing someone with no expertise in the field is relevant? (see post #15) If so, then why? If not, then why did you mention him?

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?


K. What do you think about the dates Rad posted? Do they overlap? (see post #15).

Unanswered. What is your explanation for this?

L - the Methodist church supports evolution as fully compatible with scripture, and disagrees with intelligent design creationism. Here's an official statement from the Methodist Church. Evolution and Intelligent Design - The United Methodist Church

Another one of your many false assumptions! I have made it clear that I believe in evolution and want it taught in public schools; and of course, I'm aware of what my denomination believes.

What "false assumption" do you think I'm making? If you support evolution and the timeline supported by the evidence, then what exactly are you proposing - that humans lived with dinosaurs? I guess this goes back to your continued use of the "having your cake" fallacy. M

Papias: "I'm not "ignoring" anything. I've pointed out several times now that this fits well with contamination. The fact that it is in a narrow range makes this even more clear. Here we have several samples prepared the same way by the same group in the same lab showing around the same amount of contamination. How is that surprising?"

.... Second, the specific age range of 30 to 39 thousand is shockingly significant. Why that range and not,say, 100 years?

Did you even watch your own video? It says 22-39 K years. As pointed out above, it's not "shocking" at all - it's expected if due to contamination. Even 30-39 isn't a narrow range, is more than double the contamination in one sample vs the other. Why not 100 years? That would suggest that they didn't control the contamination to that narrow range.

C-14 dating is reliable. (1) So would the dating of these bones from many dinosaurs conflict with the C-14 result? You commit the fallacy of begging the question by simplistically assuming it would not. (2) So is it the other standard tests from great antiquity that are flawed?

Pointing out lies is not "begging the question". for #2 - are you really claiming that all the thousands of other tests are wrong, or are you committing the "having your cake" fallacy again, and "just asking questions"?

I have been a college teaching fellow in logic. You are a constructive example of fallacious thinking. Your ad hominens directed at me and the University of Georgia scientists are fallacious and irrelevant to the question of the validity of their C-14 test results.

I've pointed out that I fully support the U of Ga. After all, it is you and the videomakers who are abusing their results and unjustly accusing them of dishonesty. If you think I've done any Ad hom anywhere, please point it out exactly - or retract your claim.

Nor do you grasp the simple truth that an alleged burden of proof is a function of the nature of a claim.

Of course not - because that's false. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. And that's you.

You continually overlook the fact that I merely want the dating discrepancies to be cleared up by actual testing, not by your question begging pontifications.

They have been. With thousands of tests. Why do you not accept that evidence? Why are you not asking the people in your video (who are the ones who have the bones, after all!) to do the other testing methods? It's clear that your beef is actually with the video people, right?

First, how do you know that they reject the traditional view that dinosaurs thrived 76+ million years ago.

Um, did you not watch the video? Their whole point is that they reject that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Of course, we all agree that dinosaurs "thrived 76+ million years ago".

......raises questions that should be explored and not irrationally dismissed without evidence, as you do..

Back to having you cake. The video dismisses itself, providing ample evidence and outright deceptions to show that there is no case for (non-avian) dinosaurs living more recently than 64 million years ago.

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. you wrote:

Papias check out these articles which provide additional evidence of more recent dinosaurs. Other relevant online articles are appended to this one:

The Curious Case of ...

I'm happy to discuss these, but let's finish the first topic you brought up first. Otherwise, it begins to look like a gish gallop.

 

[Resha Caner]

It seems pretty obvious that this is a hoax.

That many YECs hope this incident will prove something or discredit certain persons or organizations goes without saying. But I am curious to understand what you believe to be the extent of the "hoax"? Do you accept that the University of Georgia carbon-dated some samples they were given?