The pseudos of science explained

[Adrian Moir]

What is the formal definition of pseudoscience?
Definition of pseudoscience
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.
- Merriam Webster's Dictionary

how come dinosaurs don't get carbon dated?
This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones.
The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is
only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old.

BBC NEWS
Researchers have discovered what appear to be the remnants of red blood cells and connective tissue
in 75 million-year-old dinosaur fossils. The work could shine a light
on long-standing questions about dinosaur physiology, including whether
specific species were warm- or cold-blooded.

The theory of evolution has never been able to be congealed into a practice, because the entire process of evolution is theoretical and not practical whatsoever from start to finish.
Here are four main points I've listed which proves that the theory of evolution is not practical:

1. The big bang supposedly expanded rapidly across the universe when light cannot accelerate within a vacuum, so the big bang did not occur as the theory claims. Nor can gravity compress all matter into an infinitesimal region, because the amount of pressure exerting outward is thousands of times greater than the gravity pulling the material in, just as a glass of water cannot be compressed into a droplet.

2. Biogenesis cannot occur because life does not spontaneously arise from non living chemicals according to the principles of abiogenesis.
So to try and prescribe the term, abiogenesis, to the theory of evolution is an oxymoron, because, abiogenesis is based on the flask experiment by Nobel prize winner Louis Pasture who demonstrated that life must come from life.
And this means that life cannot spontaneously generate naturally, which is the opposite of what the theory of evolution claims.

3. Natural selection can only select from previous genetic instructions, which means that natural selection is not a mechanism that produces new biological features that were not already present within an organisms genetic coding.

4. Accumulative mutations result in the reduction of an organisms life span, and it never increases the over all survivability of the organism. And pedigree animals are a perfect example of how accumulative mutations reduce an organisms chances of survival, especially in the wild.
While natural selection can only produce short term benefits that are relative to the habitat that the organism is suited to, but the result of this process causes degeneration within the organism over time.
Because the effect of accumulative mutations causes previous biological features to become either recessive or lost.
And any limb reduced creature cannot regain its limbs once the genetic information for the limbs is lost, which is why natural selection cannot specify for new biological features over time.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Sarcasm, is the lowest form of wit.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sarcasm, is the lowest form of wit.

And why is it that you think it's an issue [presumably for geologists] that C14 dating can't be used on dinosaur bones?

Is it also an issue that I can't determine the age of a rock by licking it? What ever would a geologist do if they lost the ability to date rocks by licking them?

 

[Adrian Moir]

Because dinosaur bones have c14 present...Which was self-explanatory.
A rock does not come with a stamp on it, so there's no point licking it in order to slide millions of years in.
Most countries around the world follow a Gregorian calendar for trade reasons, which is based on the Jewish calendar and not millions of years. So good luck with that pseudoscience of yours...I'm sure it's finger licking good.

What is the basis for the seven day week that each nation observes?
The day is governed by the relationship between the earth and the sun.
The month is governed by the relationship between the earth and the moon.
And the year is governed by the relationship between the earth and the sun also.
But the only thing which governs the seven day week from it's original practice is the worlds oldest calendar, which is the Hebrew/Jewish calendar.
And this is based on the biblical six days of creation mentioned throughout scripture as well.

What is the worlds oldest calendar?

The Jewish calendar
The oldest calendar still in use is the Jewish calendar, which has been in popular use since the 9th century BC. It is based on biblical calculations that place the creation at 3761 BC. -Guinness world records

Does a lunisolar calendar predict orbital constellations?
A lunisolar calendar is a calendar whose date indicates both the moon phase and the time of the solar year. If the solar year is defined as a tropical year then a lunisolar calendar will give an indication of the season; if it is taken as a sidereal year then the calendar will predict the constellation near which the full moon may occur. Usually there is an additional requirement that the year has a whole number of months, in which case most years have 12 months but every second or third year has 13 months. -Lunisolar Calendar

Wikipedia
The Hebrew calendar (Hebrew: הַלּוּחַ הָעִבְרִי‎, romanized: HaLuah HaIvri), also called Jewish calendar, is a lunisolar calendar used today for Jewish religious observance, and as an official calendar of the state of Israel. It determines the dates for Jewish holidays and the appropriate public reading of Torah portions, yahrzeits (dates to commemorate the death of a relative), and daily Psalm readings, among many ceremonial uses. In Israel, it is used for religious purposes, provides a time frame for agriculture, and is an official calendar for civil holidays, alongside the Gregorian calendar.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because dinosaur bones have c14 present...Which was self-explanatory.
A rock does not comes with a stamp on it, so there's no point licking it in order to slide millions of years in.
Most countries around the world follow a Gregorian calendar for trade reasons, which is based on the Jewish calendar and not millions of years. So good luck with that pseudoscience of yours...I'm sure it's finger licking good.

What is the basis for the seven day week that each nation observes?
The day is governed by the relationship between the earth and the sun.
The month is governed by the relationship between the earth and the moon.
And the year is governed by the relationship between the earth and the sun also.
But the only thing which governs the seven day week from it's original practice is the worlds oldest calendar, which is the Hebrew/Jewish calendar.
And this is based on the biblical six days of creation mentioned throughout scripture as well.

What is the worlds oldest calendar?

The Jewish calendar
The oldest calendar still in use is the Jewish calendar, which has been in popular use since the 9th century BC. It is based on biblical calculations that place the creation at 3761 BC. -Guinness world records

Does a lunisolar calendar predict orbital constellations?
A lunisolar calendar is a calendar whose date indicates both the moon phase and the time of the solar year. If the solar year is defined as a tropical year then a lunisolar calendar will give an indication of the season; if it is taken as a sidereal year then the calendar will predict the constellation near which the full moon may occur. Usually there is an additional requirement that the year has a whole number of months, in which case most years have 12 months but every second or third year has 13 months. -Lunisolar Calendar

Wikipedia
The Hebrew calendar (Hebrew: הַלּוּחַ הָעִבְרִי‎, romanized: HaLuah HaIvri), also called Jewish calendar, is a lunisolar calendar used today for Jewish religious observance, and as an official calendar of the state of Israel. It determines the dates for Jewish holidays and the appropriate public reading of Torah portions, yahrzeits (dates to commemorate the death of a relative), and daily Psalm readings, among many ceremonial uses. In Israel, it is used for religious purposes, provides a time frame for agriculture, and is an official calendar for civil holidays, alongside the Gregorian calendar.

No, dinosaurs don't have original C-14 present. Who told you that [false information]?

I suppose I'll pre-emptively inform you of how you can adequately answer the question. You would need an accredited lab report with proper QA/QC methods (spikes, trips, blanks, duplicates etc.) and you would need results independently verified and replicated. This is how we do these analyses. Without the above, we can comfortably write off whatever [misinformation] you've been fed.

 

[Adrian Moir]

According to news reports Mary Schweitzer of North Caralina state university discovered red blood cells in T rex bones from the cretaceous period, which is supposed to be 75 million years old. And the presence of blood cells within this rock layer means that the entire strata of the cretaceous period has lost its 75 million year age bracket, and it has now shifted the age of the cretaceous strata to within 5730 years, which is the maximum for c14 half life.

What did scientists find in the Trex bone?
The most famous case dates to 2005, when Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University found collagen fibers in the fossilized leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for your brilliant display of stupidity, I'll be sure to remember it. And good luck working on your pseudoscience pertaining to millions of years for the age of T-rex bones when there in 5730 year old rock layers. Because c14 is present in those bones via blood cells which means c14 is still present. So the whole cretaceous period is less than 5730 years old, because, that is the half life of c14.

Based on the lack of response to my last post, I'm just going to move on.

I'd be happy to answer your questions or to teach you about geology if you would like (I'm a licensed professional geologist). But I can't be bothered responding to comments that don't accurately portray the subject matter.

All the best,

 

[Adrian Moir]

Based on the lack of response to my last post, I'm just going to move on.

I'd be happy to answer your questions or to teach you about geology if you would like (I'm a licensed professional geologist). But I can't be bothered responding to comments that don't accurately portray the subject matter.

All the best,

The idea of long ages in geology came from men like Charles Lyell who constructed the geological column from a theory, and not from practical observation. According to the theory of the geological column, the idea of long ages is based on index fossils to date the rocks, and in the same observation the theory claims that rocks date the fossils. Which is what's called circular reasoning, because, one will not verify the other if they're both based on a theoretical date from a conjecture to begin with.

And because there is no geological column, a part from theory as the fossils are all mixed in up in flood dump deposits within the rock layers, it will mean that the best interpretation of mans history will come from recorded history, and not from theoretically based long ages, which have no comparison to go by from the recorded records of mans history.
The days mentioned in Genesis 1 are literal 24hr days and it is in keeping with the current record from the time of creation till now from the worlds oldest calendar, which is the Biblical Hebrew calendar according to the Guinness book of world records.

So as far as your replies go, I have not seen even one attempt by you to actually try and vindicate the theory of biological evolution, which is what you're defending, and this is your problem by the way... Not mine.
So if there is anything I can do for you to help you better understand what evolution actually is, I'll be right here hanging onto to your every word, because...It's God's word vs yours in this case...Ok?

 

[Job 33:6]

You can't ignore post #5, and then act like I'm the one not responding.

Do you have a response to post number 5 or no?

The truth is that creationists tend have a bad habit of spreading misinformation, and then when asked to justify their claims, they tend to change the subject.

They also tend to have a bad habit of acting like they understand the science better than the scientists who do the work themselves (such as myself).

Maybe one day one will surprise me. But over the years they've tended to all be the same.

 

[Adrian Moir]

No, dinosaurs don't have original C-14 present. Who told you that [false information]?

I suppose I'll pre-emptively inform you of how you can adequately answer the question. You would need an accredited lab report with proper QA/QC methods (spikes, trips, blanks, duplicates etc.) and you would need results independently verified and replicated. This is how we do these analyses. Without the above, we can comfortably write off whatever [misinformation] you've been fed.

As I explained to you already, there has been red blood cells found in cretaceous period from T-rex bones, which means that there is c14 in 75 million year old rock layers. So this will indicate that the theory about the rock layers being millions of years old has no validity, whatsoever.
Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.

The theory of evolution has never been able to be congealed into a practical observation, because the entire process of evolution is theoretical and not practical whatsoever from start to finish.
Here are four main points which proves that the theory of evolution is not practical:

1. The big bang supposedly expanded rapidly across the universe when light cannot accelerate within a vacuum, so the big bang did not occur as the theory claims. Nor can gravity compress all matter into an infinitesimal region, because the amount of pressure exerting outward is thousands of times greater than the gravity pulling the material in, just as a glass of water cannot be compressed into a droplet.
2. Biogenesis cannot occur because life does not spontaneously arise from non living chemicals according to the principles of abiogenesis.
So to try and prescribe the term, abiogenesis, to the theory of evolution is an oxymoron, because, abiogenesis is based on the flask experiment by Nobel prize winner Louis Pasture who demonstrated that life must come from life.
And this means that life cannot spontaneously generate naturally, which is the opposite of what the theory of evolution claims.

3. Natural selection can only select from previous genetic instructions, which means that natural selection is not a mechanism that produces new biological features that were not already present within an organisms genetic coding.

4. Accumulative mutations result in the reduction of an organisms life span, and it never increases the over all survivability of the organism. And pedigree animals are a perfect example of how accumulative mutations reduce an organisms chances of survival, especially in the wild.
While natural selection can only produce short term benefits that are relative to the habitat that the organism is suited to, but the result of this process causes degeneration within the organism over time.
Because the effect of accumulative mutations causes previous biological features to become either recessive or lost.
And any limb reduced creature cannot regain its limbs once the genetic information for the limbs is lost, which is why natural selection cannot specify for new biological features over time.

 

[Job 33:6]

As I explained to you already, there has been red blood cells found in cretaceous period from T-rex bones, which means that there is c14 in 75 million year old rock layers. So this will indicate that the theory about the rock layers being millions of years old has no validity, whatsoever.
Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.

The theory of evolution has never been able to be congealed into a practical observation, because the entire process of evolution is theoretical and not practical whatsoever from start to finish.
Here are four main points which proves that the theory of evolution is not practical:

1. The big bang supposedly expanded rapidly across the universe when light cannot accelerate within a vacuum, so the big bang did not occur as the theory claims. Nor can gravity compress all matter into an infinitesimal region, because the amount of pressure exerting outward is thousands of times greater than the gravity pulling the material in, just as a glass of water cannot be compressed into a droplet.
2. Biogenesis cannot occur because life does not spontaneously arise from non living chemicals according to the principles of abiogenesis.
So to try and prescribe the term, abiogenesis, to the theory of evolution is an oxymoron, because, abiogenesis is based on the flask experiment by Nobel prize winner Louis Pasture who demonstrated that life must come from life.
And this means that life cannot spontaneously generate naturally, which is the opposite of what the theory of evolution claims.

3. Natural selection can only select from previous genetic instructions, which means that natural selection is not a mechanism that produces new biological features that were not already present within an organisms genetic coding.

4. Accumulative mutations result in the reduction of an organisms life span, and it never increases the over all survivability of the organism. And pedigree animals are a perfect example of how accumulative mutations reduce an organisms chances of survival, especially in the wild.
While natural selection can only produce short term benefits that are relative to the habitat that the organism is suited to, but the result of this process causes degeneration within the organism over time.
Because the effect of accumulative mutations causes previous biological features to become either recessive or lost.
And any limb reduced creature cannot regain its limbs once the genetic information for the limbs is lost, which is why natural selection cannot specify for new biological features over time.

Do you have an analytical report noting QA/QC methods for your radioactive dating claims?

You could write me a book if you wanted, but if you don't have a demonstration of proper methodology, then your ideas can't be justified.

I always ask young earthers this same question, but 100% of the time, they never understand what I'm saying. Which is an issue because it demonstrates that young earthers don't actually understand the science that they are arguing against.

 

[Adrian Moir]

You can't ignore post #5, and then act like I'm the one not responding.

Do you have a response to post number 5 or no?

The truth is that creationists tend have a bad habit of spreading misinformation, and then when asked to justify their claims, they tend to change the subject.

They also tend to have a bad habit of acting like they understand the science better than the scientists who do the work themselves (such as myself).

Maybe one day one will surprise me. But over the years they've tended to all be the same.

Now because there is c14 present in the cretaceous rock layers it will mean that the whole theoretical framework for millions of years goes right out of the window, and only the faithful do remain. The theory of evolution has been built on a lie, which is self-evident. And the theory is now clinging to existence by the word of mouth, and not from practical examples. And what this means is that the theory of evolution will do more harm than good if the theory is pursued to its bitter end...Which happens to be evolutionary racial eugenics.

Dinosaur Shocker - Smithsonian Magazine
Probing a 68-million-year-old T-rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts
By Helen Fields
After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland.

What is the half life of c14?
5,730 ±
Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years—i.e., half the amount of the radioisotope present at any given time will undergo spontaneous disintegration during the succeeding 5,730 years. - Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you have an analytical report noting QA/QC methods for your radioactive dating claims?

You could write me a book if you wanted, but if you don't have a demonstration of proper methodology, then your ideas can't be justified.

I could write a book about unicorns flying around with elephants on their backs in outer space. But if there's no QA/QC methodology substantiating the ideas behind the claim, then it's essentially meaningless.

I always ask young earthers this same question, but 100% of the time, they never understand what I'm saying. Which is an issue because it demonstrates that young earthers don't actually understand the science that they are arguing against.

 

[Torah Keeper]

I am a young Earther. Institute For Creation Research and Creation Ministries International have a library of articles with solid evidence for a young Earth.

I like to see scientific evidence rather than ad hominem arguments and assumptions based on assumptions.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am a young Earther. Institute For Creation Research and Creation Ministries International have a library of articles with solid evidence for a young Earth.

I like to see scientific evidence rather than ad hominem arguments and assumptions based on assumptions.

This is great, I like to see scientific evidence rather than ad hominem arguments too. Hence why I am asking our friend here for QA/QC data to substantiate his claims.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Do you have an analytical report noting QA/QC methods for your radioactive dating claims?

You could write me a book if you wanted, but if you don't have a demonstration of proper methodology, then your ideas can't be justified.

I always ask young earthers this same question, but 100% of the time, they never understand what I'm saying. Which is an issue because it demonstrates that young earthers don't actually understand the science that they are arguing against.

If you think that I should ask your team of evolutionary believers to interpret to me their findings when they cannot even grasp the reality of their situation then your only robbing yourself. Because as it stands, there is c14 present in the supposed 75 million year old rock layers. Which means that any interpretations which try to prove that the rock layers are millions of years old has now got no evidence whatsoever from science. And that is because the very science they trusted has been the very thing which undid their theories also.

And that's because God will not be mocked by naturalism, just as the Lord will not tolerate a lie on the day of judgement. And because there is a judgement to come, it will mean that we should all decide carefully what to believe. Especially from scientists who have debunked themselves already with their own method, which was only a matter of time anyway, because, the method of dating from c14 half life works...But Just not as they planned.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, so I've asked for QA/QC methodology that would substantiate your claims on radiometric dating, and I've asked for it maybe 5 or 6 times now. And thus far, you have not provided it.

This suggests to me that the QA/QC methodology data simply doesn't exist, which means that your claims cannot be substantiated. Which makes them scientifically meaningless (and to be fair, in the most non offensive way I can say this, they are thus unlikely to be true, aka it's clear to me that these claims are false).

If I continue in this conversation, but am left without QA/QC data backing your claims, then we won't be able to make any progress because your claims cannot be substantiated and are of no scientific value or meaning.

Anyone can repeat over and over and over again that unicorns exist flying around in space, but if that person cannot substantiate their claims, then such repetition is meaningless.

Now, ill finally take my leave, now that I've given a fair opportunity for your response. Because you haven't provided anything, there is nothing more for me to say.

If a man repeats over and over again that flying unicorns exist, but that man provides no substantiating information on QA/QC analytical methodology, and thus cannot justify his claims of flying unicorns, what more can any critic do in a conversation? All I can do is move on.

 

[Adrian Moir]

This is great, I like to see scientific evidence rather than ad hominem arguments too. Hence why I am asking our friend here for QA/QC data to substantiate his claims.

You cannot bar the way to the truth because the truth has set us free. The University of North Carolina has admitted to the findings of red blood cells in the cretaceous rock layer, which means that the University has the findings and the reports you've requested will be denied at this time on the basis that the University of Carolina's findings are sufficient to dismiss their own theories concerning millions of years. And because the evidence supports a young earth, (because the evidence constitutes as physical evidence for a young Earth and not purely theoretical like evolution is) it will mean that any interpretations which claim that the earliest rock layers are millions of years old is simply based on an adherence to a faith...And not a science.

History.com
The most famous case dates to 2005, when Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University found collagen fibers in the fossilized leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex. But such discoveries are rare, and have previously occurred only with extremely well preserved fossils.

 

[Job 33:6]

You cannot bar the way to the truth because the truth has set us free. The University of North Carolina has admitted to the findings of red blood cells in the cretaceous rock layer, which means that the University has the findings and the reports you've requested will be denied at this time on the basis that the University of Carolina's findings are sufficient to dismiss their own theories concerning millions of years. And because the evidence supports a young earth, (because the evidence constitutes as physical evidence for a young Earth and not purely theoretical like evolution is) it will mean that any interpretations which claim that the earliest rock layers are millions of years old is simply based on an adherence to a faith...And not a science.

History.com
The most famous case dates to 2005, when Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University found collagen fibers in the fossilized leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex. But such discoveries are rare, and have previously occurred only with extremely well preserved fossils.

If you think that dinosaur bones have C14 in them, then provide the QA/QC data to substantiate your claim.

I guess I'll just keep copying and pasting my response. Maybe one day I'll get to see such data. After years of asking young earthers for it, none have provided. Their claims are never substantiated and here I am now, asking for it, and the QA/QC data is nowhere to be found. The claims thus remain unsubstantiated and scientifically meaningless.

 

[Adrian Moir]

If you think that dinosaur bones have C14 in them, then provide the QA/QC data to substantiate your claim.

I guess I'll just keep copying and pasting my response. Maybe one day I'll get to see such data. After years of asking young earthers for it, none have provided. Their claims are never substantiated and here I am now, asking for it, and the QA/QC data is nowhere to be found. The claims thus remain unsubstantiated and scientifically meaningless.

If you believe that radiocarbon dating can prove millions of years then please show the evidence of this from a QA/QC data report by an independent source.
Thank you and merry Christmas