Toppling Ten Fake Facts That Prop Evolution

[Job 33:6]

And the link shows these bones were taken from in situ so the entire shellac argument is irrelevant!

Most scientists and research papers have entire sections of their publication dedicated to methodology.

In this case however, most of the article you shared describes being rejected by reviewers of various types.

 

[nolidad]

Most scientists and research papers have entire sections of their publication dedicated to methodology.

In this case however, most of the article you shared describes being rejected by reviewers of various types.

And you know the reason why.

This is a report not a technical paper. I am sure if you wish to pursue your allegations they will gladly send you there technical report.

 

[Job 33:6]

And you know the reason why.

This is a report not a technical paper. I am sure if you wish to pursue your allegations they will gladly send you there technical report.

They're your allegations. I could care less about them. I'm just pointing out that we have little to work with.

 

[nolidad]

No it doesn't. Where does it say that?

Here is one place:

"Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely""

You are not allowed to do what they did if they borrowed the bones from a museum! They cross checked as you can see!

But I await another complaint and then another and then another.

But in case you do not know the reason why evolutionists rejected their findings: It is because their finding s reject evolution!

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is one place:

"Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely""

You are not allowed to do what they did if they borrowed the bones from a museum! They cross checked as you can see!

But I await another complaint and then another and then another.

But in case you do not know the reason why evolutionists rejected their findings: It is because their finding s reject evolution!

Nothing in your quote states where or how they've acquired the samples. And yes, they can do anything they want with fragments of bone from a museum if the museum gives it to them.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't even see any figures, any images, any cross sections, any formation names, any dates, the article is just barren of information.