Where are all the bones?

[HitchSlap]

Or maybe he actually meant to use the word "ken". (Reading the post in question, in context, this would make sense.)




Ken:

" the range of perception, understanding, or knowledge."

Synonyms: knowledge, awareness, perception, understanding, grasp, comprehension, realization, appreciation, consciousness

Sho' nuff'. Seems I need to brush up on my Scottish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, the very same post he wrote, mocking me for being less intelligent.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[ewq1938]

Indeed, the very same post he wrote, mocking me for being less intelligent.

And how does responding in kind benefit anything or anyone?

 

[HitchSlap]

And how does responding in kind benefit anything or anyone?

Ultimately, it doesn't.

 

[HitchSlap]

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

There's a cure for that.

 

[florida2]

That is the bandwagon fallacy.

BTW
Here is the irrationality I was referring to:


Anyone who calls that fanatical, evolutionist reaction rational is irrational himself or doesn't know what irrationality is.

Carbon dating only works on things up to about 40,000 years old. Using it on something such as dinosaur bones which are millions of years old will give weird and completely useless results. Dinosaur bones are dated using radiometric dating.

Using carbon dating on disosaur bones suggests either deliberate deception or huge ignorance.

 

[W2L]

Carbon dating only works on things up to about 40,000 years old. Using it on something such as dinosaur bones which are millions of years old will give weird and completely useless results. Dinosaur bones are dated using radiometric dating.

Using carbon dating on disosaur bones suggests either deliberate deception or huge ignorance.

I have heard that fossils do contain measurable amounts of carbon. Perhaps I am misinformed, but if that's true then they cannot be million of years old because at that age they should not have any carbon in them at all, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Radrook]

I have heard that fossils do contain measurable amounts of carbon. Perhaps I am misinformed, but if that's true then they cannot be million of years old because at that age they should not have any carbon in them at all, if I'm not mistaken.

Here is an excerpt from an in-depth discussion of the controversial issues that have emerged.

Excerpts:

4) OBJECTION: "The carbon isolated from the dinosaur bones had no chemical relationship to bone protein or flesh."52

REBUTTAL: This objection is based on the writer's belief in long ages of millions and billions of years. The discovery of bone collagen and soft tissue and C-14 dating of the collagen negated that assumption.53 Of course he wrote this in 1992 so in all fairness he can not be faulted for his acceptance of mainstream assumptions of that period. Nonetheless such negativity is of no value to any rational scientific evaluation of anomalous data. Unfortunately that attitude is still prevalent to this day. The discoverers of collagen (anomalous chemicals) in the T-Rex femur bone should have sent a sample to a RC dating lab to test for C-14 but perhaps they were fearful that they would be the first among mainstream scientists to discover why there was collagen: The bones might be only thousands of year old, not millions.



(3) OBJECTION: "The radiocarbon dating method is not applicable for samples >50,000 years."51



top scientist in a major field of science.REBUTTAL: C-14 dating of dinosaur fossil bones from Western United States showed that they are far younger than even 50,000 RC years. The critic who said the above is assuming that dinosaurs are 65 M years or older because of a commitment to the false assumptions of 17 to 19th century stratigraphy and alleged correlation with radiometric dating. Because of their faith in evolutionary philosophy such critics have never bothered to even repeat the C-14 testing to see if the anomalous dates are correct. That attitude is unscientific and regrettable...

http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

 

[Radrook]

Carbon dating only works on things up to about 40,000 years old. Using it on something such as dinosaur bones which are millions of years old will give weird and completely useless results. Dinosaur bones are dated using radiometric dating.

Using carbon dating on disosaur bones suggests either deliberate deception or huge ignorance.

Response to the objection
http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

 

[Radrook]

Or maybe he actually meant to use the word "ken". (Reading the post in question, in context, this would make sense.)

Ken:

" the range of perception, understanding, or knowledge."

Synonyms: knowledge, awareness, perception, understanding, grasp, comprehension, realization, appreciation, consciousness

Perhaps he still uses the word in its archaic form, and not its modern one?

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Ken

The word Ken appeared on the English horizon in the 16th century as a term of measurement of the distance bounding the range of ordinary vision at sea - about 20 miles. British author John Lyly used that sense in 1580 when he wrote, "They are safely come within a ken of Dover." Other 16th-century writers used "ken" to mean "range of vision" ("Out of ken we were ere the Countesse came from the feast." - Thomas Nashe) or "sight" ("'Tis double death to drown in ken of shore." - Shakespeare). Today, however, "ken" rarely suggests literal sight. Rather, "ken" nowadays almost always implies a range of comprehension, understanding, or knowledge.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ken

Yes, I did use it as "comprehension" or "understanding".

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[RickG]

The human capacity for irrationality truly has no bounds!

Then perhaps you need to participate in my "creation science challenge" thread, where I ask for links to creation science papers which contain "original" data and research.

 

[RickG]

Well, there are Young Earth Scientists who view that discovery as indisputable evidence which proves that the claims of millions of years for such fossils was wrong all along.

And view is all they do. Where is their own original research to show otherwise to back up their claims. I won't hold my breath.

Not surprisingly, evolutionists cited in the article strive to reconcile their evolutionary theory which depends on millions of years with the new discovery by explaining how chemical processes involving iron in the tissue could have made it possible. A complete about face from their previously opinion that such a thing was totally impossible.

In my reply to you previously I specifically stated that I was not interested in discussion about evolution at this time. I was responding to your suggestion that because soft tissue was revealed that it meant dinosaurs couldn't be millions of years old. Do you know how the fossil was dated?

 

[RickG]

Appeal to Bandwagon proves nothing. The argument stands or falls on its own merit. Neither is it specifically required that a scientist be a geologist in order for him to detect when a bogus theory is being proposed and blatant irrationality is being dressed up as if it were an acceptable part of the scientific method. In fact, any person who has a basic familiarity with what the scientific method demands can readily detect blatant deviations from its fundamental principles. So once again your premise is seriously defective.

Then why do they only express opinions, as you are currently doing, instead of presenting original research and data to back up their claims. Where's the meat?

 

[RickG]

I have heard that fossils do contain measurable amounts of carbon. Perhaps I am misinformed, but if that's true then they cannot be million of years old because at that age they should not have any carbon in them at all, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, you are misinformed. Carbon, such as that in the collagen, is "in situ" carbon and would not contain any 14C which is necessary for radiocarbon dating.

 

[Radrook]

Then why do they only express opinions, as you are currently doing, instead of presenting original research and data to back up their claims. Where's the meat?

Nothing which poses a danger to the cherished belief in evolution or abiogenesis is ever or will ever be considered meat by atheists. In fact, the stars themselves viewed from Earth as arranging themselves in letter formations which read as Genesis chapter one would be casually explained away as some type of gravitational anomaly. Such a phenomenon is referred to as invincible ignorance and is totally impervious to any reason or evidence.

Invincible Ignorance Fallacy
http://www.seekfind.net/The_Invincible_Ignorance_Fallacy.html#.V6sjkJX6thg

I once wasted a total of a full six months debating with a group of atheists on a website and no matter the logic which I employed they always said they could not see. Finally, after six months, one of them revealed that he would never admit understanding anything no matter how logical or compelling the evidence might be if it supported religion because, as a morally responsible human being, it was his duty to oppose religion.

Then he went on to recount how he had been religiously traumatized by his fanatical religious parents in his youth and was on a vendetta-like mission for payback.

Since then I try to avoid a repeat. I was forced to place them on ignore in order to clear my screen of all the heckling, snide remarks, veiled insults and mutual back slapping and general buffoonery they were engaging in.

 

[RickG]

Nothing which poses a danger to the cherished belief in evolution or abiogenesis is ever or will ever be considered meat by atheists.

Look Radrook, lets get one thing straight right now. First of all, when you reply to one of my posts, I exptect it to address what I posted. I specifically stated that I do not care about evolution in this discussion. I asked a specific question yesterday concerning the age of the dinosaur claim you presented yesterday, of which you have presented no discussion. The post you are quoting from now, asks where is the original research and data to support creation science claims. All I ever see is opinions along with irrelevant Gish Gallops. If you think the creation science claims are legitimate, then show meat to back it.

Understand"

 

[Catherineanne]

Bible says the earth is about 6000 years old.
Evolution religion says earth is billions of years old and man came about 5 million years ago.

We know in the last 300 years, human population has grown exponential. If man came about millions of years ago, the population count would be an astronomical figure.

If archeologi$t$ keep finding dino$aur bones, how come there don't find billions and billions and billions of human bones?

Because of the way population growth has worked there are more people alive today than all of our ancestors put together, so there are not an astronomical number of ancestors waiting to be found; far from it.

Also, bones eventually dissolve.

 

[RickG]

Because of the way population growth has worded there are more people alive today than all of our ancestors put together, so there are not an astronomical number of ancestors waiting to be found; far from it.

Also, bones eventually dissolve.

But archeologists have found numerous ancient bones dating well before 6,000 years. And though you didn't say it, rather the post you quoted did, the bible says nothing about the age of the earth. The only way to get 6,000 years is a non scientific genealogy.

 

[Catherineanne]

It does not. Some Brit added up the genealogies assuming they were complete and meant the same way as a British genealogy. Bad assumption.

Bishop James Ussher.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html

 

[Catherineanne]

But archeologists have found numerous ancient bones dating well before 6,000 years. And though you didn't say it, rather the post you quoted did, the bible says nothing about the age of the earth. The only way to get 6,000 years is a non scientific genealogy.

I was answering the question which was asked.

Do you have a question or just statements?