U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-17-2010, 02:15 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,691,559 times
Reputation: 495

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
C34, I don't see why you refuse to accept the fact that carbon 14 isn't used to date organic material like fossils. It has been explained multiple times that we use methods like potassium argon and if you had looked at the link I gave you would see that we don't use carbon 14 to date fossils, and that there are a variety of dating methods. Each is used for a specific type of dating. Once again, carbon 14 is NOT used to date fossils.
Carbon 14 is not used to date dinosaur bones, only because they incorrectly believe that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. Yet when they do test such bones, they have discovered that they do contain carbon, and dates returned show them to be thousands of years old, and not millions of years. And in 1961 hadrosaur bones were collected by R.L. Liscomb while working for Shell Oil Company on the North Slope of Alaska. As it turned out, the bones were shown to have little permineralization. If these bones were millions of years old, they would be fossilized. Yet this was not the case. And such a discovery would agree with ancient art work that shows man with dinosaurs, and the recent soft stretchable tissue finds in dinosaur bones. There is ample evidence to point us to the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs died out thousands of years ago, and not millions of years ago. However, such evidence must be ignored if you are a true believer in Evolution.

Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2010, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,073 posts, read 4,976,563 times
Reputation: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Carbon 14 is not used to date dinosaur bones, only because they incorrectly believe that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. Yet when they do test such bones, they have discovered that they do contain carbon, and dates returned show them to be thousands of years old, and not millions of years. And in 1961 hadrosaur bones were collected by R.L. Liscomb while working for Shell Oil Company on the North Slope of Alaska. As it turned out, the bones were shown to have little permineralization. If these bones were millions of years old, they would be fossilized. Yet this was not the case. And such a discovery would agree with ancient art work that shows man with dinosaurs, and the recent soft stretchable tissue finds in dinosaur bones. There is ample evidence to point us to the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs died out thousands of years ago, and not millions of years ago. However, such evidence must be ignored if you are a true believer in Evolution.

Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones
Potassium argon dating is very accurate in dating fossils. This is why it is the only method that is used to date fossils. The reason that it is believed that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago is because potassium argon dating proves they did. Here's a link that describes C14 dating, how it works and its limitations:

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 02:28 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,691,559 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
That is just another creationist site masquerading as a scientific site...Nothing but crap there when it comes to science....Here is proof..... snipped from the site.
I'll say it again...CARBON 14 is NOT used to date dino fossils.
And I well say this again. Carbon 14 is not used to date dinosaur bones only by those who believe that the dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. Yet for those who believe they died out thousands of years ago. They have, and do date such bones with C-14. And they have discovered that such bones still contain carbon. And if they were really millions of years old, that would not be the case. And if dinosaur bones were millions of years old, we would not be finding stretchable soft tissue inside them either. Yet we are. And you can't blame all these findings on creationist sites sanspeur. In the link below they mention four dinosaurs that have been tested by C-14. And the ages that came back are from about 2,000 years, to 35,000 years.

CARBON DATING OF FOSSILS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,091,955 times
Reputation: 3718
Default Selective Scientific Acceptance, Part deux...

This of course has all been hashed out on C-D in the past. Dr. Schweitzer has made no such claims of finding dino DNA and in fact notes that the dino bones ARE 65 M years old, which is exactly why "scientists are shocked!" She simply says they MAY have found remnant red blood cell tissue. That's all she said. In fact, of course, if dinos had red blood cells, sort like ours, then they were most likely our predecessors in the Evolutionary sense. Ooopsss..

As to the Creationist's perspective, the following was pulled directly from C34's link, which I dutifully re-read this morning:

Quote:
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
So as usual, we have a Conscious and Selective Acceptance of part of the information, the part that sounds good to them, coupled with a brainless rejection of the parts they don't like to hear, they of course having the same scholarly credentials and veracity that the good Dr. has. She and her team were busy with an accurate evaluation of what they may have discovered within this 65 M year-old fossil.

Of course science is shocked! It was also shocked when autos exceeded 30 mph, at which point the occupants were supposed to die, or when we exceeded the sound barrier (the aircraft will fly apart!)

Fortunately, unlike religion, objective science is quite used to seeing upsets and new discoveries, even if we temporarily have to "adjust" our thinking. For us, that's no problem.




Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 02:32 PM
 
5 posts, read 2,587 times
Reputation: 10
I thought the universe was only 6000 years old
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 02:33 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,489,197 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Carbon 14 is not used to date dinosaur bones, only because they incorrectly believe that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. Yet when they do test such bones, they have discovered that they do contain carbon, and dates returned show them to be thousands of years old, and not millions of years. And in 1961 hadrosaur bones were collected by R.L. Liscomb while working for Shell Oil Company on the North Slope of Alaska. As it turned out, the bones were shown to have little permineralization. If these bones were millions of years old, they would be fossilized. Yet this was not the case. And such a discovery would agree with ancient art work that shows man with dinosaurs, and the recent soft stretchable tissue finds in dinosaur bones. There is ample evidence to point us to the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs died out thousands of years ago, and not millions of years ago. However, such evidence must be ignored if you are a true believer in Evolution.

Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones
I have to say your efforts are highly amusing.Your belief that carbon 14 dating proves that dino fossils are less than 20K years old is about as nonsensical as a guy using a radar gun with a limit of 50 MPH claiming that no car can go faster than 50MPH,because his radar gun proves it,since it never registers a speed over 50.LOL!As a plumber friend of mine once said "You gotta have the right tool for the right job" (said in very gravely voice).

Try learning about radiometric dating.Or not.As another thread in here has suggested,worldly knowledge,such as the proper knowledge of how fossils are dated instead of your pretend version,is the enemy of faith.Or of some people's mangled version of it.

Not one so called creationist genius has ever come close to rebutting evolution.The only faith required for it is knowledge.

Last edited by lifertexan; 04-17-2010 at 03:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,700,357 times
Reputation: 2410
Quote:
Originally Posted by howardspader View Post
I thought the universe was only 6000 years old
What ever made you think that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:10 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,691,559 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
This of course has all been hashed out on C-D in the past. Dr. Schweitzer has made no such claims of finding dino DNA and in fact notes that the dino bones ARE 65 M years old, which is exactly why "scientists are shocked!" She simply says they MAY have found remnant red blood cell tissue. That's all she said. In fact, of course, if dinos had red blood cells, sort like ours, then they were most likely our predecessors in the Evolutionary sense. Ooopsss..

As to the Creationist's perspective, the following was pulled directly from C34's link, which I dutifully re-read this morning:

So as usual, we have a Conscious and Selective Acceptance of part of the information, the part that sounds good to them, coupled with a brainless rejection of the parts they don't like to hear, they of course having the same scholarly credentials and veracity that the good Dr. has. She and her team were busy with an accurate evaluation of what they may have discovered within this 65 M year-old fossil.

Of course science is shocked! It was also shocked when autos exceeded 30 mph, at which point the occupants were supposed to die, or when we exceeded the sound barrier (the aircraft will fly apart!)

Fortunately, unlike religion, objective science is quite used to seeing upsets and new discoveries, even if we temporarily have to "adjust" our thinking. For us, that's no problem.






Oh please, it was believers in evolution that stated that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaure bones. And that was because they said soft tissue would last no more than 100,000 years. So tell me rifleman? Do you really believe that soft tissue can remain elastic and stretchable for 80 million years? Could you name a product today that would have that same ability?

And we know that believers in evolution were shocked by this finding, and that was because they fully believed the age of the bones to be in the millions of years. Yet the Creation scientist were not shocked at all. And that was because they knew the bones were not anywhere near 65 million years old. Shock usually comes to those who have imbraced the wrong conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,774,490 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Oh please, it was believers in evolution that stated that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaure bones. And that was because they said soft tissue would last no more than 100,000 years. So tell me rifleman? Do you really believe that soft tissue can remain elastic and stretchable for 80 million years? Could you name a product today that would have that same ability?

And we know that believers in evolution were shocked by this finding, and that was because they fully believed the age of the bones to be in the millions of years. Yet the Creation scientist were not shocked at all. And that was because they knew the bones were not anywhere near 65 million years old. Shock usually comes to those who have imbraced the wrong conclusions.
The soft tissue thing has all been explained Campbell, just a couple of posts ago, but it seems that you do not bother to even read the posts that prove that you are wrong. Are you going blind, as well as losing your memory?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:30 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,691,559 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
I have to say your efforts are highly amusing.Your belief that carbon 14 dating proves that dino fossils are less than 20K years old is about as nonsensical as a guy using a radar gun with a limit of 50 MPH claiming that no car can go faster than 50MPH,because his radar gun proves it,since it never registers a speed over 50.LOL!As a plumber friend of mine once said "You gotta have the right tool for the right job" (said in very gravely voice).

Try learning about radiometric dating.Or not.As another thread in here has suggested,worldly knowledge,such as the proper knowledge of how fossils are dated instead of your pretend version,is the enemy of faith.Or of some people's mangled version of it.

Not one so called creationist genius has ever come close to rebutting evolution.The only faith required for it is knowledge.
So with all this vast knowledge, can you tell me how soft stretchable elastic tissue found in dinosaur bones has lasted for 80 million years?
And don't forget, it was your believers in evolution that said we would never find such tissue in dinosaur bones, because soft tissue could only last about 100,000 years. How could they be so wrong? Could it be that they are not nearly as knowledgeable as you believe? I find their beliefs amusing. Especially when the Creation scientist were not shocked by such a discovery. Yet the believers in evolution were. And if you knew anything about C-14, you would know that it is stated to be accurate to about 80 thousand years. The fact that the dinosaure bones were dated to only 35,000 years should tell you, there was more room for an expanded age if they were any older than that. So your Radar gun example, was pretty much based on nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top