More "non-existent" evidence ...

[lilpixieofterror]

You're a piece of work, R06. Look at Terror's question and do note
that only someone totally clueless could ask it.
Oh, but wait, you're in the same camp as Terror. Never mind.

Jorge

So the reason that materialism an evolution are linked at the hip is...

Go ahead Jorge, answer the rest or do you just prefer to make assertions and run away when you're called on your assertions?

[Jorge]

So the reason that materialism an evolution are linked at the hip is...

Go ahead Jorge, answer the rest or do you just prefer to make assertions and run away when you're called on your assertions?

This is the 77th post in this thread and not a single one of you wacko-loonies has addressed the scientific discoveries that were reported in the various sources that I've cited. Yet you've had plenty of time for ad hominems and other assorted blatherings. Then, to top it all off, you people demand to be taken seriously and thought of as "intellectually honest". I swear, you can't make this stuff up!

Jorge

[Jorge]

AKA "I can't."

Thanks for admitting that you lose again.

Besides, "losing" to the likes of you is a victory in my book.

Jorge

[Jorge]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7357[/ATTACH]

Sums the whole thing up rather nicely!

Jorge

Had to repeat the above pic ... it fits most TWebbers here to a 'T'!!!

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

This is the 77th post in this thread and not a single one of you wacko-loonies has addressed the scientific discoveries that were reported in the various sources that I've cited.

No Dino DNA was found, so how could you claim that Dino DNA was found, when it clearly wasn't found?

Yet you've had plenty of time for ad hominems and other assorted blatherings. Then, to top it all off, you people demand to be taken seriously and thought of as "intellectually honest". I swear, you can't make this stuff up!

More irony, since you haven't addressed a thing that has been said, but instead choose to insult without any thought to refuting anything brought up. Keep going Jorge because you're sure doing your YEC beliefs a favor.

[lilpixieofterror]

Besides, "losing" to the likes of you is a victory in my book.

Yep, still can't answer. You lose again.

[rwatts]

Had to repeat the above pic ... it fits most TWebbers here to a 'T'!!!

Jorge

I'll fix it for you Jorge:-

"Had to repeat the above pic ... it fits all TWebbers here to a 'T', except for me!!! "


Your "reason" for not addressing my C14 question was pathetic.

[Duragizer]

Your "reason" for not addressing my C14 question was pathetic.

Careful how you use words like "pathetic" when conversing with Jorge. Like all natives of Bizarro World, he will take it as a compliment and by some warped logic assume you're agreeing with him.

[Kbertsche]

And then there's MORE "non-existent" evidence.
This time it's about C-14 where there shouldn't be a trace of any.
It's an embarrassment of riches, I say.

I'll echo Roland's question. Why do you claim there shouldn't be any C-14 in fossilized bone?!?

The original C-14 from the animal would have all decayed by now, of course. But fossilization involves mineral replacement. One of these minerals is calcium carbonate. Thus, as a bone fossilizes, foreign carbon is added to it. If whole bone is dated, the date will be wrong and too recent. This is well known.

The only way to get an accurate bone date is to chemically separate and date only the collagen. This is also well known. But this would have required extra work and expense, so would not have been done by the YEC crowd. And it is doubtful that any collagen would have remained in these bones, anyway.

[Shadi]

I'll echo Roland's question. Why do you claim there shouldn't be any C-14 in fossilized bone?!?

The original C-14 from the animal would have all decayed by now, of course. But fossilization involves mineral replacement. One of these minerals is calcium carbonate. Thus, as a bone fossilizes, foreign carbon is added to it. If whole bone is dated, the date will be wrong and too recent. This is well known.

The only way to get an accurate bone date is to chemically separate and date only the collagen. This is also well known. But this would have required extra work and expense, so would not have been done by the YEC crowd. And it is doubtful that any collagen would have remained in these bones, anyway.

Have you seen John Baumgardner's latest response to your critique of Rate's carbon 14 in diamond results?

Found here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology...contamination/

[shunyadragon]

Have you seen John Baumgardner's latest response to your critique of Rate's carbon 14 in diamond results?

Found here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology...contamination/

This bogus hockus big time. The carbon in diamonds and graphic have no remote relationship to C14 dating. Carbon 14 dating is only effective for Organic Carbon up ~60,000 years.

Actually C14 dating has been very effective and accurate dating Biblical Archeology in relationship to events described in the Bible in the last ~2,000 to ~3,000 years.

[Jichard]

""Papers like this do much to advance the field, by showing that fossils are more than 'just rocks', and opening the door to the possibility that materials persist in ancient fossils that were not thought possible only a few years ago," says Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who reported extracting blood from T. rex in 2009. "[It also] seems to indicate, like our own findings, that this is not necessarily an exceedingly rare occurrence.""

We Biblical Creationists could have told you that it is "not necessarily a rare occurrence" because ... drum roll, please ... these creatures did NOT live / die "tens of millions of years ago" -- it's that simple!

It would indeed be a rare - nay, an IMPOSSIBLE - occurrence if these findings were truly tens of millions of years old. But they're not, as we Biblical Creationists have been stating all along. Alas, the more of these things that are being discovered, the more back-pedaling has been taking place.

Now they're asking, "Gee, I wonder how that could have happened?" Before they were loudly shouting from the rooftops, "IT CANNOT HAPPEN!!! The laws of physics and chemistry absolutely prohibit it!" People were cautioned against even suggesting an obvious explanation (NO mega-years!); several people even lost their jobs. Lil' Mary (commenting above) was shaking in her booties when she discovered the blood and tissue some years back. She remained a good-little Evolutionist, toeing the party line by stating her findings in "acceptable" language and thus retained her job. Others bit the big one by not following the Evo-Rules.

And they're right - the laws of physics and chemistry DO prohibit it IF AND ONLY IF they are "tens of millions of years" old. If only thousands of years have elapsed then these findings are nothing to get excited about.

Of course, the Evo-Faithful, Biblical Deniers will never accept any of this and will concoct numerous "explanations" to retain their religious (not scientific) beliefs but thankfully that is their problem, not mine.

Complete article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ml#.VXcnn9LbLV

Jorge

Congratulations on insulting Mary Schweitzer. Such class you display.

[Kbertsche]

Have you seen John Baumgardner's latest response to your critique of Rate's carbon 14 in diamond results?

Found here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology...contamination/

Yes, I've seen his response. He at least addressed some technical details this time instead of just putting forth ad hominem attacks.

Baumgardner's additions date from Nov 2014 and are limited only to the Taylor & Southon diamond paper. Baumgardner mainly tries to refute their claim that "The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields." Note that Taylor & Southon make this statement TWICE in their paper (once in the abstract and once in the body). Baumgardner tries to correlate the radiocarbon age equivalent to the presence or absence of silver powder rather than to the the ion source current.

Baumgardner's explanation does not work, as can be clearly seen by plotting radiocarbon measurements vs ion source current for all of the samples that Taylor & Southon reported in their paper. One set of samples was "split" from the same diamond; this set did NOT have silver powder but had about the same radiocarbon levels and currents as the samples which DID have silver powder. The remaining diamond samples (labeled "other" below, with no silver powder) had higher ion source currents and lower radiocarbon concentrations.
TaylorSouthonDiamonds.jpg

ABE: there was also a recent discussion of the RATE radiocarbon results in the comments to an Uncommon Descent blog post, for those of you who are interested in this topic.

[nmanning]

[COLOR="#006400"]
We Biblical Creationists could have told you that it is "not necessarily a rare occurrence" because ... drum roll, please ... these creatures did NOT live / die "tens of millions of years ago" -- it's that simple!

Then please explain why ALL dinosaur bones do not have "fresh" tissue in them.

Take all the time you need.

[Jorge]

Then please explain why ALL dinosaur bones do not have "fresh" tissue in them.

Take all the time you need.

You can't figure that one out by yourself? Really?

Let me help: Do "all" organisms that die fossilize? Why not?

Therein lies your answer. Work on it. Quiz next week.

Jorge