Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: Greggers

2) The C-14 dates of dinosaur bones were were never accepted by mainstream science

Of course they weren't, the church of scientism refuses to accept information that defies their dogma. This is the whole point of the OP...

because adequate evidence was not provided.Where are the bone samples so other scientists can run their own tests? Where are the scientific explanations of the process used to identify collagen and the exact findings of that process? Where are the SUBMISSIONS to legitimate scientific, peer-reviewed journals? Where are the radiometric dating results of surrounding strata?

Carbon-14 dating is normally not done on dinosaur remains because of the presupposed notion that they are millions of years old (carbon dating is useless past 100,000 years). Of course more studies need to be done, but the preliminary findings are astounding, and rather than rushing to confirm it, the church of scientism refuses to acknowledge it because it would turn scientific theory upside down.

3) Mary Schweitzer later was able to establish that the soft-tissue had been able to survive because iron in the dinosaur's body preserved it before it could decay. Read more here: www.livescience.com...

Don't you see the back-tracking being done here? In order to salvage the old-earth dogma, they have to change the rules. Iron now preserves organic tissue for 68 million years? Give me a break. This is scientism at its best.

"The free radicals (from endogenous iron) cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

But what about the presence of iron in every other dead animal ever? She tested this by comparing a bath of iron compared to a bath of water - which does not simulate any sort of decay process whatsoever. this explanation of "iron allows preservation beyond millions of years" is back-tracking.

In a nice tidy package, the differences between the bad science of the C-14 data and the good science of the soft-tissue samples pretty much debunks the entire premise of the thread.

So C-14 is now "bad science" because it demonstrates a not-so-old earth? Keep an unbiased perspective and don't shoot ideas down immediately because they defy your beliefs. Truth will prove itself right, its just a matter of time.

originally posted by: DJW001

But it demonstrates how environment places pressure on the genetic coding. If bacteria do not have an adaptation, they can die off. If they undergo a mutation, changing the coding, they will survive.

Really think about this. Let's say I have a population of bacteria on a petri dish, and introduce it to a certain antibiotic. The remaining bacteria are the ones that were already resistant to the antibiotic. If none of the bacteria were already resistant, the entire colony would be erradicated. From these few surviving anti-biotic resistant microbes, a new population would grow in the presence of the antibiotic - now all, and not just some, of the bacteria of this population are resistant to the antibiotic. This is how population adaptation works, nothing evolved, nothing mutated, the bacterial-resistant genetic combination was already present in the population

You are being teleological. In an environment where the sunlight was not as intense, fairer skinned individuals were not at a disadvantage and the mutation proved harmless.

Here again, same thing as stated above. there was no mutation Fair skin was always present in the human genome.

There are creatures that have light sensitive cells that do not have lenses; this is a simple, functioning eye.

So what is the gene mutation that would culminate an eye lens? If genetic mutations were a piecewise additive progression, this would mean that essentially every intricate detailed advantage in an organism could be traced back to a particular genetic mutation, which would result in an astronomical number of genes, yet there are only around 19,000 active genes in the human.

Why are there fossil sea shells on top of mountains?

Do you think all the cultures around the world were joking when they all describe a massive flood?

List of Flood "Myths"

a reply to: cooperton

*Yawn*

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Greggers

2) The C-14 dates of dinosaur bones were were never accepted by mainstream science

Of course they weren't, the church of scientism refuses to accept information that defies their dogma. This is the whole point of the OP...

because adequate evidence was not provided.Where are the bone samples so other scientists can run their own tests? Where are the scientific explanations of the process used to identify collagen and the exact findings of that process? Where are the SUBMISSIONS to legitimate scientific, peer-reviewed journals? Where are the radiometric dating results of surrounding strata?

Carbon-14 dating is normally not done on dinosaur remains because of the presupposed notion that they are millions of years old (carbon dating is useless past 100,000 years). Of course more studies need to be done, but the preliminary findings are astounding, and rather than rushing to confirm it, the church of scientism refuses to acknowledge it because it would turn scientific theory upside down.

3) Mary Schweitzer later was able to establish that the soft-tissue had been able to survive because iron in the dinosaur's body preserved it before it could decay. Read more here: www.livescience.com...

Don't you see the back-tracking being done here? In order to salvage the old-earth dogma, they have to change the rules. Iron now preserves organic tissue for 68 million years? Give me a break. This is scientism at its best.

"The free radicals (from endogenous iron) cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

But what about the presence of iron in every other dead animal ever? She tested this by comparing a bath of iron compared to a bath of water - which does not simulate any sort of decay process whatsoever. this explanation of "iron allows preservation beyond millions of years" is back-tracking.

In a nice tidy package, the differences between the bad science of the C-14 data and the good science of the soft-tissue samples pretty much debunks the entire premise of the thread.

So C-14 is now "bad science" because it demonstrates a not-so-old earth? Keep an unbiased perspective and don't shoot ideas down immediately because they defy your beliefs. Truth will prove itself right, its just a matter of time.

Please articulate, point by counterpoint, exactly why the scientific establishment should take the C-14 findings seriously when the proper steps for peer review were not followed, nor was peer review ever sought. The scientific community couldn't take it seriously because they were LITERALLY never presented with the findings. I expect I know why that's the case: the findings would likely not hold up to scrutiny.

Then please explain what you feel is wrong about the findings that iron preserved the soft-tissue in the T-Rex.


By the way, by "bad science" I was referring to the poor science conducted by the team of creationists, starting with procurement of the sample and continuing through their failure to disclose data or engage in proper review.

originally posted by: Greggers

Please articulate, point by counterpoint, exactly why the scientific establishment should take the C-14 findings seriously

pursuing anomalous empirical evidence, even if it contradicts contemporary theory. Why would they not follow this? The UGA lab, an unbiased AMS lab, were the people who found the 33kya date. It's something that should be looked into for obvious reasons.

when the proper steps for peer review were not followed, nor was peer review ever sought. The scientific community couldn't take it seriously because they were LITERALLY never presented with the findings. I expect I know why that's the case: the findings would likely not hold up to scrutiny.

Did you see what happened when the UGA lab found out that they were dating dinosaur bones? They refused to take any more, despite their OWN FINDINGS. The establishment refuses to even consider that the established dogma may be incorrect, and that is the problem.

Then please explain what you feel is wrong about the findings that iron preserved the soft-tissue in the T-Rex.

Every fossil ever will have had iron - why all of a sudden is iron special in these cases of finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones? It's because they need to refit the mould to still be able to accept old-earth dogma.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

*Yawn*

I know right? These back-and-forths get old. Barring our beliefs, I bet we'd get along

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Greggers

Please articulate, point by counterpoint, exactly why the scientific establishment should take the C-14 findings seriously

pursuing anomalous empirical evidence, even if it contradicts contemporary theory. Why would they not follow this? The UGA lab, an unbiased AMS lab, were the people who found the 33kya date. It's something that should be looked into for obvious reasons.

I REPEAT: It's kind of hard for the scientific community to take something seriously that they have LITERALLY never been shown.

If they HAD bothered to submit to a peer reviewed journal, they likely would have received a friendly letter back explaining all the other data they would need prior to publication so a proper peer review could be conducted. But they never even TRIED TO DO THIS. They are NOT interested in making scientific history. They are grandstanding.

originally posted by: cooperton


Every fossil ever will have had iron - why all of a sudden is iron special in these cases of finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones? It's because they need to refit the mould to still be able to accept old-earth dogma.

Except, the real age of the earth has been supported by tens of thousands of observations and is not dogma. The young earth model, however, is strictly based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis (as evidenced by the fact that ONLY literalist Christians adhere to the model) and none of the facts stand up to scientific scrutiny, nor in most cases is scientific scrutiny sought.

As far as the question you posed, here's a deal for you.

You make some attempt to answer the multitude of questions that you've left hanging thus far in this thread, and I'll answer this one about the iron.

originally posted by: Greggers
I REPEAT: It's kind of hard for the scientific community to take something seriously that they have LITERALLY never been shown.

Just because you are unaware, does not mean the rest of the scientific community is ignorant as well. It has been observed repeatedly, but the researchers who get such conclusions assume there must be contamination (because otherwise, well, the entire old earth dogma might be threatened).

If they HAD bothered to submit to a peer reviewed journal, they likely would have received a friendly letter back explaining all the other data they would need prior to publication so a proper peer review could be conducted. But they never even TRIED TO DO THIS. They are NOT interested in making scientific history. They are grandstanding.

How do you know they never tried to do this? They, and others, have in fact tried, but they get messages like this from the Oceania Geosciences Society:

"The interpretation which you present in your abstract is that the age of various dinosaurs, perviously interpreted as being Mesozoic in age, are less than 50,000 years. Your report that these ages were calculated using C-14 methods. There is obviously an error in these data. The abstract was apparently not reviewed properly and was accepted in error. For this reason we have exercied our authority as program chairs and rescinded the abstract. The abstract will no longer appear on the AOGS web site"

^Classic Church of Scientism (TM) - either agree with contemporary dogma or it must be wrong.

a reply to: cooperton

Really think about this. Let's say I have a population of bacteria on a petri dish, and introduce it to a certain antibiotic. The remaining bacteria are the ones that were already resistant to the antibiotic. If none of the bacteria were already resistant, the entire colony would be erradicated. From these few surviving anti-biotic resistant microbes, a new population would grow in the presence of the antibiotic - now all, and not just some, of the bacteria of this population are resistant to the antibiotic. This is how population adaptation works, nothing evolved, nothing mutated, the bacterial-resistant genetic combination was already present in the population

But not the entire population. If the species were created ab origine, all the individuals would have that gene. Only a few have them initially because it was a mutation. The mutation, if harmless, could have appeared countless generations previously and been passed on. It was only when environmental pressure caused the mutation to have positive survival value that it became prevalent in the population.

Here again, same thing as stated above. there was no mutation Fair skin was always present in the human genome.

Prove it.

So what is the gene mutation that would culminate an eye lens?

A piece of transparent skin over a light sensitive neuron. The genes that coded for transparent cells that allowed creatures to evade predators more successfully, or catch their prey more successfully,would be passed on. Further mutations would cause the phenotype to evolve towards lenses. This can be observed across many species with many variations. Compare molluscs, insects, fish, and mammals. They all have eyes with significantly different structures.

If genetic mutations were a piecewise additive progression, this would mean that essentially every intricate detailed advantage in an organism could be traced back to a particular genetic mutation, which would result in an astronomical number of genes, yet there are only around 19,000 active genes in the human.

Nope. The DNA sequences get re-written, and written over. That's what a mutation is.

Why are there fossil sea shells on top of mountains?


Do you think all the cultures around the world were joking when they all describe a massive flood?

List of Flood "Myths"

Seriously? And the Grand Canyon? The Himalayas? Why would a Creator being create a world designed to deceive? (Are you a Gnostic, or what?)

originally posted by: cooperton


Just because you are unaware, does not mean the rest of the scientific community is ignorant as well. It has been observed repeatedly, but the researchers who get such conclusions assume there must be contamination (because otherwise, well, the entire old earth dogma might be threatened).

You mean because the dinosaur bones were covered in shellac and preservative chemicals? Yeah, that'll cause contamination.

How do you know they never tried to do this? They, and others, have in fact tried.

Please show me any evidence whatsoever that this particular sample was submitted for peer review. Also, please show me WHAT was submitted so you and I can walk through point by point to substantiate that they provided everything that would be required for any legitimate organization to take them seriously.

originally posted by: DJW001

Nope. The DNA sequences get re-written, and written over. That's what a mutation is.

Then what happens to the old gene that got written over? How could you make more genes in such a fashion, if you're simply re-writing old ones? Where'd the old ones come from? Surely there is re-writing being done, but it is using the original code - key word here is code; code always involves a coder. This Master Coder was brilliant enough to allow adaptive mechanisms in the creatures. The immense complexity of epigenetic mechanisms indicate such brilliance, while also defying the possibility of random generation.

originally posted by: Greggers

You mean because the dinosaur bones were covered in shellac and preservative chemicals? Yeah, that'll cause contamination.

Please show me any evidence whatsoever that this particular sample was submitted for peer review. Also, please show me WHAT was submitted so you and I can walk through point by point to substantiate that they provided everything that would be required for any legitimate organization to take them seriously.

I already addressed both these points with the letter from the Georgia University Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (carbon dating) team. This is a universally recognized, top-tier AMS carbon dating lab that received the following results regarding dinosaur fossils:

"The bone was cleaned and washed, using ultrasonic bath. After cleaning, the dried bone was gently crushed to small fragments. The crushd bone was treated with diluted 1N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates. Periodic evacuation insured that evolved carbon dioxide was removed from the interior of the sample fragments, and that fresh acid was allowed to reach even the interior micro-surfaces. The crushed bone was treated with 1N HCl at 4 degree C for 24 hours. The residue was filtered, rinsed with deionized water and under slightly acidic conditions (pH3) heated at 80 degrees C for 6 hours to dissolve collagen and leave humic substances in the precipitate. Sincerely, Dr Alexander Cherkinsky"

Notice the immense degree of decontamination? Shellac would in NO WAY survive such intense cleansing. Those at the UGA lab were convinced that the 33,570 (+/- 120) year range was accurate. Ironically, once this lab discovered that they were proving a younger age for dinosaurs, they rescinded their findings and refused to take any more samples. They refused THEIR OWN RESULTS, once they discovered that it defied dogma. The church of scientism and their inquisition is real.

Source (go to middle of page)

"The bone was cleaned and washed, using ultrasonic bath. After cleaning, the dried bone was gently crushed to small fragments. The crushd bone was treated with diluted 1N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates. Periodic evacuation insured that evolved carbon dioxide was removed from the interior of the sample fragments, and that fresh acid was allowed to reach even the interior micro-surfaces. The crushed bone was treated with 1N HCl at 4 degree C for 24 hours. The residue was filtered, rinsed with deionized water and under slightly acidic conditions (pH3) heated at 80 degrees C for 6 hours to dissolve collagen and leave humic substances in the precipitate. Sincerely, Dr Alexander Cherkinsky"

I already addressed both these

And I have already addressed the points you're repeating now. We're just going in circles.

Please go back and review the chemist's reservations about contaminants chemically bound to the bone and about the natural process whereby C-14 can indeed be absorbed into 68 million year old dinosaur bones.

Also, I see you are completely ignoring my request for proof that this sample was submitted to a peer reviewed journal along with a complete list of what was submitted. Giving up on that point are you?

Or are you under the mistaken impression that the lab somehow PEER REVIEWED these findings? I assure you they did not. That is not what they do. Peer review is a rigorous process that goes well beyond the results of a single lab test.

Seriously, we're getting to the point where I can just start copying portions of stuff I've already posted. This is why I generally don't get involved in arguments with people who insist upon applying their non-falsifiable religion to falsifiable science.

Can we now move this thread to the creationist forum where it belongs? I ask because all pretense has been removed from the original post, and we've finally gotten down to the meat of the matter, which is indeed the same old creation vs. evolution debate.

originally posted by: Greggers

This is why I generally don't get involved in arguments with people who insist upon applying their non-falsifiable religion to falsifiable science.

Wow wow wow, what? I never mentioned any of my beliefs. I only mentioned empirical scientific observations done by the University of Georgia AMS Lab that insist dinosaurs are younger than we thought before - and there are many other examples listed Here. I'm sorry if this upsets your religious beliefs, but empirical observation is empirical observation. You claim objective adherence to the ideals of the scientific method, yet you refuse any empirical evidence that defies your beliefs.

from the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society:

Why do you keep ignoring my points and refusing to answer my questions?

1) Please provide proof that the results of this lab test were submitted to a legitimate peer reviewed journal, along with a list of what was submitted so you and I can walk through it point by point to ensure they provided everything required for any legitimate scientist to take them seriously.

2) Please explain how that assertion from the lab about their own process would do anything to remove unidentified contaminants chemically bound to the bone, including atmospheric C-14. The lab didn't even know what they were testing (C-14 dating anything older than 50,000 years is going to generate very inaccurate results due precisely to this type of NON-REMOVABLE contamination, which is why it isn't done. The margin of error on a 68 million year old fossil would be obscenely high.) One must use other methods to date these bones.

3) What are the radiometric dating results of surrounding strata?

4) Where are the specific results of the test that identified collagen (and may also have identified other substances) so we can see the results?

originally posted by: cooperton
"The interpretation which you present in your abstract is that the age of various dinosaurs, perviously interpreted as being Mesozoic in age, are less than 50,000 years. Your report that these ages were calculated using C-14 methods. There is obviously an error in these data. The abstract was apparently not reviewed properly and was accepted in error. For this reason we have exercied our authority as program chairs and rescinded the abstract. The abstract will no longer appear on the AOGS web site"

Really Coop? You are still parading this ignorant nonsense? How many times do people need to correct you before you realize that you are spreading lies? C-14 cannot be used to date dinosaur fossils because it is only accurate up to 40,000 years before the error margin gets too high. Of course c-14 dating for anything older would cause accuracy issues. C-14 isn't used for dinosaurs or older fossils because it isn't reliable for anything that old, and the response above reinforces that fact.

This has been explained to you ad nauseam. You are fighting a battle that you can't win. Ignorantly denying science with no alternative theory or evidence to prove it, IS DISHONEST. The whole sea fossils on mountains thing has been answered dozens of times for you yet you just pretend it wasn't because it's obvious you are nothing but a fundamentalist preacher lying to convince others of your bogus religion that cherry picks science and defies all logic and reality. Please find another message board to pollute with your blatant lies. Note how everybody else arguing against science has long abandoned the thread because they don't have a leg to stand on. But you just stay and pretend that you've proven something when your understanding of science is so poor that you make Kent Hovind and Ken Ham look like bonafide geniuses.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
"The interpretation which you present in your abstract is that the age of various dinosaurs, perviously interpreted as being Mesozoic in age, are less than 50,000 years. Your report that these ages were calculated using C-14 methods. There is obviously an error in these data. The abstract was apparently not reviewed properly and was accepted in error. For this reason we have exercied our authority as program chairs and rescinded the abstract. The abstract will no longer appear on the AOGS web site"

Really Coop? You are still parading this ignorant nonsense? How many times do people need to correct you before you realize that you are spreading lies? C-14 cannot be used to date dinosaur fossils because it is only accurate up to 40,000 years before the error margin gets too high. Of course c-14 dating for anything older would cause accuracy issues. C-14 isn't used for dinosaurs or older fossils because it isn't reliable for anything that old, and the response above reinforces that fact.

This has been explained to you ad nauseam. You are fighting a battle that you can't win. Ignorantly denying science with no alternative theory or evidence to prove it, IS DISHONEST. The whole sea fossils on mountains thing has been answered dozens of times for you yet you just pretend it wasn't because it's obvious you are nothing but a fundamentalist preacher trying to convince others of your completely made up worldview that cherry picks science and defies all logic and reality. Please find another message board to pollute with your blatant lies. Note how everybody else arguing against science has long abandoned the thread because they don't have a leg to stand on. But you just stay and pretend that you've proven something when your understanding of science is so poor that you make Kent Hovind and Ken Ham look like bonafide geniuses.

PRECISELY. If one wants to refute the scientific validity of the age of dinosaur bones, a C-14 test not only isn't sufficient -- it isn't even interesting.

originally posted by: Barcs

Really Coop? You are still parading this ignorant nonsense? How many times do people need to correct you before you realize that you are spreading ignorant lies? C-14 cannot be used to date dinosaur fossils because it is only accurate up to 40,000 years before the error margin gets too high.

Not at all.

Perhaps you're referring to the old methods of detecting beta emissions, which would frequently pickup background noise? New methods are much better. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) counts isotopic ratios and is theoretically reliable up to about 100,000 years, and is consistently reliable below 50,000 (which all dinosaur samples are). If there were no C-14 (as there should be if it were millions of years old) the AMS would give such a result, but it does not, ever. Stop posing as an objective scientist when you simply knee-jerk against anyone whose opinions are different than yours. But, in this instance, it doesn't even come down to opinion. AMS is accurate up to 50,000 years ago, and this is what was used by the University of Georgia to date these 33,750 year old dinosaur remains.

Continue to prove your membership in the church of scientism with your blind zeal.

originally posted by: Greggers

PRECISELY. If one wants to refute the scientific validity of the age of dinosaur bones, a C-14 test not only isn't sufficient -- it isn't even interesting.

Your double negative is indicative of your convoluted thinking. C-14 dating through accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) should give a clear, indubitable 0% on all dinosaur bones if they are millions of years olds. But, it doesn't, it gives readings indicating C-14 presence in the soft tissue of the dinosaur... as if soft tissue's consistent presence in dinosaur fossils wasn't enough for you to MAYBE reconsider your dogma?

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: myselfaswell

it very much is, in regards to the masses that blindly follow, such as theoretical religion is blindly followed.

YUP.

The dogma aspect is very telling. Deviate even slightly from the approved dogma . . . and it's "off with their heads!"

--prevent tenure
--don't publish them
--prevent their speaking at conferences
etc.

And, science's history is replete with issues that were "PROVEN" as untrue . . . but were later truly proven to be totally wrongly considered untrue.

your last sentence PROVES the difference between science and religion...why?....religion believes everything in the bible is true.

originally posted by: cooperton
were no C-14 (as there should be if it were millions of years old) the AMS would give such a result, but it does not, ever.

Please familiarize yourself with the process whereby C-14 from decayed organics in surrounding strata confounds the carbon dating of anything as old as dinosaur bones.

originally posted by: cooperton
C-14 dating through accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) should give a clear, indubitable 0% on all dinosaur bones if they are millions of years olds.

No it shouldn't. Please familiarize yourself with radiometric decay.

But, it doesn't, it gives readings indicating C-14 presence in the soft tissue of the dinosaur... as if soft tissue's consistent presence in dinosaur fossils wasn't enough for you to MAYBE reconsider your dogma?

Please show me the specific lab results that proved the presence of collagen. I want the lab sheet. It is required for peer review and should surely be readily available if peer review was sought.