Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: Phantom423

Dear larry,

These people do not want to understand that I have explain them many times.

In the some case it was not bone at all in some case ones were so badly preserved and did not suitable for the the dating but the ask us to analyze them and I told them many time that these dates came from contamination but they do not want here that. I have stopped any communication and analyses with these group.

best regards,

Alex

Dr. Alexander Cherkinsky
Center for Applied Isotope Studies
University of Georgia
120 Riverbend Road
Athens, GA 30602

He gave his results confidently until he realized they dated dinosaur bones, Then they concluded it must have been contamination. This is not how real science works.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Dear larry,

These people do not want to understand that I have explain them many times.

In the some case it was not bone at all in some case ones were so badly preserved and did not suitable for the the dating but the ask us to analyze them and I told them many time that these dates came from contamination but they do not want here that. I have stopped any communication and analyses with these group.

best regards,

Alex

Dr. Alexander Cherkinsky
Center for Applied Isotope Studies
University of Georgia
120 Riverbend Road
Athens, GA 30602

He gave his results confidently until he realized they dated dinosaur bones, Then they concluded it must have been contamination. This is not how real science works.

In the some case it was not bone at all in some case ones were so badly preserved and did not suitable for the the dating but the ask us to analyze them and I told them many time that these dates came from contamination but they do not want here that. I have stopped any communication and analyses with these group.

These ARE the results. The sample was a mixed bag of badly preserved material. The final analysis did not describe the sample as "pure bone". He didn't have to change his conclusions. The results were described BEFORE he knew it was supposed to be dinosaur bone.

a reply to: cooperton

Simple if they knew it was dinosaur bones they need to be cleaned first then test using anything other then c14 most likely Potassium–argon dating. C14 dating on fossils will always give false readings. What happens is they detect almost zero c14 and defuse the age from that. Problem is after 75000 years the amount is so low that contamination is easy

a reply to: Quadrivium

Not confused neighbour, educated. You seem to think that Micro and Macro evolution are something other than a human frame of reference.

Like I said the truth is bitter.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Simple if they knew it was dinosaur bones they need to be cleaned first then test using anything other then c14

No, C-14 is perfect to indicate if something is older than 100,000 years old, because it will clearly give that result if that is the case. So far, no C-14 dates on dinosaurs have indicated anything older than 40,000 years old Other results

This guy is still hung up on C-14 dating even though a bunch of different posters have told him you don't use it to date dinosaur fossils? Talk about willful ignorance...

a reply to: cooperton

No, 14C will not give a clear result if something is over 100 Ka because in concentrations that small, the risk of contamination by CH2 and N-14 becomes cost prohibitive to filter out. Cyclotrons and tandem accelerators have both been used to fashion sensitive new mass spectrometer analyses. The tandem accelerator has been effective in removing the nitrogen-14 and CH2, and can be followed by a conventional mass spectrometer to separate the C-12 and C-13. A sensitivity of 10-15 in the 14C/12C ratio has been achieved. These techniques can be applied with a sample as small as a milligram. But again, it's very time consuming, cost prohibitive and the majority of facilities don't have the resources currently. You should really read a science journal and not get all of your information from AIG and ICR because critical thinking isn't the strong suit of the folks that they hire.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This guy is still hung up on C-14 dating even though a bunch of different posters have told him you don't use it to date dinosaur fossils? Talk about willful ignorance...

You can't even consider the possibility that the theory of evolution is wrong and that is textbook willful ignorance

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

No, 14C will not give a clear result if something is over 100 Ka because in concentrations that small,

Ok but the dates that were given were between 4,000-40,000... are you saying C14 dating cannot accurately detect those ranges? That is silly, you just don't like the results

a reply to: cooperton

Ok but the dates that were given were between 4,000-40,000... are you saying C14 dating cannot accurately detect those ranges? That is silly, you just don't like the results

And you don't like the truth.

You can't even consider the possibility that the theory of evolution is wrong and that is textbook willful ignorance

You're the poster child for willful ignorance. Science is always an open book. If you can come up with evidence which refutes the current view of evolution, you're free to present it - following the scientific method and the rules of scientific discoveries which is to compare, repeat and validate independently.

a reply to: cooperton

No willful ignorance is claiming that a piece of paper with no provenance is legit. Willful ignorance is claiming that the aforementioned paper, that clearly states the sample was bone and not fossil was somehow a fossil and that the lab or people preparing samples don't know the difference. The difference between you and I is that you get all your information from sources that simply feed into your own confirmation biases whereas I actually went to school, did the work, did the digs, handled the fossils, took the measurements and attempted to falsify the data on my own. You're claiming the science is wrong because someone else tell you to say that. Are you prepared to accept that our YEC version of the world is wrong? Because I am willingness to accept that the science is wrong. You haven't done anything to falsify the data except spread lies and repeat other people's lies. That's not how the scientific method works.

originally posted by: Phantom423

And you don't like the truth.

I love the truth, you're the one enamored with the theoretical.

If you can come up with evidence which refutes the current view of evolution, you're free to present it - following the scientific method and the rules of scientific discoveries which is to compare, repeat and validate independently.

Yeah I present a lot of empirical evidence and none of you are interested in the data because it conflicts with your belief system.

I hope the Mods are watching this thread and decide to close it permanently. It's becoming redundant and monotonous.
All the information for and against the topic has been posted ad infinitum.

a reply to: Phantom423

I can't help but chuckle reading Coop's flat out denial of evidence. You posted the direct letter from the scientist that explained the results and he just poo pooed it away with rhetoric, falsely claiming that the result was denied just because it conflicted with evolution, rather than the obvious fact that it was contaminated and poorly preserved as noted in the tests, not to mention the sample wasn't prepared in the right way because they lied about what it was to get it tested. Either this dude will do anything to preserve his belief system, or he's the greatest troll of all time. It makes me wonder.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Phantom423
claiming that the result was denied just because it conflicted with evolution, rather than the obvious fact that it was contaminated and poorly preserved as noted in the tests

The lab director himself approved of the results until he discovered that they were dinosaur samples, then he rescinded the results. He began backtracking once he didn't believe the results, such is not a genuine scientific process.

I can agree with phantom though, this is getting very redundant. No more can be said. Believe whatever you'd like, and I look forward to more C14 testing on dinosaur remains.

a reply to: Barcs

Either this dude will do anything to preserve his belief system, or he's the greatest troll of all time.

Nah... just your typical Christian fundy

Though its amusing that he claims to be educated in science...

Im guessing he got his education from dr Ken Ham

originally posted by: Akragon

Nah... just your typical Christian fundy

Though its amusing that he claims to be educated in science...

Im guessing he got his education from dr Ken Ham

Hey stranger. No, I am accredited by a well-known university for multiple degrees in the sciences. Just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't make them uneducated.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Simple if they knew it was dinosaur bones they need to be cleaned first then test using anything other then c14

No, C-14 is perfect to indicate if something is older than 100,000 years old, because it will clearly give that result if that is the case. So far, no C-14 dates on dinosaurs have indicated anything older than 40,000 years old Other results

Wrong heres the problem lets say it was a buffalo bone from the mid west. Died 1000 yrs ago you dont need to clean it you simply scrape it and test it. Why simple your going to assume the sediment it was in will help date it.

With a dinosaur bone they drill asmall hole and test the inner fossils. The reason is simple they know this has been contaminated several times in millions of years. Then you test it for say argon since any c14 you find would so low or contaminated. Radiometric dating is alot different.

C14 you test to see how much c14 remains,through beta decay it turns in to nitrogen 14 and disapears from the sample. But for Dinosaurs just not practical c14 half life is to short. So what do you do? Simple you look for either lead or argon. Once you know how much is in the sample of say lead you know your upper limit for how much uranium could be in the sample. Through beta decay uranium becomes lead then you look at the uranium in the sample and see how much is there. This will tell you how long beta decay has been occuring on the sample. Since we know the beta decay rate its just a matter of doing the math. Its even self correcting as it allows us to determine the original content when it was created because you use two data points as opposed to one in c14 dating.

And unlike c14 uranium contamination is rare not alot of sources to irradiate the sample. Then you can test argon to verify your results ,not telling a lab what they are testing means they will take the cheapest option and your results will always be wrong. Its like trying to find a blood clot with an x ray you wont see it you need to do a cat scan. If you do an xray you are using the wrong method to determine if there is a clot. Meaning the doctor wouldnt see it meaning you come to the wrong conclusion. The only one you fool by not telling the lab is you!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

Nah... just your typical Christian fundy

Though its amusing that he claims to be educated in science...

Im guessing he got his education from dr Ken Ham

Hey stranger. No, I am accredited by a well-known university for multiple degrees in the sciences. Just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't make them uneducated.

I find that hard to believe even at my university we teach radiometric dating and how it works and when touse it. Unless your telling me your degree is in political science

a reply to: cooperton

No you are indeed right. However t he things you post make it appear that you are uneducated. You are not the only one here with multiple degrees from good universities. You appear to be the only one who is not practicing what he was taught, which would be critical thinking.

a reply to: dragonridr

He claimed it was Chemistry (like two of my degrees) and Neuroscience. IF he did chemistry he must have skipped the radiochem classes and labs, or they were optional.