11
   

More (much more) dinosaur soft tissue turning up

 
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 10:39 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
They're getting good RC dates on dinosaur remains now:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

We already have high quality dating of dinosaur fossils, millions of them, which place them before the 65mya timeframe.

And you can't prop up fictitious statements with bogus web sites. You need to start reading web sites that actually reflect an accurate understanding of science and evolution before you can even hope to win this argument. As it stands right now you just make up some bullshit and then prop it up with more bullshit sources. You're just wasting your time with that.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 10:45 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Flying birds are probably as big a problem for evolosers as sex.

Neither birds or sexual reproduction is a problem for evolution at all. The evidence and detail for bird (and feather) evolution is already overwhelming and growing all the time.

It's a shame that the elegance and beauty of a universe with the capacity to evolve (which is exactly what we've got), is lost on people who are in denial of the facts of biology (and cosmology).
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 11:07 am
@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

But, wait a minute you say, aren't mutations supposed to be the thing that drives evolution itself, aren't mutations supposed to make people BETTER???


How do you conclude that? If mutations happen to make people (and other species) better, the creatures, on average survive and pass the gene change forward. Most are not so good, and die out in a few generations. Something about Darwin comes to mind.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 01:33 pm
@roger,
Very Happy
Gunga only can see one concept at a time
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 01:55 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
We already have high quality dating of dinosaur fossils, millions of them, which place them before the 65mya timeframe.


That turns out to be a bunch of bullshit, based on circular reasoning and evolutionite assumptions wrt geological strata.

Quote:
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that
it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Dr.. Tom Kemp, Curator
University Museum of Oxford University
" A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"
New Scientist, Dec 5, 1985, p. 66


Educate yourself:





gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 01:57 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Neither birds or sexual reproduction is a problem for evolution at all.


More bullshit.

Consider how close anything comes to any sort of a lizard-to-bird process in real life. A coelurosaur trying to evolve its way to being a flying bird would need roughly a dozen systems which it does not have.

Nonetheless, chickens have all of those things and you might wonder what keeps chickens from ever completely regaining normal flight capabilities. The basic answer is that the chicken as we know it started out as a little two-pound jungle fowl (related to pheasants) and was bred into a 6-lb. meat animal, but still has the 2-lb bird’s wings. Geese are as heavy as chickens and fly easily enough because they have the wings necessary for a 7-lb bird.

Consider that man raises chickens in gigantic abundance, and that chickens were never kept in cages until recent times. Consider the numbers of such chickens which must have escaped in all of recorded history...

Look in the sky overhead: where are all of their wild-living descendants?? Why are there no wild chickens in the skies above us???

In other words, if there's any chance whatsoever of a non-flying creature evolving into a flying bird, then surely the escaped chicken, close as it is, could RE-EVOLVE back into being a flying bird. They're only missing the tiniest fraction of whatever is involved.

They've got wings, tails, and flight feathers, the system for pivoting flight feathers, the light bone structure, flow-through lungs, high-efficiency heart, beaks, and the whole nine yards. In their domestic state, they can fly albeit badly; they are entirely similar to what you might expect of an evolutionist's proto-bird, in the final stage of evolving into a flight-worthy condition.

According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very quickly finish evolving back into something like a normal flying bird, once having escaped, and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the skies.

But the sky holds no wild chickens. In real life, against real settings, real predators, real conditions, the imperfect flight features do not suffice to save them.

In real life, if you ever lose the tiniest part of some complex trait or capability, you will never get it back. In the real world, if you lack the tiniest part of some complex trait or capability, then, other than possibly via some genetic engineering process, you will never get it.

The basic question is: How in hell is some velociraptor supposed to make it the thousand miles, if history proves that a creature which amounts to the final stage of such a development cannot make it the final yard of such a process?

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2014 02:07 pm
@roger,
You missed part of the point of that little discussion. The point was that, in real life, mutations cause only grief and problems as you can see in the cases of the Spanish Hapsburgs or the peoples of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan today and that, therefore, evolution, which depends upon mutation as its driving mechanism, is clearly a bunch of bullshit.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 03:52 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
We already have high quality dating of dinosaur fossils, millions of them, which place them before the 65mya timeframe.


That turns out to be a bunch of bullshit, based on circular reasoning and evolutionite assumptions wrt geological strata.

Quote:
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that
it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Dr.. Tom Kemp, Curator
University Museum of Oxford University
" A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"
New Scientist, Dec 5, 1985, p. 66


Educate yourself:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvWdWbLcJvQ&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]




Gunga,
Do u allege that the asteroid impact that hit
did not occur 65,OOO,OOO years ago, or that
it was un-related to extinction of the dinosaurs??

Do u believe that dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with humen
within the last 5O,OOO years??





David
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 10:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David,

I've been attending a sort of a major renegade science confab the last few days and will be on the road Tuesday and Wednesday, let me get back to you when I get home, not much time for internet right now.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2014 10:56 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

David,

I've been attending a sort of a major renegade science confab
the last few days and will be on the road Tuesday and Wednesday,
let me get back to you when I get home, not much time for internet right now.
OK, have a nice time, Gunga.





David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2014 05:03 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

David,

I've been attending a sort of a major renegade science confab the last few days and

Is that what they are calling the tinfoil hat convention these days?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2014 05:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Gunga,
Do u allege that the asteroid impact that hit
did not occur 65,OOO,OOO years ago, or that
it was un-related to extinction of the dinosaurs??


Most dinosaurs and megafauna perished in catastrophes which you'd call much larger and more destructive than a mere asteroid impact.

Quote:

Do u believe that dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with humen
within the last 5O,OOO years??


Many of them. I don't picture humans sharing the Earth with raptors, or at least not for long. They're getting good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur material now and regardless of the exact accuracy of those dates, nothing more than around 60K years should radiocarbon date at all.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 04:27 pm
@gungasnake,
Have u an opinion of the age of the Universe ?
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2014 06:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Have u an opinion of the age of the Universe ?


Yes, although that's all it is i.e. an opinion...

The Big Bang idea should have been rejected on day one from purely philosophical principles i.e. having all the mass of the universe concentrated to a point would be the mother of all black holes, and nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. That's before you even get to Halton Arp of course.


Likewise having a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God decide, at any one point in time, that it would be cool to create a universe while the idea had never occurred to him prior to that is also unacceptable, at least to me.

I assume that the physical universe, like God, is basically eternal. That's the only way I see to avoid conundrums.



0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2014 06:58 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
They're getting good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur material now and regardless of the exact accuracy of those dates, nothing more than around 60K years should radiocarbon date at all.


Its interesting that , in the very "proof video" you presented the guy said that "Dinosaur bones cannot be age dated directly"
YET, theres the old crap you keep bringing up by Dahmer and Kouznetsov (1993) where they actually DID C14 on Dinosaur bones from te Carnegie Institute.
The Carnegie dinosaur bones in question were previously dated by isotope dating on the surrounding ash flows which showed upper and lower dates with ranges of 130 to 150 MY old. that was based upon several converging techniques on the ash itself. The bones were then independently dated by K40/Ar40 (NOT K/Ar 40/39). The bones were dated at about 140 MY. So, the upper and lower ash deposits were earlier and younger than the dinosaur fossil which was deteremined by K/Ar to be about somewhere in between.(That's good enough for a GM car)

When Dahmer got his samples from Carnegie. He was claiming that his team was doing an "environmental chem analyses" of the other elements in the fossil bone (F/K/Pb/ etc) To do a statistical analysis of the other elements to compare with other dinosaurs of that Formation area. (It was a new technique in the early 90's)
SO, Dahmer was given a few chunks of bone that had broken off and were shards in the storage tray bottom . He was ALSO admonished to do "Good systematic cleanups" by James King (The museum Director)
WHY?---because the fossils were "Heavily coated with shellac and other organic preservatives" (Gee , I wonder how old shellac is?-well we were soon to find out)
When the samples were submitted to radioisotope labs U of Az and U of Ga, each of these labs also informed the submitter of the fact that there was shellac and another mass of coatings on the specimen. DAHMER SAID TO GO AHEAD ANYWAY AND DO THE C14.
That's undoubtedly where the 20000 year dates came from. They were measuring shellac that , on a mass basis, was factored in the sample mix). SO, while the date may have been too old for new shellac, it was also too young for a real dinosaur. BUT, do you think Dahmer and his crew gave a ****? NO CAUSE THEY WERE FRAUDING SCIENCE

_______________________________

Later, it turned out that, since the labs RETAINED the samples for archiving they were able to determine that the Carbon that was sampled WAS NOT carbon that was related to bone or bone protein.
In other words, LL the carbon that was analyzed came from shellac)

_______________________________

Also, the labs, by using C14 "free" substances (like Precambrian graphite or Carboniferous Age coal) would conduct "systematic source QA" of each of the separate steps involved in doing their C14 analyses. Theres a few separate segments involved in sample insertion before the GCMS even is turned on

Theres a combustion segment
A CO2 gas purification segment
A vacuum line distribution andinsertion segment
Graphitization

Each of these add some contamination by new carbon and it was during these samplings that the labs systematized the determination of these other C sources as part of the sample train.

Nowadays we get a +/- report on the LAB processes as well as a +/- of the sample age.

HOWEVER, getting back to DAHMER, he used those numbers as a report of how C14 was found in dinosaur fossils that were suppose to be "millions and millions " of years old.

The C14 in dinosaur bones has , as part of its pedigree of Creation "science" been able to attain the pinnacle of evidence up there with Piltdown man the Cardiff Giant and the Paluxey River hoax

Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2014 07:05 am
I find it amusing how Gunga Dim sneers at carbon dating, unless he thinks it will back up his loony claims. He does the same thing with evolution. According to him, evolution doesn't happen. Unless, of course, he thinks he can use it to support his latest loony theory.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2014 07:13 am
@Setanta,
I found it as amusing that gunga, over these many years, has actually been adding "Years" onto his earth history story as he incorporates more urban legends from his 'luminum fawl hat" conferences.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2014 07:27 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Its interesting that , in the very "proof video" you presented the guy said that "Dinosaur bones cannot be age dated directly"
YET, theres the old crap you keep bringing up by Dahmer and Kouznetsov (1993) where they actually DID C14 on Dinosaur bones from te Carnegie Institute.


Video says the bones cannot be dated directly VIA URANIUM/LEAD OR POTASSIUM/ARGON. Doesn't make such a claim for radiocarbon dating.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2014 07:31 am
The Paleochronology Group

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2014 10:24 am
@gungasnake,
Cmon Gunga . These guys are so skeptical that they are a registered non-profit RELIGIOUS group. Theres no science in their version of Paleochronology. They don't even recognize that new Carbon can be introduced into bare rock. When they failed to address the shellac problem (they merely allowed the material to be slightly etched, thise making sure they introduced a FRESH shellac surface to the mix.

1ppm of additional Carbon (with the standard ratio of C12/13-C14) and the mass of sample, can introduce a huge error to a "date". If you keep buying this crap without being skeptical of your own preffered worldview, then you are as much a fraud as you claim me to be. I at least go looking for where the mistakes may be, you don't even bother beyond clipping your creationist puppetmasters.


Too bad that youre only as skeptical as far s your worldview allows you.
Real Scientists realize that they make a contribution no matter how they can skew evidence. Even if dinosaur fossils found in the Hell Creek formation were 25000 years old by date, wed all be out there trying to figure out where all the new carbon came from or what errors may be in the surrounding sediment dates . Why we would be up to aour kiesters in work to REMAP the entire West and that would be employment for the next century

BUT, you cant FAKE your way pST SOME SCIENCE REVIEW PANEL. rIGHT OR WRONG OR WHOEVER MAY BE FOOLED, sooner or later, THE FACTS WILL EMERGE. and you will be found out.
I even see that this PALOCHRONOLOGY group has quit publishing on their website and asking for tax free donations for almost 3 years now.
Was that because "PALEOCHRONOLOGY's" founder croaked? He was a physician from Ohio no? He kicked off in late 2010, and the web pages haven't been updated since 2011. I don't think his "affiliates" FROM AROUND THE PLANET FELT AS STRONGLY AS HE.

I don't know, I just see these things and read about how their "dating" paper at AGU got pulled after it was QA'd by the board . It seems that the "C14 in dino bones" was a POSTER SESSION and theres really not a big deal of review for posters because all we do is ask for an abstract and a purpose for the poster. (Poster sessions are usually provided for grad students to introduce their theses and garner some initial feedback and critique before their review committees see the drafts). So, AFTER the conference, the presentation was pulled with the instructions that the authors get some verifiable data and QA from the samples and the labs -----NO FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS CAME FROM PALEOCHRONOLOGY GROUP .Instead they took to the internet (good peer review there) and asked guys to go out and sample and submit to THEM a bone for C14 analysis . Each analysis will cost 600 bucks (which is kinda cheap)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 01:58:51