Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Are you seriously doubting that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago and are instead proposing that it is thousands of years ago instead? Seriously?

timber, too bad you're apparently unable to discuss the topic.

Drop by when you have something other than petty insults to offer.

Thanks ros and Timber. I opened the thread this AM and my jaw dropped at RL's inane logic. I can give RL a kind of quick analogy. We can deduce a living animals age by counting rings on the animals scales. SO, why dont we count scales on a ,mammal? We should be able to falsify the data by counting scales on a deer perhaps.


C14 is not used where the ages of the substance or sample are already known ,(especially with a technique that has a physical quantitation limit like the 30-50K year limit I previously mentioned)

Why arent the CReationists , who are eager to disprove the ancient ages of Cretaceous samples also doing C14 to do exactly what you state? Perhaps they arent that stupid either.

A minor, but important reason for NOT doing C14 is sample size and the need to do destructive testing on a number o samples that could destroy the fossil . Fossils need to have some sort of carbon that is in equilibrium with the entire sample(and the carbon 14 is already at an initial equilibrium of 1/1800+/- with C12 and C13). BUUUT, in most cases, the fossil has been turned to silica and not limestone (limestone can contain Carbon in the Calcium carbonate structure, thats why we can do C14 on recent cave deposits) and theres not a whole lot of carbon in the silicate sample(like mostly NONE). As far as the " Hell Creek soft tissue" (which weve discovered wasnt really so soft, because it had to be etched out of the crystalline matrix). the amount of actual carbon is lower than originally believed. The flouroapatite content was primary and the carbon would have been scattered throughout the crystal matrix, thus probably requiring a lot of destructive sampling of a lot more than needed. So we , perhaps, may have had to destroy a sample to acquire information by a dubious method that is of no scientific use after all.

As you seem to want to do,We dont have to continually provide "proof of concept" for various isotope techniques. We know that they work and we know their limitations. So, to sample and test something that is way beyond the functional limit of the method is just plain stupid (i do nt wanna keep harping on this and using the word stupid but its the only descriptor that adequately fits). Its like trying to do mineral analyses to a part per billion level using a wet chemistry assay kit. (Course I like ros's suggetion of playing of a millstone to see whether its not really a"paleo- CD")
When we are way below a limit of quantitation by virtue of the testing procedure. (like we can tell how much iron is in an ore by creating a blue color liquid that we can analyze with transmission spectroscopy method-and it workd down to the high ppm level) . However, if we are looking for a ppb level, we have to give up our "colorometric" method and trust electronic instruments where "detectors" are used to find the iron in solution at really low levels. We give up our eyes and trust electronics.

I imagine that, had you a chance to remove that silly above post, you would, and I shall say no more unless you keep bringing it up. You really ought to learn something about the validity and economics of isotope testing. Its not a technique that we go aimlessly waving around because there is much to understand about whether the sample itself is even datable because of contamination, or whether any zircons in the matrix are actually transported via sediment transfer. etc etc. Couple that with the fact that, depending on the cleanup , C14 can be anywhere from 1500 to 3500 per sample and we always take multiples.
Unscrupulous (or Creationists "for profit" labs would love doing your samples) Course yer science would be in question if you kept coming up with any data from the Cretaceous.

It was worth a laugh though.


OH yeah, Your skills at "quote mining" are getting quite professional, if ros didnt post the whole paragraph that you eviscerated, you maybe coulda had some "quote mine credibility"

rl, and ros and Timber caught you (again) in trig to propogate an argument out of ignorance or duplicity (Im not really sure which applies)

That's pretty much common knowledge by now. There are obvious descriptions of dinosaurs in both Midrashim and American Indian oral traditions and books based on same, and clear images of known dinosaur types in American Indian petroglyphs, and that's before you even get to questions of Ica stones and similar artefacts.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/native-american-dino-art.htm

Is today National "lets all be really stupid Day?". Gungas mining petroglyphs for his science and rl's gonna use C14 to date them.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't look like a 'clear' image of a dinosaur to me. The anatomy is all wrong, there is only a neck, a round body, 1 leg, and a tail. Not very clear to me.

I agree with evolutionists, if it can be proven that humans and dinosaurs walked together on earth, then the our current understanding of evolution is in serious trouble, but if this is what you're providing as 'proof' then you're in serious trouble.

He has a clue, he just doesn't like to use it.

Wunner whether rl ever has looked into the viability of substituting clover honey for construction adhesive, and whether the margins of gunga's maps bear the legend "Here be dragons".

Really, it is both fortunate for science and devastatingly tellin against ID-iocy that the manner - style and substance - by which those 2 forward their propositions is so characteristic of of their co-positionists as to qualify under the definition of stereotypical. Not only do such have nothing of substance to say in the matters they would dispute, that which they and their fellows do bring to the discussion is said so poorly as to invite not critical evaluation and reasoned consideration but rather, on its very face, merits their proposition naught but scorn, contempt, ridicule, and out-of-hand dismissal.

Telling as well is the propensity such have for pouting claim of insult by way of response when caught out in their absurdities. In defence of the individuals here at discussion, as would regard whether ignorance or duplicity be their foundation, I allow as I can see no valid reason to lay against either any charge of duplicity; doing so would be granting to either far more credit than by the evidence they so far have presented as would be reasonably justifiable.

gunga, what crap.
1 The issue of fossils and man living together is an example of falsifiability of evolution, that is true. BUT, nowhere has this been seen. The Paluxey Fm is a joke, the goobers that "Enhanced " some dno tracks have already admitted to it in the mid 90's.

2Ripple marks, ARE an example of a sedimentary marker, BUT wherever ripple marks are preserved, they are always lying next to sedimentary layers of fine silts and clays. This cyclic deposition is often used as an environmental marker. (Youve really gotta get some better data)
Id love to take guys like you or RL on a field trip so youd get to see the whole story, not just what your leaders are feeding you.

Here's one they seem to have missed:



http://www.lakesuperiorpark.com/agawa_rock_pictographs.htm

That's a stegosaur, note the dorsal spikes which no modern animal has.

And here be a dragon, too -



Oh, and note the claw-tipped wings - very like those of modern-day bats.

Note the horns which no stegosaur had.

Note the absurdity of using drawings on a rock as a challenge to the mountains of physical evidence which contradict it.

gunga, why dont you quit while many of us only think youre a fool. You dont have to keep demonstrating it.

pictographs only about 150 to 400 years old. Maybe some French or English should have seen these "bests". Think maybe theyre just a pic of a porcupine, since a stegosaur doesnt have "spines" it has , l dorsal plates and a spiked club tail. The "spines on the dorsal side are the same as those on the tail so , maybe its a "refrigerator" rendering oof a porkypine or maybe a wolverine.

The feet look mammalian .

Your a precious resource gunga. Ill agree with one thing. If this creture were a stegosaur , and it lived like 400 years ago, the fossil record would be in question. But thats falsifiablity and you provide us with another example.
When you find some really good evidence, then we talk. Till then, stay away freom the antifreeze.

Timber says, but tastes like chicken.

Such petroglyphs exist today because indians came by and redid them every thirty or fifty years or so. The horns were added at a much later date.

Aside from dorsal spikes, the stegosaur had a spiked tail which no modern animal had. Indian lore mentions mishipashoo (the stegosaur) using his spiked tail as a weapon.

http://writersnoose.mu.nu/archives/005418.html

So let's get this straight, a picture is worth a thousand words, so you come up with a cartoon on a rock. So when that doesn't work, you come up with a native legend. On the path to evidence, you're walking backwards.