![]() ![]() And if the conditions are just right, not even anaerobic bacteria can survive in those conditions, and the body can be preserved without or with limited decomposition for a very long time. However, if the bodies are encased in sediment, and deprived of oxygen, then the decomposition process is slowed. If exposed to the elements the bodies will decompose rapidly. If not buried rapidly it will not turn into a fossil. They have to be buried rapidly to form a fossil in the first place. You Pick the dates before dating but try to make people believe it's the dating methods dating things.ĭo me a favor and lay off the caps lock, please. While claiming we can't question ages BECAUSE dated with methods! This is dishonest circular reasoning. Making a straw man argument doesn't explain why you have to KNOW AGE before dating. One lied and others believing blindly went with it some because THEY want evolution to be true and others because brainwashed from early age and still others who be attacked for coming forward against evolution. They didn't ALL need to agree beforehand to lie. They lied for years about biogenetic law and piltdown man. It's not a conspiracy for evolutionists to fool as many people as you can is it? So crediting evolution with what God has given you on historical record just shows bias. Steno dedicated his work to PROOF of Noahs flood. Never heard anyone credit him with geology. Then to remove objection of contamination they even have used diamonds as well. You can't say soft tissue is not enough reason to try c14 dating. So the supporting evidence MEANS you can use c14 dating. No one would say SOFT TISSUE cannot BE YOUNG ENOUGH for c14 dating. Then they find SOFT TISSUE confirming that it is able to use c14. You are putting a preconceived answer and then using dating methods just as confirmation bias. This is a problem because it is circular but also because you ELIMINATE the possibility of EVER making new discovery or making ground breaking date like a city being super old. Do the dating methods work or not? You PICK the age when you PICK the range of dating method. THere is earthquake or landslide and the rocks are mixed and sent to lab. My main questions are: was the firing of Mark Armitage justified, and is the Paleochronology group’s research at all valid? Failure to investigate or even acknowledge such significant findings unfortunately suggests that some scientists are more interested in holding on tight to current perspectives, rather than seeking to advance knowledge and understanding in this field.” “While there is a possibility that the C-14 test results were a result of contamination or error, (even though the results were replicated and rigorous pre-treatments were carried out by the University of Georgia to control for this), or are perhaps due to some other factor, it seems reasonable to expect scientists to attempt more than a few replications of such groundbreaking test results. Lastly, there’s this concluding paragraph that sums up my opinion at the moment: Paleontologist Jack Horner, curator at Montana State University’s Museum of the Rockies, who excavated the Tyrannosaurus Rex remains that contained soft tissue, even turned down an offer of a $23,000 grant to carry out a C-14 test on the remains.” The Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia, who conducted ‘blind’ C-14 tests on dinosaur bones, without knowing what they were, refused to conduct further C-14 tests after finding they were testing dinosaur bones. Raw data without interpretation was blocked from presentation in conference proceedings by the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention, the American Geophysical Union in 20, the Geological Society of America in 20, and by the editors of various scientific journals. “Previous attempts to publish C-14 test results were repeatedly blocked. Their attempts have been met with hostility: There’s also the Paleochronology group, a group of scientists dedicated to C-14 testing dinosaur fossils. On this basis, he opened a discussion with colleagues and students about the implications of such a finding being that the creationist perspective is correct and that dinosaurs existed much later than mainstream science maintains, a move that promptly saw him fired by the University of California.” Armitage, a creationist, claimed that the preservation of cells is a scientific impossibility if the dinosaur really walked the Earth over 66 million years ago. “Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson also published results of a microscopic analysis of soft tissue from a Triceratops horn in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Histochemica. I already knew about this, but there are some other details mentioned here that I hadn’t heard before. According to this article, a Triceratops horn was dated to roughly 33,500 years old. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |