Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[gnostic]

It's late, so I get back you tonight, so good nite everyone.

 

[JM2C]

Radiocarbon dating is only reliable up to about 50k years. There are techniques that can extend that up to about 75,000 years. However to measure the age of things that are even older we use different techniques. If you attempt to use the radiocarbon dating technique on something millions of years old the result will be incorrect. That is well understood.

Can someone help you understand the difference between 30,000 years and 66 millions of years? Collagen protein stays in the dinosaur bones up to 30,000 years only. Collagen contains carbon. Carbon dating is accurate up to 0.001 pMC or 74,000 years. What they’ve found in New Mexico was not tested for collagen protein. Why? Same results might come out like the one they’ve found “from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.”

 

[jonathan180iq]

Where is the 66 millions of years came from before the KT extinction if 14C dating says “Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.”

Very simply, your link is little more than....

Please read the other links to see why.

 

[JM2C]

Tenet usually have religious undertone...And this being a religious education forum, I would assume when you say tenet also mean religious "dogma", and agnosticism don't have any dogma.


If you want to ask me if I have any principle, moral or ethic that I have, then used one of these words instead of tenet.

I have qualifications in civil engineering and computer science, so my scientific background, based on practical science, hence the Bachelor of Applied Science. And even though I find theoretical physics very exciting, it is not fields of expertise, so I tends to learn more on experimental science, in which empirical evidences to go with any idea, view, hypothesis or theory.

With this resume I assumed that you knew the meaning of the word “tenet”.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Can someone help you understand the difference between 30,000 years and 66 millions of years? Collagen protein stays in the dinosaur bones up to 30,000 years only. Collagen contains carbon. Carbon dating is accurate up to 0.001 pMC or 74,000 years. What they’ve found in New Mexico was not tested for collagen protein. Why? Same results might come out like the one they’ve found “from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.”

You answered your own question. Why did they not test the estimated 66 million year old bone with techniques that only are accurate up to 30k years? Because that would be a huge waste of time. They, instead, used the correct dating methods to date the fossils.

And can you link me to the site where you got those "results" of recent Dinosaurs? I found two so far that were thrown out because of fraudulence. I have a strong feeling the rest are as well. I am also concerned that scientists aren't the ones doing these tests but rather advocates for creationism who are intentionally misusing the methods to get these wacky results. Which would explain why they were thrown out as frauds. I won't assume that yet until I get the links to the sources.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What I meant is from K-Ar and Rb-Sr from the 50s. Uranium to lead dating is the latest as there is no new method to replace it.

This is simply not true. I don't know how else to say it.

There are dozens of dating methods.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The limitations of each method are known by the scientists who use those methods, the same scientists who are much more experienced than you or I in the field of radiometric dating. To assume that a handful of uneducated, biased, theologians knows more about the science of dating that the actual scientists, whose personal credibility and entire careers are based on accuracy and transparency, is foolish.

 

[JM2C]

Very simply, your link is little more than....



Please read the other links to see why.

I think I Should stop responding to you guys since you run out of things to say, because I’m just making a fool out of myself debating with people, I thought have more knowledge than me, but end up just making childish comments. Wiki’s must be burning hot today with all you guys scratching for an answer but can’t find one. Gotcha all, didn’t I?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think I Should stop responding to you guys since you run out of things to say, because I’m just making a fool out of myself debating with people, I thought have more knowledge than me, but end up just making childish comments. Wiki’s must be burning hot today with all you guys scratching for an answer but can’t find one. Gotcha all, didn’t I?

I know I have given full answers so far and so have many others. They aren't the answers you seem to be looking for. Perhaps you can re-phrase your questions because I have answered two of them already in full with no response.

 

[Curious George]

I think I Should stop responding to you guys since you run out of things to say, because I’m just making a fool out of myself debating with people, I thought have more knowledge than me, but end up just making childish comments. Wiki’s must be burning hot today with all you guys scratching for an answer but can’t find one. Gotcha all, didn’t I?

Umm. None of my info came from any wiki. But thanks. Address my posts. And btw what study are you looking at? And which fossils are you talking about?

 

[gnostic]

With this resume I assumed that you knew the meaning of the word “tenet”.

Tenet can have different meaning, and I thought you were speaking of religious tenet, hence "dogma".

And you are one to talk about resume.

You argue with others here, as if you know everything about science, but you have no qualifications to speak of:

I don’t have any qualification at all. Yes, I do pray a lot.

And you're a bl@@@ hypocrite and a fraud, who talk of Meyer's qualifications should be respected, even though what he speak on the subject of biologist that he doesn't have qualification in (like biology), and yet you ignored qualified biologists or dismissed their view because they accept evolution.

Yes, go and pray, if you don't want to learn science. You clearly don't, since you wrote this:

I think I Should stop responding to you guys since you run out of things to say, because I’m just making a fool out of myself debating with people, I thought have more knowledge than me, but end up just making childish comments. Wiki’s must be burning hot today with all you guys scratching for an answer but can’t find one. Gotcha all, didn’t I?

You just a troll.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think I Should stop responding to you guys since you run out of things to say, because I’m just making a fool out of myself debating with people, I thought have more knowledge than me, but end up just making childish comments. Wiki’s must be burning hot today with all you guys scratching for an answer but can’t find one. Gotcha all, didn’t I?

I provided you plenty more than a wiki-link and you responded by asking why a couple of people, using a flawed dating method, discovered dinosaurs to be only 60,000 years old...

When that is your rebuttal, you obviously have no idea the content or the context of the question you are asking.

And just as an aside, you can poke fun at wiki-links all you want. That's a fair critique. But your own substantiating arguments came from non-contiguous verses of Genesis and a non-scientific article that stated falsehoods.... You don't see how that's a little duplicitous? It's at best ignorant and dishonest.

 

[outhouse]

because I’m just making a fool out of myself debating with people,

Then change how you ask questions, and you might not have this problem.

 

[outhouse]

Can someone help you understand the difference between 30,000 years and 66 millions of years? Collagen protein stays in the dinosaur bones up to 30,000 years only. Collagen contains carbon. Carbon dating is accurate up to 0.001 pMC or 74,000 years. What they’ve found in New Mexico was not tested for collagen protein. Why? Same results might come out like the one they’ve found “from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.”

When one always uses pseudoscience to look for answers, one always has pseudoscientific conclusions.

You don't use Carbon, in such cases when its not accurate in said application, when there are many other very accurate methods.

You know this, you just refuse credible science in favor of perverted pseudoscience.

 

[metis]

Even if the dating was supposedly that contentious, even without it the fossil record alone indicates that there's been an evolutionary process and that we humans have been in it. It;s just plain old common sense matched with what we've observed.

 

[dust1n]

I have read this already. They are all over the internet, our main source of info. This is what I’ve been saying, C&P and pretend we knew everything already.

I want to go back to my question again, ‘cause maybe you did not understand. Here we go again. By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from? The answer is there were no standard studies on age assignments but their own skewed millions of years doctrine. The U-Pb dating is the latest technology on measuring fossilized dinosaur bone found in New Mexico. If you will do a research on this, you will find out yourself that palaeontologists will have to revise their theories on the end of the dinosaurs, the KT extinction. IOW, evolutionist’s skewed millions of years doctrines were not accurate to begin with. Did they check if the dinosaur bones that they’ve found in New Mexico contain collagen protein? No, they did not. Collagen protein could remain in the bones for 30,000 years and collagen contains carbon. A half-life of Carbon can be tested up to 5700 years.

Why they did not check for collagen protein? Are they afraid that they might find the truth about their millions of years doctrines were nothing lies? YES!

First of all, you say "revise their theories" as if a terrible thing I should be concerned with. I support revise theories when new evidence suggests revision is necessary.

Second of all, if U-Pb dating doesn't work, than Carbon dating wouldn't work. The same principles of physics and chemistry dictate the viability of all radiometric dating. So suggesting that carbon dating would be reliable when U-Pb dating wouldn't be would be a contradiction. All radiometric dating is basically consistent.

Lastly, I don't know what instance about what dinosaur when and where in New Mexico, because you didn't bother to link to anything about it.

 

[dust1n]

I don’t have any qualification at all. Yes, I do pray a lot.

Then the point of asking?

 

[metis]

Lastly, I don't know what instance about what dinosaur when and where in New Mexico, because you didn't bother to link to anything about it.

I Googled it and here's a link, but note that the specimens are from strata roughly 200 million years or older: Paleontology in New Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

another one-liner.

You have two one liners in a row.
What did Jesus say about hypocrites?

Please note that your blatant avoidance of the question was not ignored.

 

[McBell]

I think I Should stop responding to you guys since you run out of things to say, because I’m just making a fool out of myself debating with people, I thought have more knowledge than me, but end up just making childish comments. Wiki’s must be burning hot today with all you guys scratching for an answer but can’t find one. Gotcha all, didn’t I?

Is it that you do not find your childish comments childish because you sincerely believe them?

 

[David M]

Collagen protein stays in the dinosaur bones up to 30,000 years only.

Where is your evidence for this claim? Supply the peer-reviewed research that established that figure.

And no, "we didn't think it could last that long so we didn't bother looking" is not peer-reviewed research.