Gmountain Posted November 28, 2013 Author Share Posted November 28, 2013 Alright, here is the rule. This thread has nothing to do with creationism. It's is not going to turn into a creationism podium, nor is it going to address any religious belief. We are talking about a scientific discovery and publication. If you don't like it, don't read the thread. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Spock Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 It would sure make rodeo's more exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gshayd Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I would rather clone Katy Perry...rawrrrrrrrrrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJefferson Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I would rather clone Katy Perry...rawrrrrrrrrrrr So how many you need to shoot you down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Spock Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I think I want to see Jurassic Park now. I haven't seen it in years, but I have seen it hundreds of times. I remember waiting in line to see it at theatres when I was 14. It is kind of a tired plot now, but back then it was an exciting premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gshayd Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 So how many you need to shoot you down? They always turn me down till I comb my eyebrows with my tongue For some reason they reconsider after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gshayd Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Its a good Movie if you have Dolby Surround Sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmor Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 I think I want to see Jurassic Park now. I haven't seen it in years, but I have seen it hundreds of times. I remember waiting in line to see it at theatres when I was 14. It is kind of a tired plot now, but back then it was an exciting premise. Then you are a young feller! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Enyart Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 (edited) Carbon 14 is a myth! Hello ES! Hey, a screenshot of your reply to Dieselfume has been posted to one of the most highly ranked pages online for googling: dinosaur bones and carbon 14 (or anything similar). Your reply was posted as an illustration of the countless times that people claim that Carbon 14 is evidence of million-year ages. However, 14c has a very brief half-life, and even though today's labs are so sophisticated that they are counting each 14c atom, the oldest Carbon 14 could theoretically date a specimen is only thousands of years, not one million, and so of course not 68 million. Of course your second question could be: "Well then, do they find 14c in dinosaur bones?" Yes. Carbon 14 is EVERYWHERE it shoudn't be if the Earth were more than just thousands of years old, as implied by Dieselfume. These observations are not easily refuted, not by claims of contamination, nor by claims of neutron capture (as is easy to find out about). Thanks for your consideration. -Bob Enyart Real Science Radio & KGOV Radio Edited November 29, 2013 by Bob Enyart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmor Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Hello ES! Hey, a screenshot of your reply to Dieselfume has been posted to one of the most highly ranked pages online for googling: dinosaur bones and carbon 14 (or anything similar). Your reply was posted as an illustration of the countless times that people claim that Carbon 14 is evidence of million-year ages. However, 14c has a very brief half-life, and even though today's labs are so sophisticated that they are counting each 14c atom, the oldest Carbon 14 could theoretically date a specimen is only thousands of years, not one million, and so of course not 68 million. Of course your second question could be: "Well then, do they find 14c in dinosaur bones?" Yes. Carbon 14 is EVERYWHERE it shoudn't be if the Earth were more than just thousands of years old, as implied by Dieselfume. These observations are not easily refuted, not by claims of contamination, nor by claims of neutron capture (as is easy to find out about). Thanks for your consideration. -Bob Enyart Real Science Radio & KGOV Radio It is good to see a truly psuedo scientific view here, presented by no other than #651 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. You must be very proud of your designation by them as a "zealous bag of bigotry and denial" , well done Bob..........you must be very proud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgtar15 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Spock Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Welcome to the forum pastor. I am actually familiar with your show. I am flattered to be digitally immortalized on a Creation Science website and delighted to meet you. Radiometric dating isn't all that controversial, or it shouldn't be. People become fixated with carbon-14, when in reality there are other methods already addressed for dating fossilized material. Uranium-238, Uranium-235 and Potassium-40, are what scientists use to date fossils and rock. We can also determine age by geologic stratum and molecular dating. All methods you will likely find objectionable because they conflict with a preconceived notion of how old you want the Earth to be, respectfully. Even if the half-life of carbon 14 is only shy of 6,000 years, so even at 50,000 years it still debunks the chronologies of New Earth Creationism. (roughly 6,000 years) Does your vehicle run on fossil fuels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Enyart Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Not to get this religion bash side tracked, but I'm shaking my head on this story. Its kind of so what? They've found some proteins and claim its from the T Rex and anything T Rex makes the news. Its not DNA or real tissue (muscles, skin, even marrow). They're happy they found iron in the red stain. Without the sample history, as far as anyone knows somebody sneezed. BTW, then the story, totally the author creation, goes on to say DNA activity. Please, that would mean living cells. ... They didn't claim tissue. Tj Hi TJ! Many science journals are reporting original biological material from dinos, and from Archaeopteryx and a mosasaur including Nature, Science, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Public Library of Science, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Bone, and the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. So far in these fossils they've documented blood vessels, red blood cells, different proteins including collagen and hemoglobin, and even decomposing dinosaur DNA (from a T. rex and a hadrosaur). These fossils also have a lot of the kinds of atoms and amino acids that only last thousands of years, similar to what we find in Egyptian mummies, all of which is scientific evidence that these creatures did not die out millions of years ago but only recently. Surviving biological material has been found from hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, and T. rex. If you Google: dinosaur soft tissue, ranked among the first few pages will be a chronological catalog of all the published papers, with links and excerpts. -Bob Enyart Real Science Radio & KGOV Radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Spock Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart Hmm, at least the OJ Simpson thing is kind of cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Spock Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts