"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
i challenge you to a game 2 morrow morning at 9 am on yahoo chess. I will post the results here in comments with the move by move record of the game for all to see @kauzmic1
@kauzmic1 Okay, I have the table set up in Yahoo Chess, Intermediate Blitz, table #1.
I have the time constraint set at 5 minutes with no delay if that's okay with you. We can change it if you like though. You should email the results of to your friends after the game as I will be posting a the move list to my blog...If you show up of course.
@kauzmic1 Well, I like chess as well and as a U.S. Chess Federation Coach have taught it both as a sport and as an art form for the past 10 years so I would be most happy to teach you to play...in any time zone. The time zone could have been deduced from the time stamp on the comment and the email you received.
The point of the quote is to insult creationists' logical skill and sportsmanship. As both a chess coach and as a creationist myself I am twice insulted.
@hugenex2000 I already know how to play chess, thanks. And the time stamp on my e-mail and your post correlate to one another, but that still doesn't tell me anything about your time zone.
First they say that it's "biofilm," only a few thousand years old. Well, hey, wouldn't that be helpful in determining if it is "biofilm" or not?
I mean, if evo's believe their own press, then why not carbon-date it, and if it comes back a few thousand years old, then poof. That proves that it's "biofilm." (by their way of thinking).
But somehow they get away with both: saying that it's biofilm, and also saying that it cannot be carbon dated because it's too old. LOL.
You should just look up radiometric dating. Or at least go to Wikipedia or something. Radiometric dating is not used on sedimentary rock to determine the age of that layer.
Lets say that u find uranium with lead isotopes. What does that tell you? Perhaps it tells you how long ago the super-nova formed the uranium, but little else (presupposing that uranium is formed 100% pure).
C14 has a calibration date that is more or less certain.
@RomansGalatians oh and by the way, you started with the name calling by claiming I was a liar and a 'liberal' which you clearly mean in a derogatory way.
Bob, if ur listening, i used to follow ur program in South Bend way back in the 90's. You moved, though. Sounds like you're still fighting on the front lines.
Don't know about that open theism stuff, though. Hope to win you over to Reformed Theology before it's all over.
Great job on the phone call: humble yet assertive.
This is insane. The person harassing Horner is disrespectful and unintelligent. The fossil will not have C-14 in it, and if it DOES it isn't from the Rex. These people are trying to make themselves look correct and they are ABSOLUTELY ignorant and should stop doing this kind of stuff to people who have better things to do. Just because you do a talk show doesn't mean you are smart. Idiots.
@makairu "The fossil will not have C-14 in it, and if it DOES it isn't from the Rex." And Evolutionists thought that dinosaur bones didn't have organic material.
And they already had their explanation: "biofilm" or "contamination".
Man. Instead of telling us what we will find. Why would it hurt just to look?
@RomansGalatians Because, Horner has had to deal with these people before, obviously. If they do find C-14 which they WILL, it WILL be from contamination. It simply just doesn't last that long. Theses people will use the information and twist it. I am not arguing with you because your youtube username shows what kind of person you are. There is no reason to look. thats like saying why would it hurt to pick up a telescope and scan the heavens looking for a man on a throne?
@makairu Well, it wouldn't hurt to scan the heavens looking . . . and what you find is what you find.
You see my name and see that I have presuppositions, therefore you want no discussion?
Well, what about your presuppositions? They keep you from looking at evidence!
If a very young date came back, it would be very hard to explain away by contamination. And if contamination is so prevalent, even in material encased in minerals, when would a sample NOT be contaminated?!
@RomansGalatians Do you understand how idiotic you sound? there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to date things. We use isotopes that have long half lives. Using that we can tell how old rock is, and therefor how old fossils in it are. We can even see where the sediments are from. If a young date came back, it would be OBVIOUS contamination. So we use isotopes that can't be contaminants.
@RomansGalatians Furthermore, there are no presuppositions because it has already been dated with other isotopes. Stop arguing, you aren't making sense.
@makairu Dating sediment would be completely meaningless because that sediment could have come from anywhere, and would be no indication of that layer. That is why they do not do radio isotope dating on sedimentary rock.
@makairu Igneous and metamorphic rock must be what you meant, being a geologist and all.
Why do Liberals always feel compelled to lie about their credentials? Just make your argument. If it's sound then it stands. I don't care about your credentials anyway.
@RomansGalatians Okay,get this straight idiot. The sediments have to be around before the rocks form. By dating the sediments we get an idea of where they come from. ALSO, I AM NOT lying about my credentials. Furthermore, you don't know if I am liberal or not. Talk about presuppositions. Obviously I can't argue with you because once again you don't understand what you are arguing against.
@makairu You need to grow up with the name calling.
You should just look up radiometric dating. Or at least go to Wikipedia or something. Radiometric dating is not used on sedimentary rock to determine the age of that layer.
Lets say that u find uranium with lead isotopes. What does that tell you? Perhaps it tells you how long ago the super-nova formed the uranium, but little else (presupposing that uranium is formed 100% pure).
C14 has a calibration date that is more or less certain.
@makairu "This rock layer was formed sometime after 3 billion years ago." Hey, that's really helpful. Not.
Note: I don't believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have no idea how uranium is formed at all to begin with. Thus, to assume that it forms 100% pure is just conjecture.
But even if we could make such an assumption, it would only give us the broadest sketch of the outside age of a rock layer. It wouldn't help us in dating rock layers relative to one another.
@makairu It's like trying to determine who won a race. Did car A or car B cross the finish line first. And some genius comes in and says: "Well, we know that car A crossed the finish line SOMETIME AFTER CARS WERE INVENTED."
@makairu Let's suppose we have rock on Mountain A with isotopes that date to 1.5 billion years old, and we have Mountain B rock that dates 1 billion.
Okay, 900 million years pass. Then a river flows (because of climate cycles completely unrelated to the age of the mountains) and wears down the younger mountain first, and lays down a layer.
Then you have a change in the course of a river and sediment is drawn from Mountain A. The later dated sediment will be on top of the younger dated.
@RomansGalatians You do realize that deductive reasoning can be used. if we have layer a on top of layer b and a is metamorphic we can use it to date b by relevance, date b using radiometric dating and then see where layer b came from. It is simple really.
@makairu Right, but we are straying from the original point. We cannot use radiometric dating to date the sedimentary layer where B-Rex was found, contrary to your previous assertion.
@RomansGalatians Circular argument is circular. Enough said. clearly I will never be able to pull your head out of God's ass for you to listen. It is juvenile to think you are using scientific reasoning and it is juvenile to think a Tyrannosaurus Rex is only a few thousand years old. Reply all you want, I am done responding as you aren't even worth my time.
@makairu B-Rex was found very near the surface, and I highly doubt that there was a metamorphic layer laying on top of the sedimentary layers, there. If you have evidence of such, it certainly would be new to everyone in the world.
Or option, two, there is no metamorphic layer above the B-Rex layer, and you are just making baseless conjecture because you have no such evidence.
Scientists are not as objective as most people think or as they claim to be. Most scientists must work within the paradigm of their field. The paradigm determines how they are "allowed" to interpret the evidence. The peer review process only deepens the psychological need to conform to the majority view. Think of it as a game with the rules decided by their governing bodies. The current scientific paradigm assumes that the last of dinosaurs went extinct at least 65 million years ago.
Thomas Kuhn believed that scientists are entrenched within a certain way of seeing things, and this clouds their vision (they tend to see what they expect to see). Mary Schweitzer and her team are not trying to be deceptive; they're just limited by the current scientific 'paradigm'. All evidence shows that the bones can't be 75 million years old; but the bones 'have' to be 75,000,000 years old since dinos only went extinct 65 mil yrs ago, at least according to the existing paradigm.
@jdoe444 You are right, the date of the 70 million year old fossil was never questioned. Why? Becasue it is so well documented. There is no evidence showing it is not old, They did NOT find 'red blood cells' or 'fresh' anything.
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
I'm not sure if this phone call is the best prank call ever... or ... something more sinister. I'm not sure how to even respond to how this actually works... or why this actually works.
^ This is the case. Doing C-14 dating on material means you have to have C-14 in measurable quantities to compare against the daughter product, C-12. The half-life of C-14 is only about 5700 years, so if the sample is 70 million years old, the amount of C-14 is cut in half about 12,000 times. At that point there's no C-14 left to compare to the C-12. Creationists hope to use the expected sporadic results of the dating as proof the world is ~6000 years old.
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
For a sample more than 60,000 years old, the additional carbon-14 from contamination would give you a result older than 60,000 years old (take that, creationists) but not at "infinity."
I really don't understand how anyone can't listen to this conversation without feeling ridiculously embarrassed for Mr. Eynart. In addition to sounding smug and condescending the whole time (while clearly mentally outclassed) his attempts to interject his thoughts into the conversation and prove his understanding of the topic are just sad. Really, really sad.
@protocollie What part of sending them 20,000 dollars is so difficult for you to understand for a test that cost almost nothing these days? If there is tissue in this "fossil" then it cannot be a fossil. Do you even understand what this conversation was about? To test remains is science. To hold back on testing is Evodelusionism the religion of Evotards.
@GoodScienceForYou Most of the specimen IS fossilized. A small portion inside the hermetically sealed container is not. This definitely did not happen in less in than 6000 years. Radiocarbon dating only works within limited parameters. Creatards even testify to that when they cite papers telling other scientists what the limits of the dating technique are and how going beyond those limits will produce useless data.
@foxlake02 If you were to die today and most of your specimen were to fossilize in 6000 years, they would excavate you and date you a being the same age as the dirt you fell in..... Until they carbon date the hermetically sealed tissue. Any real scientists will tell you this. That is why jack does not want anyone to carbon date it. Any real scientist will tell you this.
Don't need to go beyond those limits because the tissue will obviously be much younger than the dirt.
@GoodScienceForYou Absolute bullshit. They would not date my "specimen" by the dirt I fell in and my bones would not be fossilized in 6000 years. You only show your ignorance of the topic with posts like that. Your silly videos are a joke.
@foxlake02 Do you know anything about fossilization? Do you know what the chemical process is? Do you know that scientists have fossilized wood in less than one hour in a lab? Fossilization is a chemical process. It is not as dependent on as much time as you believe.
@GoodScienceForYou "Do you know what the chemical process is?" There are actually many ways in which fossilization occurs. Permineralization may occurred in relatively short time when accelerated in a lab environment but not with replacement. The soft tissue remnants you are discussing are exclusively from fluvial sandstone environments. It's possible that the vessels represent altered remnants of the original lipid components of cell membranes and not the original material at all.
@foxlake02 It is possible that this contains C-14 that can be dated also. These morons will do anything to keep their jobs. When someone is paid to teach mythology, then it is difficult for them to even want to accept reality.
@GoodScienceForYou Why don't you let them work on their findings and see what it actually is? Even if there was C14 it would give FALSE readings. That's what Horner is trying to tell you guys. Go back to your whiteboard and STFU.
@foxlake02 If you were to think for even 1 second, which I don't think you can. The minute they opened that capsule is when they should have sent ti for carbon 14 dating. Any sane ethical person without an agenda to hide evidence would have done just that.
What I love is how someone is completely prepared, wired, and barbed to try and net somebody is met by a sleepy person with a very simple, sleepy, but intellectually solid mentality. Science makes everything so much easier. So much easier. You can rip people apart, tear away their sad, fragile hopes, because of something so much more structurally sound.
So basically, you have one group of creationists saying 'C14 date the soft tissue' as to prove some point.. and then you have other groups of creationists saying that carbon 14 dating is flawed due to a biblical flood. No wonder Mr Horner doesnt want to deal with this. Any outcome is going to be used to support your views, not the facts.
2:50 - Just because DNA turns out to be able to survive 65 millions years, why does that suddenly mean it's younger than 65 million years old, and that a deity created it?
@6Vital6Remains6, not just amino acids, but even flexible transparent branching blood vessels containing an ooze that Dr. Schweitzer was able to squeeze out like toothpaste, and inside were the easily identifiable remains of red blood cells even showing nuclei typical of reptiles. Scientists studied Egyptian mummies to determine how long biological materials might last in extremely good conditions. See much more including C14 EVERYWHERE! at KGOV . com/list
Can anyone tell me why the Carbon 14 test does not work on anything too old? Or is it just not a convenient truth that ALL dating techniques have flaws????
@Proteched ...... There's this little thing called a "radioactive half life." If you have even a basic understanding of how radiometric dating works, you'll be able to make the connection.
@BoredInfidel Tell me, who created "this little idea"? Let me guess....a scientist who can only possibly know so much, which, well, is evidently not enough.
@Proteched because C14 has a half life of about 5700 years and decays too much to be reasonably measureable by 60,000ish years. Dude you could have found that out with a google search instead of resorting to the global satanic science conspiracy thing.
My favorite line, in the whole conversation that exposes everything is "your group is obviously a group of creationists and the spin they can get off of it is not gonna help US" What "spin" could he possibly be referring to? If the test results came back as he assumes with no Carbon 14 and undateable how could Creationists "spin" that to their advantage? Unless the results came back that the specimen did contain Carbon 14 and dated far younger then what they assumed. In that case I do agree.
@vader974 This is one of the reasons I believe that they already know that there is Carbon 14 in the specimen and simply don't want to have to explain why it's there, neither do they want anyone else, especially creationists, to know it's there. Good point 'Vader974'.
@hugenex2000 There's a fundamental lunacy of this statement; if a scientist was able to prove without a doubt that the earth is, in fact, 6,000 years old, they would win a Nobel prize for doing so. They would be celebrated for finding new information which better explains the nature of everything; science praises that, it doesn't try to hide from information which runs counter to accepted knowledge. Unlike another institution, which cannot thrive, or even survive, open, questioning discussion.
@vader974 The result are meaningless and could come back with any results with is what the creatards would love. Look at the big deal they made out of Mary saying ''soft tissure'' and ''looked like red blood cells'' Creationists think she found flesh and blood. She didn't.
@vader974 Listen to what Horner says. The test is invalid. IF it came back with C14 in it that would mean nothing but creatards would 'spin' it into something.
C14 does not work on fossils, most of the fossil is rock.
Let me ask this. If Jack and Mary were trying to hide the fact that these tissues were younger than they say.. why in the world would they have exposed them to the world to begin with?
@mosoi148 You are asking me to speculate about why people do what they do. It is clear from what they have said publicly that they believe these soft tissue fossils are millions of years old. But, it is also clear that they are NOT free to ask the question, any question, that challenges their position even if it's testable. Jack was the technical advisor for all of the Jurassic Park films and as such probably made a lot of money. This may have a great deal to do with it.
@hugenex2000 ''they are NOT free to ask the question ... Bull Shit. Scientists ask questions all the time. You are free to get an ecucation and ask the question. Go for it !
@hugenex2000 ''even if it's testable.'' The test does not work on fossils. IF Carbon was in the sample the Creatards would jump all over it like it meant something when it would mean nothing. The test is not valid. You are already comdeming him just for refusing the test.
@hugenex2000 It IS testable, but not with C14 dating. If you were to ask me to put a gallon of water in a quarter gallon container, I could do it in theory, but it would be a mess and even though I'd wind up with a container full of water, it wouldn't be the gallon I started with. It's pointless and wasteful. There are MANY kinds of radioisotope dating, based on different elements' radioactive decay, that work over different time periods based on the half lives of those elements.
@mosoi148 Gosh, man. No one is claiming dishonesty by Horner. We are simply showing how his presupposition is driving his belief, to the extent that he refuses to examine the evidence.
Evolutionists always claim that we are charging "conspiracy" or dishonesty. It really is just silly. What we ARE saying is that Evolutionists refuse to examine the evidence because they already "know" the answer. We are charging them with being closed minded and unscientific, not dishonest.
@Eaglewing17 No, because he's smart enough to know that carbon dating requires, y'know...carbon. He doesn't know what the soft tissue is made of exactly, or why it is soft. Carbon 14 cannot exist in anything older than x time, so if tested, the results will be off. Also, because these soft tissues were only found in B-tex (one specimen who died while she was gravid), the readings would all be the same, so there's no comparison of variable on that part of the experiment, rendering it useless.
But of course, carbon dating requires, y'know carbon. So, how is it that they found and analyzed proteins in the specimen but found no carbon when carbon is a major component of proteins? And, how is it that they don't know what it is when it can be seen very well what it is. It's simple, they can't test it for carbon 14 because they know it's there and if they test it then they would have to explain it, and they can't do that.
There is soft tissue in these fossils which has been found to contain DNA fragments and proteins very similar to chickens and ostridge. Both DNA and proteins contain carbon as a major component. Now, to say that these specimens do NOT contain carbon is an outright deception. Are you saying that T-rex did not breathe air?
@hugenex2000 I am saying that to date something with Carbon 14 Dating it has to be C14 that was taken in from the Air. Carbon 14 dating only works on things that are younger than 70,000 years, The fossil is 70,000,000 years old. TEN TIMES TOO OLD.
They date ash layers above and below the fossil to get a date range.
This looks like the same recording I had on my My Space profile, which the video is somehow no longer in existence :(, only this one has graphics added... making it better. I thinking, the owner of the recording had it deleted from my profile.
This is fantastic evidence that evolution is a HOAX, and Jack Horner knows it. If ANY Carbon-14 is found in the soft tissue, that would PROVE the T-Rex is less than 100,000 yrs. old, because the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5700 yrs.
Cont... Actually, I found the recording I uploaded on MySpace. It wasn't showing up in my uploads for some reason, but, I found it when I Googled it. The recording I uploaded is longer (9 mins. 12 secs.). If interested, it can be heard at (with no graphics)...
myspace . com /video/darwinsmyth/darwinist-fears-carbon-14-testing-on-t-rex-soft-tissue/63686211
I found the recording of the phone call when I searched to see if anyone had ever tested for carbon 14 in this soft tissue fossil. It had originally occurred to me a couple of years ago that if the fossil was only a few thousand years old as creationists believe (not millions of years) then there should be C14 in it. I was shocked to find out that not only had no one tested it but that the evolutionists refuse to test it. Sound like they are hiding something.
@hugenex2000 carbon dating has already proved the earth far older than creationists believe in many instances. And dinosaur bone has been carbon dated but yielded no results hence it wasn't published or picked up by the media because it only proved what we already knew. In fact B-rex's soft tissue wasn't picked up by the media until five years after its discovery. (if you did your research you would know this)
@hugenex2000 radiocarbon dated mammoth and mastodon bones in the range of 23,560 to 36,000 years BP, recently Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered in Glendive Montana and our group received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for Carbon 14 testing and no collagen existed to be dated for the bio-apatite of the bone had been completely deteriorated. As far as the Carboniferous beds I ask the same of you.
Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego: "Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body....Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules."
Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab."
All you have are excuses and stonewalling to hide the lies upon which Evolution is based. They can't run the test because it would reveal the truth, something you can not afford to do at any cost because the truth would destroy your theory. So, you must hide behind excuses and reassert the lies all the while hoping nobody notices the sheer cowardice behind the walls of deception. Until they run the test it has yet to be seen that they have a car.
@hugenex2000 lets assume they would radiometric date it, and it turns out to be younger.
what then? it merely means that this sample is not genuine and is most probably not from a T-rex.
Which is by the way suspected, or at least was suspected by a lot scientists. That is also a reason why a independent study was requested, and was done in 2009. So far it counts as genuine. There are enough scientists that would point out any wrong doing. Evolution is not resting on this case.
@Aanthanur What then? Follow the evidence. It means what it means. This is not the only soft tissue fossil, it isn't even the second or third. A wide variety of specimens not covered in the media have been found. What next? Test them all, find the pattern. But of course they can't do that, or rather won't do that, because they know that if flies in the face of Evolution theory.
@hugenex2000 and have you tried to get a sample of those other soft tissues?
and do you really believe all the fields of science dealing with Evolution are conspired to make the world believe in evolution? isn't that ab bit crazy`? and evidence for this?
@Aanthanur I personally have not tried to get any samples. The attempt has been to test the sample in question, which they won't. Have they conspired? Probably, but I have neither the time nor the resources to pursue such a conspiracy claim. What I have is a prediction, that if we test for C14 we will find it and it will show that these fossils are less than 50,000 years old, probably much less.
@hugenex2000 so you believe the sample is a fake? and is not from a t-rex or do you believe a T-rex was alive 50 000 years ago? Have you any evidence for your suspicions? Is there any other evidence that would point into that direction.
You ask what evidence there is that would make me assume T-rex were alive just a few thousand years ago? Did you even watch the video you are commenting on? Soft tissue in the form of blood vessels and collagen protein were found in a T-rex thigh bone. This is in direct contradiction to everything that we know about how cells and proteins break down meaning this sample is no more than a few thousand years old, NOT millions. They got caught in a lie.
@hugenex2000 once you can prove the sample is not as old as they think it to be you could make the claim of lies. but sofar this is merely your oppinion. And as long you don't know for sure, you wouldn't want to baer false witness, now do you?
They've very likely been testing it all these years, but like all studies of this sort it takes years to formulate a probable hypothesis to be submitted to peer review so other scientists can examin it themselves. Something creationists try to overlook because they know they can't take criticism.
@hugenex2000 probably not as Kent Hovind, he doesn't believe C14 dating works. Considering he believes the world not to be older than 8000 years he also must believe tree ring dating doesn't work as those go back beyond some 10 000 years.....
@hugenex2000 that is why i say you need a own theory. or at least find a really contradictory fossil yourself.
Even if this proteins turn out to be fake. and who knows, it might be fake.
What does that do to the theory of Evolution? nothing, it would not even destroy the other evidence linking birds with Dinos. Nor would it in any way touch the evidence linking Humans to Apes. you are removing a little stone from a mountain of evidence.
Where there is protein there is carbon and mass spec analysis revealed collagen bone matrix among other things so there is carbon in it. You would have known that had you done your homework. See the video response to this one, "T-rex Protein".
@Aanthanur How could you possibly know that there was no C14 in it if they won't test it? Carbon 14 does indeed decay into Nitrogen 14 at a known rate, that much is true. If the specimen is as old as you think it is then there should be no C14 in the sample because it should have decayed by now.
My favorite part "So you are saying that carbon 14 dating is not scientific....uh that's what I am trying to say..." So much for all the pompous talk of peer review journals and grandstanding about science. It is clear that evolution is philosophical belief about origins that is religiously adhered to by those claiming to be scientist.
@SHIBBYiPANDA You must understand that their behavior is NOT motivated by disinterested discovery. It is motivated by supporting a theory which allows their system of beliefs to thrive. From the embryonic stages of their undergraduate education these men and women have been nursed on the premise the evolution = science and those who reject it a religious fanatics. However, when they find that the evidence does not add up, they are forced to engage in strange behavior.
This is what happens when a evolutionist scientist minding his own business accidentally opens up the biggest can of evolution falseifiable worms in a century.
"We're still trying to figure out what it is" has got to be the biggest joke. A simple amino-acid sequencer found at a community college could tell him pretty quick which type of protein it is.
More like "We're still trying to figure out how we expalin this good so that our theory does look like @^%#$^@%#$"
@rdseheult They already know what kind of protein it is yet they still refuse to accept the evidence and even worse they lie about it here in this interview by saying "there has to be carbon in it" when he knows perfectly well that there is carbon in it because carbon is a major component of the protein found in it. He lies when he says they are trying to figure out what it is because they know what it is BUT it flies in the face of everything they believe.
@drshamast But that's just proving that science is about how critical thinking and skepticism is healthy for science. And besides, assumptions are not the same league of evidence.
There are assumptions concerning carbon dating, you are correct about that, and those assumptions should be well acknowledged and accounted for within the parameters of science. I have a prediction as do other biblical creationists but we do not have access to the fossils in question to have the tests done and apparently never will. I'm ok with it though, the fact that they refuse to run the test speaks volumes.
"It should be not dateable. In other words, it should not come back saying it's 25,000 years old."
It might, due to contamination.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to call the curator of the Louvre and offer them 10,000 dollars to perform dendrochronological dating on the wooden backing of the Mona Lisa. (For science.) Because I don't think she's hundreds of years old.
LOL@ these guys. Objective science is the last thing evolutionists are interested in.
IDScience 22 hours ago
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
kauzmic1 3 weeks ago
i challenge you to a game 2 morrow morning at 9 am on yahoo chess. I will post the results here in comments with the move by move record of the game for all to see @kauzmic1
hugenex2000 3 weeks ago
@kauzmic1 Okay, I have the table set up in Yahoo Chess, Intermediate Blitz, table #1.
I have the time constraint set at 5 minutes with no delay if that's okay with you. We can change it if you like though. You should email the results of to your friends after the game as I will be posting a the move list to my blog...If you show up of course.
hugenex2000 3 weeks ago
@hugenex2000 Well, I like chess but haven't played in a few years so you will most likely win, but...you never mentioned which time zone.
Also, the point of the quote is not to dis actual chess playing skills.
kauzmic1 3 weeks ago
@kauzmic1 Well, I like chess as well and as a U.S. Chess Federation Coach have taught it both as a sport and as an art form for the past 10 years so I would be most happy to teach you to play...in any time zone. The time zone could have been deduced from the time stamp on the comment and the email you received.
The point of the quote is to insult creationists' logical skill and sportsmanship. As both a chess coach and as a creationist myself I am twice insulted.
So, you decline my challenge?
hugenex2000 3 weeks ago
@hugenex2000 I already know how to play chess, thanks. And the time stamp on my e-mail and your post correlate to one another, but that still doesn't tell me anything about your time zone.
kauzmic1 3 weeks ago
Look at the clock in your time zone and see what time it is because regardless of the zone it is NOW in both. Then sync and subtract.
So, You know how to play but you will not play so are you all talk and no game @kauzmic1
hugenex2000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Young Earth Creationists are the biggest nitwits on the planet.
odinata 1 month ago
They didn't find any flesh or blood cells just breakdown products.
THE FOSSILS IS STILL 70 MILLION YEARS OLD.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz "THE FOSSILS IS . . ." maybe you ought to go back to grammar school first, and then take Biology 101, next, you retard.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@gregrutz Hey, dipshit, you like to make up evidence, don't you?
"Duh, we know B-Rex's age because there's an ash layer above it that was radiometrically dated." Stupid liar.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
Comment removed
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RomansGalatians
What you need is a boot up your ass.
odinata 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians And what YOU, stupid creatard, need is a mental therapy and the bitchslap by your own ignorance ROFL
2Pains1Love 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians violant asshole aren't you.
gregrutz 1 month ago
What part of ''It don't work'' doesn't he understand.
gregrutz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First they say that it's "biofilm," only a few thousand years old. Well, hey, wouldn't that be helpful in determining if it is "biofilm" or not?
I mean, if evo's believe their own press, then why not carbon-date it, and if it comes back a few thousand years old, then poof. That proves that it's "biofilm." (by their way of thinking).
But somehow they get away with both: saying that it's biofilm, and also saying that it cannot be carbon dated because it's too old. LOL.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
You need to grow up with the name calling.
You should just look up radiometric dating. Or at least go to Wikipedia or something. Radiometric dating is not used on sedimentary rock to determine the age of that layer.
Lets say that u find uranium with lead isotopes. What does that tell you? Perhaps it tells you how long ago the super-nova formed the uranium, but little else (presupposing that uranium is formed 100% pure).
C14 has a calibration date that is more or less certain.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians oh and by the way, you started with the name calling by claiming I was a liar and a 'liberal' which you clearly mean in a derogatory way.
makairu 2 months ago
@makairu Well, I didn't name-call you a "liar", but I don't believe that you are a Geologist. That's not name calling, sir.
You just made silly obvious blunders, and then I looked at your youtube page and you look like ur in highschool.
And "liberal" isn't name calling. It is just what you are. I'm a conservative.
You have a lot of growing up to do.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@makairu And if you are looking for a circular arguments, you might check your assumptions:
Duh, I know that the B-Rex is 65 million years old because it is found in a rock layer that is 65 million years old.
Well, how do you know that?
Duh, because it has a 65 million year old dinosaur fossil in it!
THAT, sir, is circular reasoning.
Independently dating the organic material would break the circular reasoning, but you are terrified to look.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians No they date ash layers and know exactly when the dinosaurs lived and how fast they changed.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Gee, I didn't know that there were ash layers over B-Rex? That's funny because it almost sounds like you're making this up.
So which one, graynutz, is it biofilm or isn't it? And if it could be, wouldn't C14 dating help in identifying it as such?
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians Well just check out what I said above that got 21 thumbs up.
The dating method does not work on fossils. It was not bio-film, it was brakedown products.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Aw, well shit the bed, a dumb-assed liar finally admits that it's not biofilm.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians I never said it was bio film dip shit.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Bob, if ur listening, i used to follow ur program in South Bend way back in the 90's. You moved, though. Sounds like you're still fighting on the front lines.
Don't know about that open theism stuff, though. Hope to win you over to Reformed Theology before it's all over.
Great job on the phone call: humble yet assertive.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
This is insane. The person harassing Horner is disrespectful and unintelligent. The fossil will not have C-14 in it, and if it DOES it isn't from the Rex. These people are trying to make themselves look correct and they are ABSOLUTELY ignorant and should stop doing this kind of stuff to people who have better things to do. Just because you do a talk show doesn't mean you are smart. Idiots.
makairu 3 months ago
@makairu "The fossil will not have C-14 in it, and if it DOES it isn't from the Rex." And Evolutionists thought that dinosaur bones didn't have organic material.
And they already had their explanation: "biofilm" or "contamination".
Man. Instead of telling us what we will find. Why would it hurt just to look?
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians Because, Horner has had to deal with these people before, obviously. If they do find C-14 which they WILL, it WILL be from contamination. It simply just doesn't last that long. Theses people will use the information and twist it. I am not arguing with you because your youtube username shows what kind of person you are. There is no reason to look. thats like saying why would it hurt to pick up a telescope and scan the heavens looking for a man on a throne?
makairu 2 months ago
@makairu Well, it wouldn't hurt to scan the heavens looking . . . and what you find is what you find.
You see my name and see that I have presuppositions, therefore you want no discussion?
Well, what about your presuppositions? They keep you from looking at evidence!
If a very young date came back, it would be very hard to explain away by contamination. And if contamination is so prevalent, even in material encased in minerals, when would a sample NOT be contaminated?!
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians Do you understand how idiotic you sound? there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to date things. We use isotopes that have long half lives. Using that we can tell how old rock is, and therefor how old fossils in it are. We can even see where the sediments are from. If a young date came back, it would be OBVIOUS contamination. So we use isotopes that can't be contaminants.
makairu 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians Furthermore, there are no presuppositions because it has already been dated with other isotopes. Stop arguing, you aren't making sense.
Sincerely,
A Geologist.
makairu 2 months ago
@makairu So, what isotopes dated the sedimentary rock where the fossil was found, [clearing throat] Mr. Geologist?
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@makairu Dating sediment would be completely meaningless because that sediment could have come from anywhere, and would be no indication of that layer. That is why they do not do radio isotope dating on sedimentary rock.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@makairu Igneous and metamorphic rock must be what you meant, being a geologist and all.
Why do Liberals always feel compelled to lie about their credentials? Just make your argument. If it's sound then it stands. I don't care about your credentials anyway.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians Okay,get this straight idiot. The sediments have to be around before the rocks form. By dating the sediments we get an idea of where they come from. ALSO, I AM NOT lying about my credentials. Furthermore, you don't know if I am liberal or not. Talk about presuppositions. Obviously I can't argue with you because once again you don't understand what you are arguing against.
makairu 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@makairu You need to grow up with the name calling.
You should just look up radiometric dating. Or at least go to Wikipedia or something. Radiometric dating is not used on sedimentary rock to determine the age of that layer.
Lets say that u find uranium with lead isotopes. What does that tell you? Perhaps it tells you how long ago the super-nova formed the uranium, but little else (presupposing that uranium is formed 100% pure).
C14 has a calibration date that is more or less certain.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@makairu "This rock layer was formed sometime after 3 billion years ago." Hey, that's really helpful. Not.
Note: I don't believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have no idea how uranium is formed at all to begin with. Thus, to assume that it forms 100% pure is just conjecture.
But even if we could make such an assumption, it would only give us the broadest sketch of the outside age of a rock layer. It wouldn't help us in dating rock layers relative to one another.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@makairu It's like trying to determine who won a race. Did car A or car B cross the finish line first. And some genius comes in and says: "Well, we know that car A crossed the finish line SOMETIME AFTER CARS WERE INVENTED."
Well, thank you genius. Your point is duly noted.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@makairu Let's suppose we have rock on Mountain A with isotopes that date to 1.5 billion years old, and we have Mountain B rock that dates 1 billion.
Okay, 900 million years pass. Then a river flows (because of climate cycles completely unrelated to the age of the mountains) and wears down the younger mountain first, and lays down a layer.
Then you have a change in the course of a river and sediment is drawn from Mountain A. The later dated sediment will be on top of the younger dated.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians You do realize that deductive reasoning can be used. if we have layer a on top of layer b and a is metamorphic we can use it to date b by relevance, date b using radiometric dating and then see where layer b came from. It is simple really.
makairu 2 months ago
@makairu Right, but we are straying from the original point. We cannot use radiometric dating to date the sedimentary layer where B-Rex was found, contrary to your previous assertion.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
@RomansGalatians Circular argument is circular. Enough said. clearly I will never be able to pull your head out of God's ass for you to listen. It is juvenile to think you are using scientific reasoning and it is juvenile to think a Tyrannosaurus Rex is only a few thousand years old. Reply all you want, I am done responding as you aren't even worth my time.
makairu 2 months ago
@makairu B-Rex was found very near the surface, and I highly doubt that there was a metamorphic layer laying on top of the sedimentary layers, there. If you have evidence of such, it certainly would be new to everyone in the world.
Or option, two, there is no metamorphic layer above the B-Rex layer, and you are just making baseless conjecture because you have no such evidence.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
Inquirer: The presence of soft tissue seems to imply there might be C-14 left in the bone. Can we do a test?
Evolutionist: No! C-14 has a half-life of 5700 yrs. Much too short to date something that is 70,000,000 yrs old.
Inquirer: Well, how do we know for sure there is no C-14 unless we check for it first?
Evolutionist: The bone is 70 million years old so there cannot be C-14.
Inquirer: How do we know it's 70 million years old?
Evolutionist: Its a presupposition I must begin with.
jdoe444 3 months ago
Scientists are not as objective as most people think or as they claim to be. Most scientists must work within the paradigm of their field. The paradigm determines how they are "allowed" to interpret the evidence. The peer review process only deepens the psychological need to conform to the majority view. Think of it as a game with the rules decided by their governing bodies. The current scientific paradigm assumes that the last of dinosaurs went extinct at least 65 million years ago.
jdoe444 3 months ago
Thomas Kuhn believed that scientists are entrenched within a certain way of seeing things, and this clouds their vision (they tend to see what they expect to see). Mary Schweitzer and her team are not trying to be deceptive; they're just limited by the current scientific 'paradigm'. All evidence shows that the bones can't be 75 million years old; but the bones 'have' to be 75,000,000 years old since dinos only went extinct 65 mil yrs ago, at least according to the existing paradigm.
jdoe444 3 months ago
@jdoe444 You are right, the date of the 70 million year old fossil was never questioned. Why? Becasue it is so well documented. There is no evidence showing it is not old, They did NOT find 'red blood cells' or 'fresh' anything.
gregrutz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
The best part is when he just starts laughing at Enyart at 5:00
That's the only response to that amount of ignorance.
KemaTheAtheist 5 months ago
I'm not sure if this phone call is the best prank call ever... or ... something more sinister. I'm not sure how to even respond to how this actually works... or why this actually works.
kakeboy07 5 months ago
@kakeboy07
"something more sinister."
^ This is the case. Doing C-14 dating on material means you have to have C-14 in measurable quantities to compare against the daughter product, C-12. The half-life of C-14 is only about 5700 years, so if the sample is 70 million years old, the amount of C-14 is cut in half about 12,000 times. At that point there's no C-14 left to compare to the C-12. Creationists hope to use the expected sporadic results of the dating as proof the world is ~6000 years old.
KemaTheAtheist 5 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
Oh yes. That was the point. He's using the opportunity to act absurd and naive to troll the issue.
kakeboy07 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
No matter what is said or done the Creationists will either misrepresent or deny it. They should not be catered to or considered in any context.
tightygrone 5 months ago 2
For a sample more than 60,000 years old, the additional carbon-14 from contamination would give you a result older than 60,000 years old (take that, creationists) but not at "infinity."
nashertheatheist 5 months ago
What a moron.
Overseer82 5 months ago 2
I really don't understand how anyone can't listen to this conversation without feeling ridiculously embarrassed for Mr. Eynart. In addition to sounding smug and condescending the whole time (while clearly mentally outclassed) his attempts to interject his thoughts into the conversation and prove his understanding of the topic are just sad. Really, really sad.
protocollie 5 months ago 5
@protocollie What part of sending them 20,000 dollars is so difficult for you to understand for a test that cost almost nothing these days? If there is tissue in this "fossil" then it cannot be a fossil. Do you even understand what this conversation was about? To test remains is science. To hold back on testing is Evodelusionism the religion of Evotards.
GoodScienceForYou 2 days ago
@GoodScienceForYou Most of the specimen IS fossilized. A small portion inside the hermetically sealed container is not. This definitely did not happen in less in than 6000 years. Radiocarbon dating only works within limited parameters. Creatards even testify to that when they cite papers telling other scientists what the limits of the dating technique are and how going beyond those limits will produce useless data.
foxlake02 2 days ago
@foxlake02 If you were to die today and most of your specimen were to fossilize in 6000 years, they would excavate you and date you a being the same age as the dirt you fell in..... Until they carbon date the hermetically sealed tissue. Any real scientists will tell you this. That is why jack does not want anyone to carbon date it. Any real scientist will tell you this.
Don't need to go beyond those limits because the tissue will obviously be much younger than the dirt.
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
@GoodScienceForYou Absolute bullshit. They would not date my "specimen" by the dirt I fell in and my bones would not be fossilized in 6000 years. You only show your ignorance of the topic with posts like that. Your silly videos are a joke.
foxlake02 1 day ago
@foxlake02 Do you know anything about fossilization? Do you know what the chemical process is? Do you know that scientists have fossilized wood in less than one hour in a lab? Fossilization is a chemical process. It is not as dependent on as much time as you believe.
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Do you know what the chemical process is?" There are actually many ways in which fossilization occurs. Permineralization may occurred in relatively short time when accelerated in a lab environment but not with replacement. The soft tissue remnants you are discussing are exclusively from fluvial sandstone environments. It's possible that the vessels represent altered remnants of the original lipid components of cell membranes and not the original material at all.
foxlake02 1 day ago
@foxlake02 It is possible that this contains C-14 that can be dated also. These morons will do anything to keep their jobs. When someone is paid to teach mythology, then it is difficult for them to even want to accept reality.
GoodScienceForYou 19 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Why don't you let them work on their findings and see what it actually is? Even if there was C14 it would give FALSE readings. That's what Horner is trying to tell you guys. Go back to your whiteboard and STFU.
foxlake02 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@foxlake02 If you were to think for even 1 second, which I don't think you can. The minute they opened that capsule is when they should have sent ti for carbon 14 dating. Any sane ethical person without an agenda to hide evidence would have done just that.
GoodScienceForYou 11 hours ago
@foxlake02 It is a horrible mockery of science to allow these archaic ridiculous methods of dating to continue. All it does is to screw up the data.
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
@foxlake02 These videos explain in detail the errors of dating on fossils.
/watch?v=JntCa6FssRQ
/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
Wow, this proves how ignorant creationts are. It is very sad to see how proudly they carry their ignorance.
svenleeuwen 5 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
"We can't do that test. Do you how how Carbon 14 works?"
"Yeah. I'm familiar with it and I know it's useless for anything older than 50,000 years... Can you do it anyway?"
Horner must have thought he was talking to a retard. Does Enyart not realize how stupid he sounded? Does he not realize how stupid he IS?
Ceenymeeny 5 months ago
Comment removed
Ceenymeeny 5 months ago
What I love is how someone is completely prepared, wired, and barbed to try and net somebody is met by a sleepy person with a very simple, sleepy, but intellectually solid mentality. Science makes everything so much easier. So much easier. You can rip people apart, tear away their sad, fragile hopes, because of something so much more structurally sound.
zoobiewa 5 months ago 2
What part of "That test is inappropriate for the thing in question." didn't you understand? Are you really that stupid?
lordwindowlicker 5 months ago 3
So basically, you have one group of creationists saying 'C14 date the soft tissue' as to prove some point.. and then you have other groups of creationists saying that carbon 14 dating is flawed due to a biblical flood. No wonder Mr Horner doesnt want to deal with this. Any outcome is going to be used to support your views, not the facts.
zeeraidinc 5 months ago 4
2:50 - Just because DNA turns out to be able to survive 65 millions years, why does that suddenly mean it's younger than 65 million years old, and that a deity created it?
6Vital6Remains6 7 months ago 2
@6Vital6Remains6, not just amino acids, but even flexible transparent branching blood vessels containing an ooze that Dr. Schweitzer was able to squeeze out like toothpaste, and inside were the easily identifiable remains of red blood cells even showing nuclei typical of reptiles. Scientists studied Egyptian mummies to determine how long biological materials might last in extremely good conditions. See much more including C14 EVERYWHERE! at KGOV . com/list
BobEnyartLive 6 months ago
Can anyone tell me why the Carbon 14 test does not work on anything too old? Or is it just not a convenient truth that ALL dating techniques have flaws????
Proteched 7 months ago
@Proteched ...... There's this little thing called a "radioactive half life." If you have even a basic understanding of how radiometric dating works, you'll be able to make the connection.
BoredInfidel 5 months ago 4
@BoredInfidel Tell me, who created "this little idea"? Let me guess....a scientist who can only possibly know so much, which, well, is evidently not enough.
Proteched 5 months ago
@Proteched because C14 has a half life of about 5700 years and decays too much to be reasonably measureable by 60,000ish years. Dude you could have found that out with a google search instead of resorting to the global satanic science conspiracy thing.
iwantanoctopus 5 months ago
My favorite line, in the whole conversation that exposes everything is "your group is obviously a group of creationists and the spin they can get off of it is not gonna help US" What "spin" could he possibly be referring to? If the test results came back as he assumes with no Carbon 14 and undateable how could Creationists "spin" that to their advantage? Unless the results came back that the specimen did contain Carbon 14 and dated far younger then what they assumed. In that case I do agree.
vader974 8 months ago
@vader974 This is one of the reasons I believe that they already know that there is Carbon 14 in the specimen and simply don't want to have to explain why it's there, neither do they want anyone else, especially creationists, to know it's there. Good point 'Vader974'.
hugenex2000 8 months ago
@hugenex2000 There's a fundamental lunacy of this statement; if a scientist was able to prove without a doubt that the earth is, in fact, 6,000 years old, they would win a Nobel prize for doing so. They would be celebrated for finding new information which better explains the nature of everything; science praises that, it doesn't try to hide from information which runs counter to accepted knowledge. Unlike another institution, which cannot thrive, or even survive, open, questioning discussion.
pyrespirit 5 months ago 3
@hugenex2000 you guys are so retarded it's actually funny. i mean it, this clip is hilarious
qtzlctl2012 5 months ago
@vader974 The result are meaningless and could come back with any results with is what the creatards would love. Look at the big deal they made out of Mary saying ''soft tissure'' and ''looked like red blood cells'' Creationists think she found flesh and blood. She didn't.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@vader974 Listen to what Horner says. The test is invalid. IF it came back with C14 in it that would mean nothing but creatards would 'spin' it into something.
C14 does not work on fossils, most of the fossil is rock.
The age of the fossil is not in question.
gregrutz 1 month ago
we can not run the test because evolution is not science @gregrutz
hugenex2000 3 weeks ago
@hugenex2000 Yup, evolution is not science and religions don't use gods. IDiots.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
"Carbon 14 does not work on something that old'' End of conversation.
''We can't do that test'' End of conversation.
'' Are you fucking stupid'' [paraphrase] End of conversation.
''Because Carbon 14 does not work on stuff like this!
gregrutz 8 months ago 21
@gregrutz I thought you said it was "biofilm" and only a few thousand years old? Which one is it?
If you're gonna tell lies, you gotta keep your story straight.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians
watch > watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE to see what Mary found.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Let me ask this. If Jack and Mary were trying to hide the fact that these tissues were younger than they say.. why in the world would they have exposed them to the world to begin with?
mosoi148 8 months ago 8
@mosoi148 You are asking me to speculate about why people do what they do. It is clear from what they have said publicly that they believe these soft tissue fossils are millions of years old. But, it is also clear that they are NOT free to ask the question, any question, that challenges their position even if it's testable. Jack was the technical advisor for all of the Jurassic Park films and as such probably made a lot of money. This may have a great deal to do with it.
hugenex2000 8 months ago
@hugenex2000 ''they are NOT free to ask the question ... Bull Shit. Scientists ask questions all the time. You are free to get an ecucation and ask the question. Go for it !
gregrutz 8 months ago 3
@hugenex2000 ''even if it's testable.'' The test does not work on fossils. IF Carbon was in the sample the Creatards would jump all over it like it meant something when it would mean nothing. The test is not valid. You are already comdeming him just for refusing the test.
gregrutz 5 months ago 3
@hugenex2000 It IS testable, but not with C14 dating. If you were to ask me to put a gallon of water in a quarter gallon container, I could do it in theory, but it would be a mess and even though I'd wind up with a container full of water, it wouldn't be the gallon I started with. It's pointless and wasteful. There are MANY kinds of radioisotope dating, based on different elements' radioactive decay, that work over different time periods based on the half lives of those elements.
protocollie 5 months ago 2
@mosoi148 Gosh, man. No one is claiming dishonesty by Horner. We are simply showing how his presupposition is driving his belief, to the extent that he refuses to examine the evidence.
Evolutionists always claim that we are charging "conspiracy" or dishonesty. It really is just silly. What we ARE saying is that Evolutionists refuse to examine the evidence because they already "know" the answer. We are charging them with being closed minded and unscientific, not dishonest.
RomansGalatians 2 months ago
Horner is on the edge of his seat. Of course he would refuse to do the tests. His worldview would take a crushing blow.
Eaglewing17 9 months ago
@Eaglewing17 No, because he's smart enough to know that carbon dating requires, y'know...carbon. He doesn't know what the soft tissue is made of exactly, or why it is soft. Carbon 14 cannot exist in anything older than x time, so if tested, the results will be off. Also, because these soft tissues were only found in B-tex (one specimen who died while she was gravid), the readings would all be the same, so there's no comparison of variable on that part of the experiment, rendering it useless.
S0XF0X 9 months ago
@S0XF0X
But of course, carbon dating requires, y'know carbon. So, how is it that they found and analyzed proteins in the specimen but found no carbon when carbon is a major component of proteins? And, how is it that they don't know what it is when it can be seen very well what it is. It's simple, they can't test it for carbon 14 because they know it's there and if they test it then they would have to explain it, and they can't do that.
hugenex2000 9 months ago
@hugenex2000 Carbon 14 dating requires C14 that was absorbed from the air and that is in organic samples. Fossils are rocks, no C14 from the air.
Finding C14 in something proves nothing.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
There is soft tissue in these fossils which has been found to contain DNA fragments and proteins very similar to chickens and ostridge. Both DNA and proteins contain carbon as a major component. Now, to say that these specimens do NOT contain carbon is an outright deception. Are you saying that T-rex did not breathe air?
hugenex2000 8 months ago
@hugenex2000 I am saying that to date something with Carbon 14 Dating it has to be C14 that was taken in from the Air. Carbon 14 dating only works on things that are younger than 70,000 years, The fossil is 70,000,000 years old. TEN TIMES TOO OLD.
They date ash layers above and below the fossil to get a date range.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz ... one thousand times.
BoredInfidel 5 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz NUMBERS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY
lol.
BoredInfidel 5 months ago
I thought Enyart was being patient with Horner, lol. :p
sarevor 10 months ago
Horner was incredibly patient with Enyart. Not certain I would have been.
Cubelightfilms 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
You have very blatantly quote mined here. Have you no shame? Honestly, no wonder more and more people are becoming athiests.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
This looks like the same recording I had on my My Space profile, which the video is somehow no longer in existence :(, only this one has graphics added... making it better. I thinking, the owner of the recording had it deleted from my profile.
This is fantastic evidence that evolution is a HOAX, and Jack Horner knows it. If ANY Carbon-14 is found in the soft tissue, that would PROVE the T-Rex is less than 100,000 yrs. old, because the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5700 yrs.
SockemRockemRobot 1 year ago 3
Cont... Actually, I found the recording I uploaded on MySpace. It wasn't showing up in my uploads for some reason, but, I found it when I Googled it. The recording I uploaded is longer (9 mins. 12 secs.). If interested, it can be heard at (with no graphics)...
myspace . com /video/darwinsmyth/darwinist-fears-carbon-14-testing-on-t-rex-soft-tissue/63686211
SockemRockemRobot 1 year ago 4
@SockemRockemRobot
I found the recording of the phone call when I searched to see if anyone had ever tested for carbon 14 in this soft tissue fossil. It had originally occurred to me a couple of years ago that if the fossil was only a few thousand years old as creationists believe (not millions of years) then there should be C14 in it. I was shocked to find out that not only had no one tested it but that the evolutionists refuse to test it. Sound like they are hiding something.
hugenex2000 1 year ago 2
@hugenex2000 carbon dating has already proved the earth far older than creationists believe in many instances. And dinosaur bone has been carbon dated but yielded no results hence it wasn't published or picked up by the media because it only proved what we already knew. In fact B-rex's soft tissue wasn't picked up by the media until five years after its discovery. (if you did your research you would know this)
godfreyshane 11 months ago
@godfreyshane
What you say is not true.
First, can you explain then why Carbon14 is found in Carboniferous strata such as coal beds?
What dinosaurs have been carbon dated exactly? Which fossils were tested and by whom?
hugenex2000 11 months ago
Comment removed
Alarpup 11 months ago
@hugenex2000 radiocarbon dated mammoth and mastodon bones in the range of 23,560 to 36,000 years BP, recently Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered in Glendive Montana and our group received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for Carbon 14 testing and no collagen existed to be dated for the bio-apatite of the bone had been completely deteriorated. As far as the Carboniferous beds I ask the same of you.
godfreyshane 11 months ago
@hugenex2000 They don't date fossils directly. They date ash layers above and below the fossil. Carbon 14 dating does not work on rocks [fossils].
There is natural radiation in the ground, the closer to the ground radiation, the more C14 is found in coal and diamonds.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@SockemRockemRobot Carbon 14 dating is never used on fossils because scientists know it gives a bogu result, idiot.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago 2
@SockemRockemRobot They find Carbon 14 in diamonds and coal and it does not prove evolution wrong.
gregrutz 8 months ago
Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego: "Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body....Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules."
vizion24 1 year ago 3
@vizion24 Thanks for the comments.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab."
vizion24 1 year ago 3
Also, why doesn't he give those 20k to a creationist scientist and he can try to put together a working theory of creationism.
Why are they more often trying to disprove the theory of Evolution instead of putting together an own theory?
When i want to win a car race, it doesn't help me when i merely sabotage another drivers car. i actually have to drive the race so i can win it.
You need a theory in order to challenge Evolution theory.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur
All you have are excuses and stonewalling to hide the lies upon which Evolution is based. They can't run the test because it would reveal the truth, something you can not afford to do at any cost because the truth would destroy your theory. So, you must hide behind excuses and reassert the lies all the while hoping nobody notices the sheer cowardice behind the walls of deception. Until they run the test it has yet to be seen that they have a car.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 lets assume they would radiometric date it, and it turns out to be younger.
what then? it merely means that this sample is not genuine and is most probably not from a T-rex.
Which is by the way suspected, or at least was suspected by a lot scientists. That is also a reason why a independent study was requested, and was done in 2009. So far it counts as genuine. There are enough scientists that would point out any wrong doing. Evolution is not resting on this case.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur What then? Follow the evidence. It means what it means. This is not the only soft tissue fossil, it isn't even the second or third. A wide variety of specimens not covered in the media have been found. What next? Test them all, find the pattern. But of course they can't do that, or rather won't do that, because they know that if flies in the face of Evolution theory.
hugenex2000 1 year ago 2
@hugenex2000 and have you tried to get a sample of those other soft tissues?
and do you really believe all the fields of science dealing with Evolution are conspired to make the world believe in evolution? isn't that ab bit crazy`? and evidence for this?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I personally have not tried to get any samples. The attempt has been to test the sample in question, which they won't. Have they conspired? Probably, but I have neither the time nor the resources to pursue such a conspiracy claim. What I have is a prediction, that if we test for C14 we will find it and it will show that these fossils are less than 50,000 years old, probably much less.
The truth is crazier than fiction.
hugenex2000 1 year ago 2
@hugenex2000 so you believe the sample is a fake? and is not from a t-rex or do you believe a T-rex was alive 50 000 years ago? Have you any evidence for your suspicions? Is there any other evidence that would point into that direction.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur I believe the sample is genuine. It is from a T.Rex that live a few thousand years ago.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 what evidence is there that would make you assume T-rex were alive just a few thousand years ago?
Do i correctly assume that you believe the world is only 6000 - 8000 years old based on the bible?
like Kent Hovind for example?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur
You ask what evidence there is that would make me assume T-rex were alive just a few thousand years ago? Did you even watch the video you are commenting on? Soft tissue in the form of blood vessels and collagen protein were found in a T-rex thigh bone. This is in direct contradiction to everything that we know about how cells and proteins break down meaning this sample is no more than a few thousand years old, NOT millions. They got caught in a lie.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 once you can prove the sample is not as old as they think it to be you could make the claim of lies. but sofar this is merely your oppinion. And as long you don't know for sure, you wouldn't want to baer false witness, now do you?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur
The evidence speaks for itself. The presence of protein proves that all by itself.
hugenex2000 1 year ago 2
@hugenex2000 not according to the experts.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur
Then why won't they test it?
Even Schweitzer said on national television on MSNBC that
"it flies in the face of everything we know about how cells and tissue degrade"
so even they admit it.
That's why they can't test it.
hugenex2000 1 year ago 3
@hugenex2000
They've very likely been testing it all these years, but like all studies of this sort it takes years to formulate a probable hypothesis to be submitted to peer review so other scientists can examin it themselves. Something creationists try to overlook because they know they can't take criticism.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@hugenex2000 probably not as Kent Hovind, he doesn't believe C14 dating works. Considering he believes the world not to be older than 8000 years he also must believe tree ring dating doesn't work as those go back beyond some 10 000 years.....
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 that is why i say you need a own theory. or at least find a really contradictory fossil yourself.
Even if this proteins turn out to be fake. and who knows, it might be fake.
What does that do to the theory of Evolution? nothing, it would not even destroy the other evidence linking birds with Dinos. Nor would it in any way touch the evidence linking Humans to Apes. you are removing a little stone from a mountain of evidence.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
Hey, we cannot Carbon14 date it because there is no Carbon14 in it you twathead....
its like asking to count the Bananas in a basket full of apples.
the most laughable phone-call i have ever heard.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur
Where there is protein there is carbon and mass spec analysis revealed collagen bone matrix among other things so there is carbon in it. You would have known that had you done your homework. See the video response to this one, "T-rex Protein".
How do you like them apples?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 no, would all be decayed into nitrogen-14 by now.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@Aanthanur How could you possibly know that there was no C14 in it if they won't test it? Carbon 14 does indeed decay into Nitrogen 14 at a known rate, that much is true. If the specimen is as old as you think it is then there should be no C14 in the sample because it should have decayed by now.
So, why won't they test it to see for sure?
They are afraid of what the results will reveal!
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@Aanthanur
You say that we can't test it for Carbon14 because there is no Carbon14 in it, BUT
How would you know there is no Carbon14 in it if we won't test it?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 because of the age of the bones it was found in.
Also would it destroy a part of the very important sample. for nothing.
it is far more important to sequence it, so we know where to put it.
It has been shown to fit to nothing else, closest came chicken.
Also contamination can be ruled out after an independent study of the data.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
carbon dating philosophical belief that tells what happen in peresnt what happen in past that is religiously adhered
drshamast 1 year ago
My favorite part "So you are saying that carbon 14 dating is not scientific....uh that's what I am trying to say..." So much for all the pompous talk of peer review journals and grandstanding about science. It is clear that evolution is philosophical belief about origins that is religiously adhered to by those claiming to be scientist.
thinkingman07 1 year ago
@thinkingman07 why do you think they would do that?? I mean it's not like they get much out of trying to do that..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA You must understand that their behavior is NOT motivated by disinterested discovery. It is motivated by supporting a theory which allows their system of beliefs to thrive. From the embryonic stages of their undergraduate education these men and women have been nursed on the premise the evolution = science and those who reject it a religious fanatics. However, when they find that the evidence does not add up, they are forced to engage in strange behavior.
thinkingman07 1 year ago
This is what happens when a evolutionist scientist minding his own business accidentally opens up the biggest can of evolution falseifiable worms in a century.
"We're still trying to figure out what it is" has got to be the biggest joke. A simple amino-acid sequencer found at a community college could tell him pretty quick which type of protein it is.
More like "We're still trying to figure out how we expalin this good so that our theory does look like @^%#$^@%#$"
rdseheult 1 year ago
@rdseheult They already know what kind of protein it is yet they still refuse to accept the evidence and even worse they lie about it here in this interview by saying "there has to be carbon in it" when he knows perfectly well that there is carbon in it because carbon is a major component of the protein found in it. He lies when he says they are trying to figure out what it is because they know what it is BUT it flies in the face of everything they believe.
hugenex2000 1 year ago 2
There are assumptions concerning carbon dating that lead to more assumptions and we call that parameters of science
drshamast 1 year ago
@drshamast But that's just proving that science is about how critical thinking and skepticism is healthy for science. And besides, assumptions are not the same league of evidence.
TheBadunka 1 year ago
Carbon dating does not prof anything B/c in is too much assumption built in it
drshamast 1 year ago
@drshamast
There are assumptions concerning carbon dating, you are correct about that, and those assumptions should be well acknowledged and accounted for within the parameters of science. I have a prediction as do other biblical creationists but we do not have access to the fossils in question to have the tests done and apparently never will. I'm ok with it though, the fact that they refuse to run the test speaks volumes.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
carbon dating it is wortless
drshamast 1 year ago
@drshamast
Carbon dating it would reveal the truth, that it is not as old as evolution supposes, not even close.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
"It should be not dateable. In other words, it should not come back saying it's 25,000 years old."
It might, due to contamination.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to call the curator of the Louvre and offer them 10,000 dollars to perform dendrochronological dating on the wooden backing of the Mona Lisa. (For science.) Because I don't think she's hundreds of years old.
Leehofooks 1 year ago