You are confusing my statements regarding scientists and science. Certainly science can help us better understand the material world and classify, measure, etc. This obviously extremely useful and good. If it is beginning to bore you, I am not suprised nor insulted. It's probably not easy for you to slog through all this question but it is much appreciated. One guy even called it your greatest performance ever. All good things must come to an end so if this thread dies out soon, so be it. I would never say science is lazy, biased, dishonest and careless. The scientists are sometimes those things but you yourself stated earlier there are good scientists and bad ones. Welcome to the human race.
That was a good one, it took me a minute to get it. Anyway, I have linked a telephone call to a scientists regading carbon 14 dating of dinosaur fossils. Watch it, it's a fairly short video. This is my point regarding the carbon 14 dating procedure. They won't even do it....why is that?
Scientists believe that this specimen was covered by water and mud soon after its death which prevented other animals from carrying away the bones.[2] Additionally, the rushing water mixed the skeleton together. When the fossil was found, the hip bones were above the skull, and the leg bones were intertwined with the ribs. from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur)
If you are referring to Berlinksi. He's published books about it. It's called the Devil's Delusion. I assume this in response to Dawkins' The God Delusion. If you are referring to this thread specifically I don't know why this links is dismissed as evidence by you. Sure it's not conclusive, but it sure seems to suggest that dinosaur bones were found with carbon in them when there should be none. http://newgeology.us/Dinosaur bones dated by Carbon-14.pdf
If you are tiring of this thread, again, I can understand why. I enjoyed the entertainment value, at least for me it was entertaining. On a lighter note, it got me through the bye week, so I am thankful for that.
The key fault here is that you find it easy to dismiss 999 scientists research that agree on a thing, but trumpet one dissenting voice that happens to support your religious-based notions. And lets not fool ourselves. Creationism is about promoting religious concepts that fly in the face of science.
Why do you thinK? Horner said it quite specifically. 1. Carbon-14 data is useless to date dinosaur fossils. He has better things to do with his time. 2. He laughed when the guy kept insisting that "soft tissue" had been found instead of fossilized tissue. He was being polite but knew the guy did not have a clue. 3. He wasn't going to jump through hoops for creationists to use his name in whatever ideological spin they were likely to put on this project. Look, Google anything about dinosaur bones and C-14 and all you get are creationists websites. Forget Carbon-14, it is as useless to the task as submitting the fossil to the inquisition. There are dozens of other isotopes with much longer half-lives that extend back millions of years and have a 5% error rate and the evidence is overwhelming that no known dinosaur fossil is younger than 65 million years.
Already asked and answered in this thread. Already asked and answered in this thread. Do you think I can't remember? What it suggests is that dinosaur bones were found with carbon ON THEM, perhaps naturally by being in contact with carbonaceous material or they may have been added intentionally. Stray carbon causes contamination and gives erroneous results. Samples have to be properly prepared to avoid contamination. These samples are highly suspicious given that they were not produced under scientific conditions by scientists. This may come a a shock to you, but creationists have been caught lying many times.
Floods happen every spring all over the world and bury things in sediment. This has happened millions of times over millions of years. The geological evidence is striking. It is in no way evidence that there was only one big flood, once upon a time. And the lie that I cited was that dinosaur bones are found to be 30,000 years old. This is simply untrue. Not a single paleontologist in the world will say this, not even the Christian ones. You have cited a guy with an online agree in theology from an unaccredited school who runs a creationists museum that is full of bogus evidence. I really expected you to list all of it, but even you could see how preposterous some of it was. Like the hammer the same guy found embedded in "ancient Cretaceous sediment".
Regarding Berlinski, I was not referencing him about geology, carbon dating, etc. I was referencing him regarding anti-evolutionary, serious scientists who in fact have good resumes and do publish material. You often suggest the two are mutually exclusive when they are not. Regarding PDF file: It is a link providing material provided by scientists. The material discusses carbon 14 dated dinosaur remains which provided a reading. This is relevant to the discussion. It is evidence, or is it not? Regarding your last point....I highlighted the critical point for clarity...I hope you don't object. This is difficult to put into words without offending a man of your intelligence. NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!! They may have been added intentionally, I agree. By who? by the human beings that were there, the ones closest to the evidence. If you can find me a group of scientists that are not human beings then I worship dirt forever and praise Red55. Just having a little fun, no offense meant...;-) Which brings me to my next p0int....I can't believe that you think I would be suprised that creationists have been caught lying. I hope that hasn't happened with in the "Scientific Community". A quick check on google reveals this helpful site: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation 1) Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…or 2) The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the evolutionary view was the case of Piltdown man.[15] More recently, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the Archaeoraptor was a large embarrassment to National Geographic.[16][17] or In addition, the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus": “ "A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23] and this last tidbit: In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[24] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[25] Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.[26][27]
