You stated earlier that scientist do not refuse to test evidence, that my assertion that they do refuse to do testing was a lie. This video is evidence that they do, in fact, refuse to test. I understand they will state reasons why they will not. I personally believe their reasons are a cover for the real reason. The real reason they refuse is because of the high probability that they will get a reading they don't want. The guy basically admitted as much, he was afraid of creationist spin. The scientist is supposed to be objective but he is not, he is an advocate....which is me returning to my central problem, as I have stated before. It was an interesting debate, but I get the feeling we are the only ones involved and if you would like to leave it and maybe address another issue, it's understandable. You and I will not be changing our minds, I am sure. If you would rather discuss evolutionary biology maybe I will start another thread on that, however you like. It sound like that may interest you more. Again, I have enjoyed it.
999 Scientists agree on evolution, 1 does not, so you believe the dissenting voice that happens to agree with your preconceptions. That is what I pointed out. Not. You keep bringing up this carbon-14 dinosaur bone and I have already addressed it several times. I will not keep repeating myself. Move on. When you offered the information you acknowledged that is was disputed as contaminated data. It was not offered by scientists, it was offered by a creationist museum run by non-scientists with phony theology degrees. It has never been published in a journal. You simply ignore the fact that far better methods of dating dinosaur bones totally conflict with this C-14 date and that C-14 is useless for dating old fossils. The people who offered this dubious evidence are the ones who contaminated the sample, either purposefully of through ignorance. The creationists! Scientists have no motive to contaminate an old bone with modern carbon. This data is fraudulent and so are its proponents. This is criticism by creationists that don't offer a shred of scientific evidence. Claims that he "exaggerated, idealized, and omitted" are just that. Unsubstantiated claims. List what he said that you consider fraudulent and tell us why you think so and I will respond. Right. A fraud was perpetrated by persons trying to gain fame or money but guess what? The fraud was uncovered by science and debunked. Just like your dubious C-14 dinosaur bones. It wasn't an embarrassment to science but to journalism. This fraud was perpetrated by a couple of amateur collectors. When it was studied by scientists, they quickly discovered problems with it but failed to let National Geographic know about them. But its proponents pushed the paper forward anyway. It was rejected by both Science and Nature the two principle refereed journals of science. It's proponents failed to tell the popular National Geographic magazine of the rejections or of the problems found during scientific testing and they published it to their regret. Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed paper. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist, and never did exist. What are these errors and how are they significant? You keep going to creationist sites and finding criticism of scientists. That's easy to do, but rhetoric doesn't debunk anything. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's a fact. Come back with some real evidence if you want to challenge science. But better wear your big-boy pants.
First of all, Dr. Horner did not refuse to test, he said that it was useless to test but that he would talk to Mary Schweitzer about it. After all they were her fossils, not Horners. Look, a creationist disk jockey from a religious radio station cold-called Horner on the air and tried to get him to jump through hoops for them. Why should he? He is the most respected paleontologist in America and some bozo he has never heard of comes in and says that he wants to pay Horner to find evidence to discredit Horner's work? Who does that? The disk jockey can go find fossils and get them dated himself if he wishes and he can publish his results in a journal, if he did a proper job of it. But no. All this guy wanted was this recording. So he could tie a famous paleontologist's name to his spin that science refused to test for carbon-14. These fossils have been dated by Uranium/Lead and Potassium 40 isotopes which are capable of dating much further back. Carbon-14 cannot tell you anything beyond 50,000 years or so. Worse, Carbon-14 is subject to contamination from modern carbon such as soot and rigorous procedures have to be followed to prevent this. C-14 is a straw man that creationists cling to because better radiometric dating blows them completely out of the water, which is why you ignore it. The real reason is there is ZERO probability of getting a reading at all! Your ignorance of how science works is profound. This is just more Science Denial. All science that disagrees with your religious convictions is based on fraud, deception, dishonesty, and is a great worldwide conspiracy. Good luck selling that, Cochise. Go for it. But if all you plan to do is discount overwhelming scientific evidence with creationist rhetoric, you will soon be talking to yourself.
@red55 you have much more patience than I my friend. When someone refuses to listen and learn you can only do so much...you have gone far beyond in your efforts. Well done in your efforts and hopefully @flabengal will actually do as he claimed and educate himself with an open mind and learn something.
I work at a place that has 30,000 teenagers . . . We're just having fun here. There is a realist in @flabengal trying to get out, but his indoctrination is formidable. “When you look at the dark side, careful you must be. For the dark side looks back.” -- Yoda
Maybe to keep this real, and I am bemused to see it still going, we could agree on what "the world" was, to primitive peoples however many years ago you choose. Here is a hint: it was not very big. Really, really tiny.
