The pseudos of science explained

[Job 33:6]

Here is the reality that I've come to terms with:

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

 

[Adrian Moir]

Here is the reality that I've come to terms with:

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Proverbs 14:5-7
5 An honest witness does not deceive,
but a false witness pours out lies.
6 The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none,
but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

7 Stay away from a fool,
for you will not find knowledge on their lips.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Here is the reality that I've come to terms with:

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

You claim that I did not provide evidence of red blood cells from the cretaceous period when it was not only published by peer review, but it was also headline news. So I will reject your claim that I did not provide you with adequate proof on the basis that you're rebuttal stemmed from your denial, and not from the evidence of fossils.

 

[Job 33:6]

You claim that I did not provide evidence of red blood cells from the cretaceous period when it was not only published by peer review, but it was also headline news. So I will reject your claim that I did not provide you with adequate proof on the basis that you're rebuttal stemmed from your denial, and not from the evidence of fossils.

Here is the reality that I've come to terms with:

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Here is the reality that I've come to terms with:

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Is there blood in dinosaur bones?
Image result for red blood cells in t rex bones justor
T. rex bones do indeed contain blood cells, and Schweitzer has since found soft tissue preserved inside an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur. It's still unclear exactly how this soft tissue is able to survive, but some hypothesize that iron molecules might bind to proteins in the tissue, making it more stable.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. If you would like to yield or submit to my conclusion, then I'd be happy to move on, but we have to be able to progress in our collective understanding before we go on to other topics. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion. We have to first acknowledge the conclusion, and only then can we progress to another topic and progress in our scientific understanding of creation.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

You are not going to deny the existence of red blood cells from the cretaceous period and continue to speak to me as if you're an authority on fossils. Because I already understand that you suffer from a poor secular education that you feel is somehow superior in every way.

When the reality is that secular scientists are an under achieving minority in science judging by the statistical ratio of Christian Nobel award winning scientists compared with Atheism over the last century:

What percentage of Nobel Laureates were Atheist?
10.5%
In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 10.5% of all laureates,


What percentage of Nobel Laureates were Christian?
65.4%
Distribution of Nobel Prizes by religion between 1901-2000, the data tooks from Baruch A. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003), Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, p.59 and p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion. Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. If you would like to yield or submit to my conclusion, then I'd be happy to move on, but we have to be able to progress in our collective understanding before we go on to other topics. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. If you would like to yield or submit to my conclusion, then I'd be happy to move on, but we have to be able to progress in our collective understanding before we go on to other topics. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion. We have to first acknowledge the conclusion, and only then can we progress to another topic and progress in our scientific understanding of creation.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

PS: I do not want to read your lengthy nonsense about what you believe, because the existence of red blood cells from the cretaceous period is what's important here, and not your feelings, of which, I could not care less about...Ok?

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. If you would like to yield or submit to my conclusion, then I'd be happy to move on, but we have to be able to progress in our collective understanding before we go on to other topics. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

Christians are 6 times more likely to earn a Nobel award in science compared to Atheism and you believe that Atheism is the authority on science now...?
LOL Let me tell you something:
The day Atheism manages to out do Christianity in Nobel scientific achievements will be the day that pigs fly.
Because as it stands, the ratio of Nobel science achievements over the last century is 6:1 in favor of Christianity. And I already know that you have a lot of difficulty with numbers, but as far as I'm concerned, the numbers speak for them self.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. If you would like to yield or submit to my conclusion, then I'd be happy to move on, but we have to be able to progress in our collective understanding before we go on to other topics. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

Scientific American
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says:
I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality.
In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. If you would like to yield or submit to my conclusion, then I'd be happy to move on, but we have to be able to progress in our collective understanding before we go on to other topics. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

The greatest achievement in history by Atheism is to create a Communist state.
While the greatest achievement in history by Christianity was to create a constitution which protects the peoples sovereignty under law.
So without the law, there are no freedoms.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. If you would like to yield or submit to my conclusion, then I'd be happy to move on, but we have to be able to progress in our collective understanding before we go on to other topics. We can't just change the subject every time we feel uncomfortable with a conclusion. We have to first acknowledge the conclusion, and only then can we progress to another topic and progress in our scientific understanding of creation.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

It has come to my attention that you believe a QA/QC report is what proves the authenticity of physical evidence. When a QA/QC report is for determining the quality of the procedure which produced the evidence. And a QA/QC report does not argue whether or not the discovery occurred like you are.
So the real problem here is not whether the discovery of red blood cells in T-rex bones occurred or not, which is the official story. But whether the red blood cells are in fact red blood cells, which happens to be the case according to pew research and not from an individuals clipboard of laboratory quality control procedures.
Because what we're arguing about here is the discovery of red blood cells in the cretaceous period, and not whether the quality of the sample was up to the standard of an individuals preference. Which is what you're arguing for in favor of a preferred viewpoint and not in favor of the findings.


United States Government website
Pew Review
The National Academy of sciences of the United states of America
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jun 10; 94(12): 6291–6296.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291
PMCID: PMC21042
PMID: 9177210
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
ABSTRACT
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
RESULTS
HPLC analysis of MOR 555 tissue extracts revealed the presence of several peaks with absorbance at 410 nm (Fig. (Fig.11A), the value at which hemoglobin and other heme-containing compounds absorb strongly. The peaks were observed in the bone extracts but not in the controls, indicating that the signals were derived solely from the bone and not from contaminating factors in the sediments or extraction buffers.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. It's QA/QC of research that authenticates the data. Thereby substantiating the research. Either you're able to answer my question or you're not.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. It's QA/QC of research that authenticates the data. Thereby substantiating the research. Either you're able to answer my question or you're not.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

I'm not sure if I'm talking to a bot at your end, because the lights are on but no body's home?
So here's a test to see if you've been paying attention:

Knock knock
-Who's there?
"Cretaceous period"
-Cretaceous period who?
"Cretaceous period with c14 present...That's who."


United States Government website
Pew Review
The National Academy of sciences of the United states of America
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jun 10; 94(12): 6291–6296.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291
PMCID: PMC21042
PMID: 9177210
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
ABSTRACT
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
RESULTS
HPLC analysis of MOR 555 tissue extracts revealed the presence of several peaks with absorbance at 410 nm (Fig. (Fig.11A), the value at which hemoglobin and other heme-containing compounds absorb strongly. The peaks were observed in the bone extracts but not in the controls, indicating that the signals were derived solely from the bone and not from contaminating factors in the sediments or extraction buffers.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. It's QA/QC of research that authenticates the data. Thereby substantiating the research. Either you're able to answer my question or you're not.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. It's QA/QC of research that authenticates the data. Thereby substantiating the research. Either you're able to answer my question or you're not.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

Seeing as how you cannot disprove the existence of red blood cells found in T-rex bones from the cretaceous period, I will hereby take the full liberty of moving on to other topics. Because, you don't get to decide on my behalf who's right and who's wrong...But I do.


Secular Humanism holds a Greek/Roman version of mythological arts and sciences in high esteem over the biblical authority and its premise of creation which is based on the fact that God made all people equal in His sight according to His word (John 1:1-5). So we do have a definition of God but secular humanism has rejected it in favor of marvel comics instead...¿

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Search for a word
secular
/ˈsɛkjʊlə/
Learn to pronounce
Not connected with religious or spiritual matters.

Definitions from Oxford Languages
Search for a word
humanism
/ˈhjuːmənɪz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

People also ask
Is secular humanism a religion?
The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Language
muse1
/mjuːz/
Learn to pronounce
noun
(in Greek and Roman mythology) each of nine goddesses, the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, who preside over the arts and sciences.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. It's QA/QC of research that authenticates the data. Thereby substantiating the research. Either you're able to answer my question or you're not.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.

A Special Announcement:
If somebody has any proof of natural selection causing chemicals to become self-aware over time, then please, notify your local magistrates to have a birth certificate drawn up for tax purposes.
Thank you.
Kind Regards: Your friendly neighborhood Communist Party. TM
(keeping kids employed since 1918)


About 7.74 percent of children between the ages of 10-15 are laborers although the legal working age in China is 16. There is a positive correlation between child labor and school drop out rates. ... While about 90 percent of underage workers attend school, many of them will eventually drop out. -Borgan Project

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).-Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. It's QA/QC of research that authenticates the data. Thereby substantiating the research. Either you're able to answer my question or you're not.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because your claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data (hence why your claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).

Red blood cells are not C-14 now are they? In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Ie, you're moving your goal post. Let's try not to change the subject.