ERayR Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Aren't you the Book of Mormon skeptic? Sure. The Earth is 6,000 years old. Congratulations. Typical. When you can't answer you resort to ridicule, scorn and dogmatism. CARRY ON.
Gervin Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Typical. When you can't answer you resort to ridicule, scorn and dogmatism. CARRY ON.I asked why Liberty University (in the opinion of one poster) is not a legitimate university. To that query I'm asked if I'm a (or "the") Book of Mormon skeptic. If you'll kindly tell me how my question and the question posed to me are connected, I'll join in. Thanks. Edited October 7, 2015 by Gervin
ERayR Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I asked why Liberty University (in the opinion of one poster) is not a legitimate university. To that query I'm asked if I'm a (or "the") Book of Mormon skeptic. If you'll kindly tell me how my question and the question posed to me are connected, I'll join in. Thanks. I am in total agreement with you. My post was to the other guys.
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Typical. When you can't answer you resort to ridicule, scorn and dogmatism. CARRY ON. I can, but I won't because it is a waste of my time.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Just curious about why it is not a legitimate university? As an attorney, you should do the ABA a favor and let them know that they are associating with a university that isn't legitimate (and no, I didn't attend)............................................................................................Bob didn't say that Liberty Univ is not a legitimate university. He said that he does not consider it to be a legitimate university -- an opinion he is certainly entitled to.
ERayR Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I can, but I won't because it is a waste of my time. Thanks for gracing us with your presence while you were here.
Bob Crockett Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I get that it's your opinion. I see that you use your full name when you post. But, counselor, you didn't answer the question. I did answer your question. I am going to go squealing like a pig to the ABA and complain.
Gervin Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 I did answer your question. I am going to go squealing like a pig to the ABA and complain.You didn't and I don't believe you.
Gervin Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Bob didn't say that Liberty Univ is not a legitimate university. He said that he does not consider it to be a legitimate university -- an opinion he is certainly entitled to.Right. When he said he didn't consider it a legitimate university I replied with, "you're not entitled to that opinion." Should I have been more tactical, asking for his definition of legitimate?Sheesh.
Bob Crockett Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) You didn't and I don't believe you.OK. It doesn't appear to have a biology department. It has something called "Center for Creation Studies." I don't think a biologist coming out of Liberty is going to be worth much in terms of grasping secular knowledge. Thus, it is not in my opinion a legitimate university for failing to educate its students in this core material. Just about every university I know requires biology as core material, and evolutionary theory is critical to that study. Similarly, I don't think much of anybody coming out of BYU with some sort of education relating to New Testament studies. BYU doesn't have a theology or New Testament studies program. But, theology is not a core requirement and thus BYU doesn't fail to offer core material. I've been working on my ABA complaint all afternoon. LIberty is going to be horseradish when I get through with it. Edited October 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett
Gervin Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 OK. It doesn't appear to have a biology department. It has something called "Center for Creation Studies." I don't think a biologist coming out of Liberty is going to be worth much in terms of grasping secular knowledge. Thus, it is not in my opinion a legitimate university for failing to educate its students in this core material. Just about every university I know requires biology as core material, and evolutionary theory is critical to that study. Similarly, I don't think much of anybody coming out of BYU with some sort of education relating to New Testament studies. BYU doesn't have a theology or New Testament studies program. But, theology is not a core requirement and thus BYU doesn't fail to offer core material. I've been working on my ABA complaint all afternoon. LIberty is going to be horseradish when I get through with it.I think they have a biology department:http://www.liberty.edu/academics/index.cfm?PID=506 The Center for Creation Studies seems sort of weird.
Zakuska Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Now that all the adhominem attacks are out of the way.... perhaps we can get back to the 33,500 year old dino bone that's not supposed to have a single C14 atom left in it... yet some how has quite a few.
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Now that all the adhominem attacks are out of the way.... perhaps we can get back to the 33,500 year old dino bone that's not supposed to have a single C14 atom left in it... yet some how has quite a few. We can get back to it when this find has been verified.
Zakuska Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/06/10/dinosaur-blood-cell-discovery-uk-morgan-pkg.cnn
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/06/10/dinosaur-blood-cell-discovery-uk-morgan-pkg.cnn
Zakuska Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Interview with Dr. Mark Armatage about the triceratops horn: Edited October 8, 2015 by Zakuska 1
Zakuska Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Mark and his attorney go public about the law suit: Evolutionist refuses to C14 date dino bones: (how scientific of them?!) Edited October 8, 2015 by Zakuska
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Now that all the adhominem attacks are out of the way.... perhaps we can get back to the 33,500 year old dino bone that's not supposed to have a single C14 atom left in it... yet some how has quite a few. No one here has claimed that no C-14 remains. It is just below levels sufficient for accurate dating.
Zakuska Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) No one here has claimed that no C-14 remains. It is just below levels sufficient for accurate dating. If the bone is 65 million years old as the "theory" of Evolution dictates, according to the half life of C14 there should be an infinitesimal amount of C14. They shouldn't be able to measure it at all. Yet there's enough left in this bone sample to date it to 33,500BP. The man who Carbon dated the Triceratops horn emailed me back with the pertinent peer reviewed literature. (I've taken the liberty of censoring my name) C14 dating of a tricerotops horn j------.------ <j------.-------@gmail.com> Oct 6 (2 days ago) to HugoC14 Dear Mr. Miller, I am writing to you to inquire about a sample of bone you sent in last year for C14 dating which dated to 33500 bp, that was recently brought to my attention? Anything you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. HugoC14@aol.com 9:21 PM (12 hours ago) ----------------------------------------------- J----: Thank you very much for your enquiry. Her is the link to our first paper. Another paper is being peer reviewed now. Hugh http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm www.dinosaurc14ages.com PAPERS FROM ITALY AND GERMANY published in two different books of conference proceedings: Holzschuh, J., J. Pontcharra, H. Miller. 2009. Datazioni recenti al C-14 di fossili includenti collageneproveniente da ossa di. Evoluzionismo: Il tramonto di una ipotesi. Editor, Roberto de Mattei,Edizioni, Cantagalli s.r.l. Siena, nell’ottobre, p. 125-155, 2009. And Brandenstein-Zeppelin and Stockhausen. 2012. Recent C-14 dating of fossils including dinosaur bone collagen. Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted? Evolution and the Sciences: A Critical Examination.(English) Gerhard Hess Verlag, 88427 BadSchussenried, Germany, 2012, p. 295-321. http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm[actual paper with man references] Edited October 8, 2015 by Zakuska 2
Bob Crockett Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Interview with Dr. Mark Armatage about the triceratops horn: Why do you call him "Dr." Mark Armitage? He doesn't have a doctorate. He has a B.S. in education, an Ed.S in education (which apparently is some weird thing above a masters) and a MS in biology, the latter degree he obtained from the Creation Science Institution from Liberty University. This guy isn't qualified. Got any real PhDs in biology on your young dino bones? Edited October 8, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
Zakuska Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Why do you call him "Dr." Mark Armitage? He doesn't have a doctorate. He has a B.S. in education, an Ed.S in education (which apparently is some weird thing above a masters) and a MS in biology, the latter degree he obtained from the Creation Science Institution from Liberty University. This guy isn't qualified. Got any real PhDs in biology on your young dino bones? Since his unlawful dismissal from CSUN (They are being sued for religious discrimination) and for merely daring to publish in a peer reviewed publication, he's currently Enrolled in the Biology Doctrate program at Florida State University. (See video in post 966) I'm sorry but he's more qualified to talk about this than either you or I and most people for that matter. But by all means... continue with the Ad homimen attacks and avoid the actual data and facts with a hundred foot pole. It doesn't help your cause one iota. Edited October 8, 2015 by Zakuska 1
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 This Hugh Miller is quite a character as well. He obtained dinosaur bone fragments by pretending to be a chemist wishing to do an analysis of the replacement of bone by fossil. The fragments he obtained were heavily contaminated by shellac and other unknown preservatives. Some quotes from Dr. Bradley Lepper of Denison University: Austin Long, professor of geochemistry at the University of Arizona, informed Miller that there was no collagen (a protein which is the source of most of the carbon in bones) in the samples and that large amounts of shellac and other contaminants were present. Miller indicated that he wanted the samples dated regardless. ... Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils. Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan's Museum of Paleontology examined these results and concludes that there is nothing whatsoever extraordinary about them. The predominant suite of elements present and their relative percentages (including the 3.4% carbon!) are about what one would expect to find in hydroxyapatite and calcite, two of the commonest minerals present in ordinary dinosaur fossils. There is absolutely nothing unusual about these fossils and no reason to think the carbon contained in them is organic carbon derived from the original dinosaur bone. Robert Kalin senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens submitted by Hugh Miller and concluded that the samples identified as “bones” did not contain any collagen. They were, in fact, not bone. ... Laser mass spectrometry dating is of little value as a corroboration of the controversial C dates. It is far more significant that the dubious laser mass spectrometry dates and the problematic radiocarbon dates are wildly inconsistent with the latest Rb-Sr, K-Ar, Ar- Ar, and fission track dates for the strata which contain these dinosaurs. The dates that Miller asserts rely on the presence of soft tissue (collagen would have to be present), but as shown, he had been told there was no collagen in the samples, meaning the fossils were completely mineralized. This would preclude the "preservation" of soft tissue for dating. I'm too lazy to look back through the thread, but I recall Zakuska saying that Miller confirmed there was no collagen present, so Miller himself acknowledges that there wasn't any preserved soft tissue! Dr. Thomas Stafford of the University of Colorado summarizes: There are three fundamental errors in these experiments: (1) The radiocarbon dating method is not applicable for samples 50,000 years old, (2) The carbon isolated from the dinosaur bones had no chemical relationship to bone protein or flesh, and (3) The use of expensive chemical and physical tests and equipment, and learned testimonials is irrelevant to interpreting the data. I did, however, learn how radiocarbon test procedures are calibrated and validated, the reasons why carbon-14 dating is irrelevant to mineralized fossil bones, and what normal carbon and carbon-14 levels are within everyday materials. Interestingly, environmental carbon is added to "clean blanks" of laboratory graphite to establish a baseline environmental contamination rate. More from Dr. Stafford: [Miller's] report states emphatically that the 14C dates were directly on dinosaur bone, not associated organic matter. The implication is that original bone protein, its decomposition products, or both, were dated. That the bone contained 1.9 to 3.5% carbon is irrelevant because the Leco combustion method measures total carbon, i.e., both organic and inorganic carbon. Curators at the Carnegie Museum and laboratory personnel at Arizona stated that the bone contained preservatives. Epoxies and shellacs are carbon-based preservatives and would have been the primary source of carbon for the 14C date. Because total carbon was measured, the creationists ignored the presence of the substantial inorganic carbon component in bone. Carbonate (CO3-2) is present naturally in bone apatite (carbonate-hydroxyapatite) as biological carbonate and CaCC<3 that is incorporated into the bone during burial. Bone with no measurable protein contains 2% carbon—all derived from inorganic carbonate. So, the levels of carbon were consistent with bone or soft tissue not being present in the sample.
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) If the bone is 65 million years old as the "theory" of Evolution dictates, according to the half life of C14 there should be an infinitesimal amount of C14. They shouldn't be able to measure it at all. Yet there's enough left in this bone sample to date it to 33,500BP. The man who Carbon dated the Triceratops horn emailed me back with the pertinent peer reviewed literature. (I've taken the liberty of censoring my name) The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about the age of the earth or the age of any species that has lived on it. It merely says that as living things reproduce Allele frequencies can too. If you really want to disprove the Theory of Evolution it is far easier than fancy radiometric dating of dinosaur bones. Just a shovel and a way to record what you find. Now just go dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previous undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. Good luck. Contamination of C-14SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is: the effect is greater for older samples. If a sample that is 17,000 years old is contaminated so that 1% of the sample is modern carbon, it will appear to be 600 years younger; for a sample that is 34,000 years old the same amount of contamination would cause an error of 4,000 years. Contamination with old carbon, with no remaining 14C, causes an error in the other direction independent of age – a sample contaminated with 1% old carbon will appear to be about 80 years older than it really is, regardless of the date of the sample.[40] Edited October 8, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Recommended Posts