I
itinerant1
Guest
KFD once had Pteradactyl Wings in barbecue sauce on the menu. It never really caught on, though. Too skimpy.Some did, we call them birds nowadays. Think “Kentucky Fried Dinosaur”.
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
Are you disputing the 68 million year old determination of this scientist? You seem to avoid the relevancy of the issue, and her comments specifically criticize Creationists. Are you accepting some of her determinations and rejecting others? And on what grounds? (religious, I suspect)Yep, soft tissue — right on Ed. I guess some people on this thread just like to bloviate at bit. Carbon-14 date the fossils not the rocks.
L
larkin31
Guest
I am no longer surprised by Ed’s end-runs around science.
I
itinerant1
Guest
By all means - question, search, and think critically. But when you go to that site, my only other recommendation is that you wear a good pair of waders.Being a direct descendent of Thomas the Apostle, now I have to go and read for myself.
H
hugh_miller
Guest
I think you may be a bit near-sighted. The report said there was 10.88 % carbon in the shale and the carbon-14 content was more than sufficient to provide a radiocarbon date. Any rock including diamond (99 % carbon) can be tested for C-14 even though there is NO organic material present. Comprende?
For example if limestone has not been removed prior to AMS carbon dating, the radiocarbon age will be much older than the sample’s true age for bones etc. Limestone is of geological origin and will therefore be much older than any archaeological samples. But it is obsorbed and NOT intrinsic in the bones and can be removed with a mild acid without disturbing the calcium carbonate of the bioapataite.
Dinosaur bones or any bone such as mammoth etc therefore are: (1) treated with mild acetic acid to remove any possible limestone absorbed from a geologic source which is calcium carbonate. You see, not only can labs date the organic fraction of dinosaur bones but by removing all “geologic calcium” from around the sample being dated you are left with the calcium carbonate fraction of the actual bone bioapatite which occurrs by replacement of some of the bone calcium phosphate. (2) THEN a much stronger hydrochloric acid is used to extract the carbon dioxide from the bone bioapatite formed during the life time of the critter. If you get a concordant age then you can say you have an absolute C-14 age. Any lab will tell you that.
However each dinosaur bone can have a different age. But within any one bone we get concordant ages with collagen, calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite and total organics. The same can be said for diamonds; different diamonds give diffeent ages from one diamond to the next like 55,000 to 80,000 years in one paper but when they dated six samples from one diamond they obtained concordant ages thus showing there was no contamination from equipment. Obviously there is no organic compounds in the rock called diamond, right?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Musings…Michael Behe, the Catholic ID Guy, has a problem with the fact biological evolution theory does not include “purpose.” Behe is right, but for all the wrong reasons, and therein we find the big problem.
“Purpose” does not lie within the scope and province of the natural sciences. The scientific method is properly limited to what can be measured. But how does one even begin to measure purpose?
Purpose is discerned by an operation of the intellect, not by scientific method. The intellect discerns purpose by its reflections on nature, and that reflection is philosophical in nature.
Accordingly, when the neo-Darwinian asserts there is no purpose in nature, he is not making a scientific statement. That statement is a philosophical proposition grounded in a metaphysical materialism or philosophical naturalism. It remains a proposition not supported or required by the scientific method.
Whitehead once noted that those who dedicate their lives to the purpose of proving there is no purpose constitute and interesting subject for study.
Denials or affirmations of purpose in nature are not scientific statements. Thus neo-Darwinians (and Darwin himself), plus the ID theorists and creationists generally, transgress the proper boundaries of the natural sciences when they make philosophical claims “as if” they were neccessitated by or derived from the scientific method.
It cannot be emphasized too much that the method of the sciences characterized by methodological naturalism, means that one need not believe in God, or disbelieve in God, in order to do good science.
Religious fundamentalists and extreme Darwinians, while at opposite poles, commit the very same error in regard to the natural sciences when they make philosophical (or theological) statements as if they are entailed by the scientific method.
Since science deals with quantities, measurements have the last word, but “purpose” is a factor that cannot be measured.
“Purpose” does not lie within the scope and province of the natural sciences. The scientific method is properly limited to what can be measured. But how does one even begin to measure purpose?
Purpose is discerned by an operation of the intellect, not by scientific method. The intellect discerns purpose by its reflections on nature, and that reflection is philosophical in nature.
Accordingly, when the neo-Darwinian asserts there is no purpose in nature, he is not making a scientific statement. That statement is a philosophical proposition grounded in a metaphysical materialism or philosophical naturalism. It remains a proposition not supported or required by the scientific method.
Whitehead once noted that those who dedicate their lives to the purpose of proving there is no purpose constitute and interesting subject for study.
Denials or affirmations of purpose in nature are not scientific statements. Thus neo-Darwinians (and Darwin himself), plus the ID theorists and creationists generally, transgress the proper boundaries of the natural sciences when they make philosophical claims “as if” they were neccessitated by or derived from the scientific method.
It cannot be emphasized too much that the method of the sciences characterized by methodological naturalism, means that one need not believe in God, or disbelieve in God, in order to do good science.
Religious fundamentalists and extreme Darwinians, while at opposite poles, commit the very same error in regard to the natural sciences when they make philosophical (or theological) statements as if they are entailed by the scientific method.
Since science deals with quantities, measurements have the last word, but “purpose” is a factor that cannot be measured.
G
grannymh
Guest
In my part of the country, we stand on chairs.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Hey, whatever you need to do!In my part of the country, we stand on chairs.
G
grannymh
Guest
According to that This Rock article about Thomism which someone linked above,
the purpose of science is to seek truth,
I
itinerant1
Guest
Of course, but science seeks the truth regarding an aspect of physical creation: the quantifiable aspects of natural things and their interactions.
By implication, there are many truths that do not come within the proper scope and province of the natural sciences.
I
itinerant1
Guest
A
Akini
Guest
Certainly, earth is more than 6000 years old. For example, agriculture in New Guinea started some 10,000 years ago.
I
itinerant1
Guest
If you get interested in studying fossilization, the science guys, rossum and larkin31, can answer any questions you have.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Good point!
H
hugh_miller
Guest
The relevancy is that she did NOT test for C-14 in the soft tissue or the collagen. If she had maybe she would be able to either report an infiinite age then she could say “see guys I was right, the soft tissue was perhaps protected for 68 million years by a protective coating of minerals.” OR she would get a date as others had on other dinosaur femur bones who finished the task for her by testing for C-14 in collagen in other dinosaur bones. Do you not understand the scientific method?
I think that she will eventually test for C-14 as I greatly respect her abilities as scientist. She is just under great pressure not to do so because of academic pressure not to do so.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have posted the above principles many times only in different terms, perhaps simpler ones.
G
grannymh
Guest
I will be rephrasing my question into perhaps a paragraph. Yes, I do value the “science guys” present and absent.
L
larkin31
Guest
Bull.The relevancy is that she did NOT test for C-14 in the soft tissue or the collagen. If she had maybe she would be able to either report an infiinite age then she could say “see guys I was right, the soft tissue was perhaps protected for 68 million years by a protective coating of minerals.” OR she would get a date as others had on other dinosaur femur bones who finished the task for her by testing for C-14 in collagen in other dinosaur bones. Do you not understand the scientific method?
I think that she will eventually test for C-14 as I greatly respect her abilities as scientist. She is just under great pressure not to do so because of academic pressure not to do so.
“Infinite age”.
More smoke here.
Asking her to test the collagen of a 68 myo specimen is a waste of money. They HAVE determined the sample’s age, and it fits with the growing evidence from several fields. She scorns creationists because of requests like yours, and statements like yours that there is some conspiracy against her from academia. What she complained about is CREATIONISTS. You are proving her point.
She might as well measure the temperature of boiling water with a thermometer that only goes to 40F as try to determine the specimen’s age with C-14. “Hey! I boiled water at 40F!!! I knew it!!! The world of science is wrong!!!”
F
Farsight001
Guest
I comprende just fine - you do not. The mere presence of C-14 is not the only thing needed to properly use it as a method of dating an object. You seem to miss that VERY important point no matter how many times people explain it to you. Testing for the presence of C-14 is VERY different than using the presence of C-14 to date an object. Again - C-14 can only be used to date organic material, with some restrictions.
This is because living creatures take in C-14 from the atmosphere and expel it through waste, resulting in a rather standard percentage of C-14 present in the system. This standard, which we know for most living things, is necessary to use C-14 to date objects. Upon death, this constant exchange ceases, and the C-14 that is in the body at death stays there and decays. Inanimate objects, such as shale, do not take in nutrients or air from the atmosphere, nor expel it via waste, and of course does not die and thus there is no solid way to determine initial C-14 concentration. Again, I reiterate - the object that you are c-14 dating must, at the very least, have once been ALIVE.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Proof the intelligent designer has a sense of humor:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/purpleslinky/2008/03/24/130859_3.jpg
And an occasional bad day:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/purpleslinky/2008/03/24/130859_3.jpg
And an occasional bad day:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status