Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[The Barbarian]

And technically, fossilized bones can't be directly tested at all, since they are derived from sediment. Typically, fossils are dated by igneous rock matrices above and below the fossil site. Sometimes, if the organism died in a volcanic event, the tuff surrounding the bones can be directly dated.

Marke: If researchers can test mammoth bones for age they can also test dinosaur bones for age.

The difference is, mammoth bones are young enough that C-14 can be used. Birds are the only dinosaurs that lived recently enough to be tested using C-14.

One lab did test the dinosaur bones, thinking the prepared specimen from dinosaur bones were specimen from bones other than from dinosaurs.

No radiochemist would make that kind of assumption. They don't test bones; only a tiny sample taken from the fossils would be submitted.

[marke]

And technically, fossilized bones can't be directly tested at all, since they are derived from sediment. Typically, fossils are dated by igneous rock matrices above and below the fossil site. Sometimes, if the organism died in a volcanic event, the tuff surrounding the bones can be directly dated.

Marke: If researchers can test mammoth bones for age they can also test dinosaur bones for age.

The difference is, mammoth bones are young enough that C-14 can be used. Birds are the only dinosaurs that lived recently enough to be tested using C-14.

One lab did test the dinosaur bones, thinking the prepared specimen from dinosaur bones were specimen from bones other than from dinosaurs.

No radiochemist would make that kind of assumption. They don't test bones; only a tiny sample taken from the fossils would be submitted.

Marke: The lab tested the prepared test matter from dinosaur bones without knowing they were from dinosaurs so how is it that you claim the bones could not be tested? Why are evolutionists claiming their earlier tests that could not be verified should disallow modern C-14 tests that can be verified? The only reason evolutionists claim the dinosaur bones cannot be C-14 tested is because they put all their faith in the accuracy of selected debatable test results that cannot be verified.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: The lab tested the prepared test matter from dinosaur bones without knowing they were from dinosaurs so how is it that you claim the bones could not be tested?

Only the age of the matter in them can be tested. But since fossilized bones are formed by slow sedimentation, they would give a false age no matter how young they were. However, the basic problem is that C-14 dating only works to about 50,000 years. Any sample older than that would just peg the meter at "50,000+."

Why are evolutionists claiming their earlier tests that could not be verified should disallow modern C-14 tests that can be verified?

There are may ways that C-14 testing can be verified. One of the best is using lake varves. Since they form 2 layers a year, it's easy to get an absolute date for them. They are so good, that C-14 methodology can be calibrated by them, to account for small fluctuations in cosmic rays. However, the method is still limited to 50,000 years. Hence, the only dinosaur bones that could be dated by C-14 methods are those of birds (so long as their remains are less than 50,000 years old).

The only reason evolutionists claim the dinosaur bones cannot be C-14 tested is because they put all their faith in the accuracy of selected debatable test results that cannot be verified.[/b]

You've been misled about that. There are other ways to verify C-14 testing. Would you like to learn about them?

[marke]

Marke: The lab tested the prepared test matter from dinosaur bones without knowing they were from dinosaurs so how is it that you claim the bones could not be tested?

Only the age of the matter in them can be tested. But since fossilized bones are formed by slow sedimentation, they would give a false age no matter how young they were. However, the basic problem is that C-14 dating only works to about 50,000 years. Any sample older than that would just peg the meter at "50,000+."

Marke: Assuming presumptive old ages for dinosaur bones does not disprove age tests that show dinosaur bones less than 50,000 years old.

Why are evolutionists claiming their earlier tests that could not be verified should disallow modern C-14 tests that can be verified?

There are may ways that C-14 testing can be verified. One of the best is using lake varves. Since they form 2 layers a year, it's easy to get an absolute date for them. They are so good, that C-14 methodology can be calibrated by them, to account for small fluctuations in cosmic rays. However, the method is still limited to 50,000 years. Hence, the only dinosaur bones that could be dated by C-14 methods are those of birds (so long as their remains are less than 50,000 years old).

Marke: Evolutionist scientists have shown themselves much too slow to recognize the fact that fossilized remains of birds standing upright though dozens of layers of sedimentary rock prove the varved layers were now laid down by extremely slow sedimentation.

The only reason evolutionists claim the dinosaur bones cannot be C-14 tested is because they put all their faith in the accuracy of selected debatable test results that cannot be verified.[/b]

You've been misled about that. There are other ways to verify C-14 testing. Would you like to learn about them?

Marke: Radiometric dating of rocks has also proven to be problematic, rendering resulting dates questionable.

[The Barbarian]

Radiometric dating of rocks has also proven to be problematic, rendering resulting dates questionable.

I'm not seeing much understanding from you as to how it all works. So I'm thinking you're depending on things other people told you. Likely people who don't know much more than you seem to know about the issue.

How about showing us some of that "problematical." There's a lot of YE creationist scams out there. And I've seen a lot of them. What do you have?

[marke]

Radiometric dating of rocks has also proven to be problematic, rendering resulting dates questionable.

I'm not seeing much understanding from you as to how it all works. So I'm thinking you're depending on things other people told you. Likely people who don't know much more than you seem to know about the issue.

How about showing us some of that "problematical." There's a lot of YE creationist scams out there. And I've seen a lot of them. What do you have?

Marke:
Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.

[The Barbarian]

Radiometric dating of rocks has also proven to be problematic, rendering resulting dates questionable.

I'm not seeing much understanding from you as to how it all works. So I'm thinking you're depending on things other people told you. Likely people who don't know much more than you seem to know about the issue.

How about showing us some of that "problematical." There's a lot of YE creationist scams out there. And I've seen a lot of them. What do you have?

Marke:
Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.

You do know that anyone can say anything they like on Quora, right? Talk is cheap. Evidence is a bit harder to obtain. So how about showing us some of that evidence?
I've seen a lot of the YE creationist scams regarding radioisotopes, but maybe you'll come up with something I haven't seen before. What do you have?

[marke]

Radiometric dating of rocks has also proven to be problematic, rendering resulting dates questionable.

I'm not seeing much understanding from you as to how it all works. So I'm thinking you're depending on things other people told you. Likely people who don't know much more than you seem to know about the issue.

How about showing us some of that "problematical." There's a lot of YE creationist scams out there. And I've seen a lot of them. What do you have?

Marke:
Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.

You do know that anyone can say anything they like on Quora, right? Talk is cheap. Evidence is a bit harder to obtain. So how about showing us some of that evidence?
I've seen a lot of the YE creationist scams regarding radioisotopes, but maybe you'll come up with something I haven't seen before. What do you have?

Marke: Like those posting on debate sites, anyone can say anything on Quora. However, nobody can likely refute all the scientific claims made by those on Auora.

[The Barbarian]

Radiometric dating of rocks has also proven to be problematic, rendering resulting dates questionable.

I'm not seeing much understanding from you as to how it all works. So I'm thinking you're depending on things other people told you. Likely people who don't know much more than you seem to know about the issue.

How about showing us some of that "problematical." There's a lot of YE creationist scams out there. And I've seen a lot of them. What do you have?

Marke:
Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.

You do know that anyone can say anything they like on Quora, right? Talk is cheap. Evidence is a bit harder to obtain. So how about showing us some of that evidence?
I've seen a lot of the YE creationist scams regarding radioisotopes, but maybe you'll come up with something I haven't seen before. What do you have?

Marke: Like those posting on debate sites, anyone can say anything on Quora. However, nobody can likely refute all the scientific claims made by those on Auora.

I've seen a lot of the YE creationist scams regarding radioisotopes, but maybe you'll come up with something I haven't seen before. What do you have? Talk is cheap. Evidence is a bit harder to obtain.

[marke]

Radiometric dating of rocks has also proven to be problematic, rendering resulting dates questionable.

I'm not seeing much understanding from you as to how it all works. So I'm thinking you're depending on things other people told you. Likely people who don't know much more than you seem to know about the issue.

How about showing us some of that "problematical." There's a lot of YE creationist scams out there. And I've seen a lot of them. What do you have?

Marke:
Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.

You do know that anyone can say anything they like on Quora, right? Talk is cheap. Evidence is a bit harder to obtain. So how about showing us some of that evidence?
I've seen a lot of the YE creationist scams regarding radioisotopes, but maybe you'll come up with something I haven't seen before. What do you have?

Marke: Like those posting on debate sites, anyone can say anything on Quora. However, nobody can likely refute all the scientific claims made by those on Auora.

I've seen a lot of the YE creationist scams regarding radioisotopes, but maybe you'll come up with something I haven't seen before. What do you have? Talk is cheap. Evidence is a bit harder to obtain.

Marke: The 10 year old Mt. St. Helens rock:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... e%2C%20etc.

Radio-Dating in Rubble
The Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Debunks Dating Methods
by Keith Swenson on June 1, 2001
Also available in Español

The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.