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).

[marke]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

[Clownboat]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

Is there anyone reading here that has any clue what Marke is going on about? His claims have been shown to be false, yet he continues. Can anyone elucidate on Marke's behalf? Anyone?

[Difflugia]

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

Is there anyone reading here that has any clue what Marke is going on about? His claims have been shown to be false, yet he continues. Can anyone elucidate on Marke's behalf? Anyone?

I'm guessing it's a misremembering of some Answers in Genesis stuff. They're the ones that made a big deal about the "soft tissue" stuff back in the day and getting labs to ¹⁴C date inappropriate things is a favorite parlor trick of Steve Austin. They don't usually do dinosaurs, but they like to do things like coal and ammonite shells.

[marke]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Marke: Why did the lab not know the bones could not be tested until weeks after they tested them and certified the uncontaminated test results?

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

Is there anyone reading here that has any clue what Marke is going on about? His claims have been shown to be false, yet he continues. Can anyone elucidate on Marke's behalf? Anyone?

[The Barbarian]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

1. They did not and could not say that the results would not be skewed by contamination. That is the responsibility of the person submitting the sample. The results came in at "more then 50,000 years" in the same way that speedometer came in at "greater than 125 mph."

2. It is not the responsibility of the lab to be sure that the sample is not too old to be accurately tested by their method.

3. And of course, it is possible to accurately date bones by using other isotopes.

You've been misled a great deal about this particular case and radioisotope testing in general.

[marke]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

1. They did not and could not say that the results would not be skewed by contamination. That is the responsibility of the person submitting the sample. The results came in at "more then 50,000 years" in the same way that speedometer came in at "greater than 125 mph."

2. It is not the responsibility of the lab to be sure that the sample is not too old to be accurately tested by their method.

3. And of course, it is possible to accurately date bones by using other isotopes.

You've been misled a great deal about this particular case and radioisotope testing in general.

Marke: The lab tested the bones and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. They only change their story and suggested contamination may have been involved after they were told they had tested dinosaur bones.

[The Barbarian]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

1. They did not and could not say that the results would not be skewed by contamination. That is the responsibility of the person submitting the sample. The results came in at "more then 50,000 years" in the same way that speedometer came in at "greater than 125 mph."

2. It is not the responsibility of the lab to be sure that the sample is not too old to be accurately tested by their method.

3. And of course, it is possible to accurately date bones by using other isotopes.

You've been misled a great deal about this particular case and radioisotope testing in general.

Marke: The lab tested the bones and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. They only change their story and suggested contamination may have been involved after they were told they had tested dinosaur bones.

You were misled about that. Labs specifically tell their customers what the limits are, and also tell them that it is the customer responsibility to avoid contamination of the sample. They also point out the limitations of their analysis. Which is why ancient bones could only give "greater than 50,000 years" as a result.

[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]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."

Marke: The reputable lab tested the bones at less than 50,000 years and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. That means several things:

1. The researchers proved dinosaur bones can be tested.
2. The researchers proved they could not tell whether or not the bones were supposedly too old to test, either before testing them or after testing them.
3. The researchers proved that by guaranteeing their test results were not affected by contamination then no test results can be believed if the tests on dinosaurs cannot be trusted.

1. They did not and could not say that the results would not be skewed by contamination. That is the responsibility of the person submitting the sample. The results came in at "more then 50,000 years" in the same way that speedometer came in at "greater than 125 mph."

2. It is not the responsibility of the lab to be sure that the sample is not too old to be accurately tested by their method.

3. And of course, it is possible to accurately date bones by using other isotopes.

You've been misled a great deal about this particular case and radioisotope testing in general.

Marke: The lab tested the bones and guaranteed their results were not skewed by contamination. They only change their story and suggested contamination may have been involved after they were told they had tested dinosaur bones.

You were misled about that. Labs specifically tell their customers what the limits are, and also tell them that it is the customer responsibility to avoid contamination of the sample. They also point out the limitations of their analysis. Which is why ancient bones could only give "greater than 50,000 years" as a result.

Marke: The lab tested the bones and certified their results were accurate. Any other claim is untrue.

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