Here is a prime example of AiG’s pseudoscience. The methods of scientific investigation are misused for the sole purpose of making false claims, lying, and deceiving for the purpose of advancing one group’s belief’s. I find it unethical. PS should make official statements condemning such pseudoscience.
1 Like
Clearly, dragons existed on the planet well into the Middle Ages. The art work is conclusive, no need for physical evidence.
2 Likes
Actually there’s plenty of documented physical evidence for dinosaurs being around recently, whether from Vance Nelson’s book, Dire Dragons (which includes many examples of ancient human artifacts depicting living dinosaurs, as well as results from C14 testing performed on dino bone), or from the work of Dr Mary Schweitzer and others, who have begun documenting soft tissue still present in dinosaur bones, or from the work of Dr Hirotsugu Mori who documented unpermineralized hadrosaur bones in Alaska.
The evidential case is pretty solid. I guess you should wonder, “Hey, why have I not been told these things?”
1 Like
We have. We just know these data points (some of which are completely made up) do not lead to the conclusions YEC’s think they do.
6 Likes
What data points that I listed were ‘completely made up’?
Some of the claims of C14 in fossils. Some studies were done by YECs on samples that were already known to be contaminated.
Also, how do you explain that we don’t see it consistently across all kinds of samples? Nor do we see it at levels Greater than that could be explained by contamination.
The evidential case is so far from being solid.
3 Likes
I’m not sure what specific thing you’re referring to, but Nelson’s sample was not contaminated.
Also, how do you explain that we don’t see it consistently across all kinds of samples?
For one, because most scientists refuse to apply C14 testing to samples they believe are millions of years old. In all cases of which I’m aware, such testing always comes back with positive, detectable values.
or do we see it at levels Greater than that could be explained by contamination.
“Could be” does not equal “is”. If they are not, in fact, contaminated, then this is irrelevant.
The evidential case is so far from being solid.
You have not demonstrated that to be true by a long shot.
You are so unaware of the literature If you think this.
This makes no sense. You don’t seem to understand. All traces of C14 that have been found in fossils, coal, diamonds etc, have been tiny amounts. So small that you can’t rule out the sample being contaminated. So I’m asking why don’t we find samples that are without a doubt not contaminated?
I really like this series by @jammycakes
Pretty much addresses every argument you just put forward. And it’s addressed with peer reviewed literature
2 Likes
What’s stopping YECs from doing such testing and publishing the results?
To my knowledge YECs only tried dating fossils once about 15 years ago and got values in the range of 30K to 40K years. The funny part was they got values 9K years apart for pieces of the same specimen. 
Either the fossils were hopelessly contaminated (which is what everyone in science suspects) or a 6K year old earth is disproven. Either way is a big failure for YEC.
Just for my own reference, give me an example where scientists have knowingly and intentionally performed C14 testing on a sample they believed to be millions of years old, and which got a result of no detectable amount.
This makes no sense. You don’t seem to understand. All traces of C14 that have been found in fossils, coal, diamonds etc, have been tiny amounts. So small that you can’t rule out the sample being contaminated. So I’m asking why don’t we find samples that are without a doubt not contaminated?
You cannot allege contamination based upon the amount alone. You would need some actual evidence it was contaminated. Otherwise you’re just engaging in circular reasoning. As for why the amounts are “small”, that is a separate debate. If the samples are really millions of years old, the amount should not be small; it should be zero.
Nothing. And in some cases, they have done exactly that. One such case is published in Nelson’s Dire Dragons. There have been multiple instances of these types of C14 tests being done.
I’m not saying you can. I’m going to ask again. If you don’t answer I’m done. Why don’t we find samples that have amounts that couldn’t possibly be explained by contamination?
You might enjoy this paper as well:
Exactly the point I was making to T.j_Runyon. Thanks for confirming that scientists are not bothering to do this test to confirm or falsify their assumption of deep time.
Please provide references and/or links to these tests and published results, thanks!
Scientists aren’t stupid enough to do useless tests with inappropriate methods. That’s the domain of the YEC “scientists”. 
Do you realize there are dozens of other radiometric dating techniques besides C14 which confirm “deep time”?
Scientists aren’t stupid enough to do useless tests with inappropriate methods.
It’s stupid to test your theories in science? That’s news to me. It’s only “stupid” or “inappropriate” if you assume you are right about the age of the samples to begin with. (Circular reasoning).
It’s stupid to retest things which have been demonstrated for more than a century. But if you want to retest C14 dating, go for it! What’s stopping you?
BTW did you know C14 dating is calibrated by a least a dozen independent yearly dating proxies back to 50K years?
IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP
1 Like
How should I know? It doesn’t matter for the sake of this point. If deep time assumptions are correct, the specimens should yield a result of 0 detectable C14. Yet when tested, they don’t give that result. That is a disconfirmation of deep time, unless you can prove it was contaminated, and in the cases I am aware of, there is no legitimate reason to allege contamination. Steps were taken to preclude that.
There are labs that study contamination that apply all types of measurements to a wide range of samples.