(facepalm) You don’t have the slightest clue how radiocarbon dating works, do you?
That’s called an argument from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. People thought it unbelievable that there are 10’s of billions of galaxies, but it doesn’t change the fact that there are billions of galaxies. Reality does not have to conform to what we find believable.
2 Likes
Circular reasoning. If this is how you are going to think, you’re just displaying prominently the fact that deep time is 100% taken for granted and non-falsifiable. The paper I just linked to there showed maximum detectable age ranges for the types of things that Schweitzer discovered in the bones, and they are dramatically lower than the assigned age of Mesozoic. You’re ignoring the data because it’s inconvenient.
Did you miss the part where I linked an actual scientific paper showing those things cannot last that long?
No, it doesn’t. All it shows is that since your 2002 paper science has discovered under certain rare conditions trace amount of mineralized original organics can be preserved. That’s a neat find which opens up new areas of research but in no way casts the slightest doubt on well verified radiometric dating techniques.
3 Likes
Where is the circular reasoning? The age of the fossil is determined by radiometric dating, not by how long certain features in a fossil can last. We know how old the fossil is before we ever crack it open and see what is inside.
The age of a fossil is a measurement of the ratios of specific isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below a fossil in the geologic column.
That’s a bit rich. You are ignoring those same types of things in 65 million year old bone because it is inconvenient.
3 Likes
You are disregarding evidence that points to a young age of the bone based upon the fact that the bone is believed to be old. Yet the evidence I gave you refutes the concept that the bone is old.
The age of a fossil is a measurement of the ratios of specific isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below a fossil in the geologic column.
Radiometric dating is just one of many ‘methods’ one could employ to attempt to date something. You are attempting to give that method some kind of overriding predominance it does not deserve in the least. Just as we can measure the decay rates of radioisotopes, we can ALSO measure the decay rates of organic materials. That’s what the paper I just showed has done.
First, that’s not a scientific paper. Second, where are the natural laws that put an upper limit to how long these features can last? As far as I can tell, it is based on nothing other than opinion, and the main opinion is that advancing technology allows us to detect these features farther and farther back in time with each passing year.
You accuse others of being dogmatic, but I think you need to take a hard look in the mirror. What evidence would you need to accept that the features Schweitzer saw could last that long if a 65 million year old fossils with those features is not enough?
Why would you say that?
Second, where are the natural laws that put an upper limit to how long these features can last?
Decay happens, and it happens at relatively predictable rates we can measure and test. They did so. They don’t support the conclusion that those bones are 65 mya.
What evidence would you need to accept that the features Schweitzer saw could last that long if a 65 million year old fossils with those features is not enough?
Whether they are really 65 myo is the very thing under dispute. That’s why you’re engaging in blatant circular reasoning here.
LOL! Only in Creationist fantasies. 
If dinosaur fossils are only 6K years old tops then you should be able to find your claimed “unfossilized” dino bones in every fossil bed deposit. In Siberia we find any number of well preserved late Pleistocene fauna - mammoths, wooly rhinos, oxen, Dire wolves, etc.
Where are your well preserved dinos with raw meat still on the bones?
2 Likes
It’s not peer reviewed and it’s not published in a peer reviewed journal.
It doesn’t happen at predictable rates. It can change wildly depending on the conditions. Radioactive isotopes do decay with clock like precision, and those are what we use to date fossils.
The radiometric dating settles it.
2 Likes
That assumes there’s no possible mechanism for in-situ formation(there is), and that the level of exchange with the environment is and has remained zero up to the very instant of measurement. You have no reason to suppose either case obtains.
The real argument is going to revolve about amounts, but your insisting that it should be zero is a straw man.
I didn’t see anywhere where tests were done on mineralized collagen remnants like the samples Dr. Schweitzer found. Your 2002 results are therefore not applicable to the new finds.
2 Likes
So you’re saying that claim can’t be falsified? How are you not doing circular reasoning then? Perhaps they really can last that long under some unique and rare circumstances, and the preservation of this material is evidence of that?
Go that route?? So you are saying that they are young because they look young. But then they are young when they look old? Clearly you find it unbelievable. That’s not evidence of anything except hard-headedness. What about things that are old? You are not trying to understand what is seen, you are trying to find an exception can claim it as the norm.
Obviously most things of that age fossilize. Very rarely they do not. Obviously under certain specific and incredibly rare circumstances. But this does not mean that the earth and life are young. This has been my contention all along. It merely means that you’ve found an outlier that in no way proves that the earth is young. And all of the other points of data that are not outliers show that the earth is old.
Something could be young in an old world, but it could not be old in a young world. You have proven nothing in this exercise.
2 Likes
How do you know what the review processes are for that publication? Can you show me where the review process is stated? In any case, this is nonetheless a published work by a PhD scientist in the field, is it not?
It doesn’t happen at predictable rates. It can change wildly depending on the conditions.
That’s simply false. It can certainly change based on factors like temperature, but that is taken into account. The lower the temperature, obviously the longer it may last.
The radiometric dating settles it.
This is just another dating method like any other. None are infallible, and all rely on assumptions.
Why do you think a 2002 paper which didn’t test the conditions under which later preserved collagens were found somehow negates the newer finding?
There’s a famous statement by Lord Kelvin in the 1880’s claiming heavier than air flight is impossible. Do you think that 1880 assessment proves aircraft of today can’t fly?
2 Likes
This is a classic example of what I call the Creationist Jigsaw Puzzle fallacy. Creationists will ignore millions of pieces of cross-correlating and corroborating scientific data, glom on to one fact which they will interpret with their YEC paradigm, then demand their YEC view be given precedence despite the direct contradiction from the other million consilient pieces. 
2 Likes
I know because I am an author on many peer reviewed articles, I regularly read peer reviewed articles, and I also looked at the homepage for the journal and it never states that the articles are peer reviewed. There are review articles that are peer reviewed, but the article you pointed to is along the lines of a news article, what we would call secondary press.
In case you were wondering what a peer reviewed article (i.e. primary literature) looks like, they are original scientific work written up by the scientists who did the work. These papers will have an introduction, methods, results, and discussion section. If you don’t see these well defined sections then it is a secondary article or a review article.
It depends on a lot more than that:
No, it isn’t. There are no natural laws that require these features to decay at a specific rate.
3 Likes
I am pretty certain I recall you telling YEC adherents here on this blog that they needed to dispense with their young earth interpretations. I believe that the conversation was with Greg, but don’t remember for sure.
Have you flipped on this point, and if so, when and why. It seemed that you were quite insistent that a young earth is out of the question but that young life was still in play. Forgive me if I have this wrong.
EDIT: I did some searching and came up with the following, which does not really fall in line with my memory, but it leans that direction. I seem to recall further discussion regarding this topic elsewhere… anyhow, it would be interesting to know if you have pivoted or not.
But if someone asks about whether God created the earth 6000 yrs ago, i will tell them the truth that i believe this is what it says and that God is a great God who trascends the natural and leave it at that
Greg said: Ok. I understand. I know one thing for sure, I do not want to be the cause of your overthrow of faith. Keep it at all costs. Even if the earth is old, your faith is more important.
You replied: I am concerned about the young ones, however, coming up in homeschools and who love science. They will not have a chance in the real university and real world if they hold to a young earth. I am concerned.