Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers · Continuing with Tom Dorsey · Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford · Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

Harry Weatherford

The answer is no. The scientific evidence shows that man did not live during the age of dinosaurs. How ever man did live during the time of mega mammal fawna. These are what we find as leviathans and behemoths.

Richard Linck

All evidence is interpreted from one's world view. The Secular Evolutionary world view is that since the earth is billions of tears old, man did not live with dinos. The Creationist world view is the world was created around 6,000 years ago, with a great, world wide flood around 4,000 years ago, which wiped all air breathing life from the face of the earth, except for Noah and his family.

Harry Weatherford

Richard Linck that is true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The scientific evidence shows that man did not live during the age of dinosaurs."

Do you include or exclude Mark Armitage's carbon dating of dinosaur soft tissue or bones in the scientific evidence?

28 000 BP for one, 22 000 BP for another.

That is Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl any scientist worth his weight would know that after 15000 to 20000 bp radio carbon is unreliable. Now I want to indulge you so post a link of his full report as well as peer reviews so that I may look at it. And it must be from a reputed journal. Not off of a creationist web post.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"any scientist worth his weight would know that after 15000 to 20000 bp radio carbon is unreliable."

Not exactly what the Carbon calculator says.

30 000 years = 2.654 pmC.

His reports are on video:

AgeOfSpecimensandPreachtheWord
MarkHArmitage | 4.XI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpRK7v2_Ok4

Btw, adress to carbon calculator:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

When I type in 70000 years, I get this:

This date is too large and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl that still does not verify his c14 findings. Its been a few moons since I studied the accuracy so the extent may have changed however I would like still see the findings. How he verified the c14, who else verified the findings, as well as the peer review.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Its been a few moons since I studied the accuracy"

Sorry, but 22 000 BP and 28 000 BP have ALWAYS been considered within accurate, as long as the method exists.

The recent push is from 40 000 to 55 - 60 000.

"How he verified the c14"

By sending samples of dinos to carbon labs.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl where is the article? Where is the proof? I'm sorry but up till recently what I stated with c14 dating was the truth. Now with that said I will not take the word of a creationist young earth crack pot website. I want to see the verified evidence my self

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" I'm sorry but up till recently what I stated with c14 dating was the truth."

You know, I'd like to see a paper on that one.

"Now with that said I will not take the word of a creationist young earth crack pot website."

I was looking for the video, where he showed the lab reports.

There is one.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl where

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones - under 40,000 years old
TrueThatiz | 24.VIII.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl from what I have discovered is that outside this "group" there was no independent testing for verification. The group as a whole is bent on young earth theory. There are many doubt's as far as contamination. So therefore there is yet to be conclusive proof of younger Dino's.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where have you "discovered" this?

From what I saw on a video, the probes were sent to labs, outside creationism, since creationists don't own their own C14 labs.

And doubts about contamination were raised after the results were known, so as to discredit the conclusion - sometimes by those labs, and yet they did show the measured pmC values and therefore ages.

Obviously, non-creationists don't take samples of dinos and send them for carbon testing - at least it has not been routine so far. Or they haven't said so.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl there have been however dating have been inconclusive

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, and perhaps they have concluded it was "inconclusive" for the reason they can't accept the conclusion?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl still researching

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you like to give a link or so?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Letters to Creationists : Some Simple Evidences for an Old Earth
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/some-simple-evidences-for-an-old-earth/

Live Science : Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | November 26, 2013
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Second link is not concerned with C14 dating.

Iron will perhaps preserve soft tissue, but not C14, as far as I know.

First link includes this one:

"some (e.g. Cyprian) held them to be 1000-year periods"

Would you mind documenting he held them to actually BE 1000-year periods, rather than correspond to subsequent such of post-Creation history?

"while Augustine opined that it was difficult to be sure about what the “days” of Genesis actually were."

He gave two alternatives.

• 1) days were 24 h periods
• 2) creation was in exactly one moment, but God gave angels six moments in viewing it (and these angels then gave Moses the account).

NOT a trace of 1000-year or longer periods.

"Today’s Young Earth (YE) creationists typically take them to be normal 24-hour days,"

As the Church Fathers except Clement, Origen and St Augustine, these favouring a one moment creation.

"and also take the genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible to be literal and exhaustive representations of post-creation chronology."

As do all Church Fathers INCLUDING St. Augustine. See de Civitate. Origen also had no use for Egyptians inflating post-Creation chronology to 40 000 or some years.

NEITHER of the two dealt with C14 dated dino bones and conclusions about dates being inconclusive.

Which is what I was asking about, since it was what you were speaking of.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm still researching plus one must look at all info. How ever all that I have found thus far preclude that contamination can and will give false readings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, but you missed that Armitage had taken special care to avoid contamination, due to being aware of the problem.

Oh, it was you who were still researching, thought you meant non-YECs carbon dating dinos and they still researching what these things meant ...

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes I'm still researching. there is much info and I am at work I'm not able to look at it all. However in response to him taking precautions not all contamination can be removed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not all extant one, which is the reason where bone parts where such are likely were discarded from samples.

"I am at work I'm not able to look at it all"

• 1) You are at a work NOT involving looking into this. Mine is looking into things, I am a full time writer ("unpaid" so far).
• 2) You probably did a search which gave too wide a scope of answers.

[+notification of the debate being mirrored]

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl it is the wide scope that gives rise to wisdom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And also, in a debate, to not finding the wanted link ... very fast ...