New dating technology falsifying Darwinism
Wretch Fossil
Canadian researchers successfully dated fossil bones directly for the
first time with new technology of the Uranium-lead radiometric dating
method (note 1). The implication of the success is that the new
technology could be used to directly date fossils over one million
yeas old (note 2).
Although some critics say the new technology could mis-represent
fossil ages by one or two millions years younger than reality (note
3), it can easily show the minimum ages for thousands of fossils whose
ages cannot be dated with any other dating method as they were not
found buried in ground. The new technology will be the savior of
numerous fossils currently rejected by Darwinists for their uncertain
age, including many Carboniferous human fossils of Mr. Ed Conrad (note
4).
Note 1: see newspaper report at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141707.htm
Note 2: See last sentence in the abstract of the research article at
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/2/159
Note 3: see comments by 220mya in a blog at
http://chinleana.blogspot.com/2011/01/direct-u-pb-dating-of-fossil-bone.html
Note 4: see a Carboniferous human calvarium at
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-539313
John Harshman
> New dating technology falsifying Darwinism
Please explain how this falsifies "Darwinism".
> Canadian researchers successfully dated fossil bones directly for the
> first time with new technology of the Uranium-lead radiometric dating
> method (note 1). The implication of the success is that the new
> technology could be used to directly date fossils over one million
> yeas old (note 2).
>
> Although some critics say the new technology could mis-represent
> fossil ages by one or two millions years younger than reality (note
> 3), it can easily show the minimum ages for thousands of fossils whose
> ages cannot be dated with any other dating method as they were not
> found buried in ground. The new technology will be the savior of
> numerous fossils currently rejected by Darwinists for their uncertain
> age, including many Carboniferous human fossils of Mr. Ed Conrad (note
> 4).
One problem: it isn't the age of Ed's rocks that's in doubt. We all
agree that they're Carboniferous. The point is that they're just rocks,
and this new dating method won't help with that.
Wretch Fossil
What rocks contain material such as these:
C. Various images of the specimens reveal the following fossil cells
and tissues: bone cells ( Fig. 1-0), blood vessels and red blood cells
(Fig. 1-0-0, Fig. 12-3), Haversian canals ( Fig. 1-3, Fig. 1-4),
neurons, neuroglial cells, nerve fibers (Fig. 10-1, Fig. 10-2, Fig.
10-3, Fig. 10-4), blood vessel’s transverse section (Fig. 11-5).
(See the Result section in article of Note 4 of OP)
and this new dating method won't help with that.
This new dating method will certainly falsify Darwinism sooner than
you think, because there are numerous anomalous, out-of-place fossil
bones and artifacts whose original living/manufacturing ages are not
yet documented or ascertained, or generally accepted as they were not
discovered in situ. Such fossil bones and artifacts can now be dated
with this new method to show their ages, which ages will surely
falsify Darwin's presupposition of common descent. Common descent
requires a tree of life, which will be felled down by more complex
animals existing earlier than less comples animals.
Wretch Fossil
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:38:46 -0800, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >One problem: it isn't the age of Ed's rocks that's in doubt. We all
> >agree that they're Carboniferous. The point is that they're just rocks,
> >and this new dating method won't help with that.
>
>
> WHY would you try to reason with a troll?/!!??
Evolutionist Shameful words to be deleted within 7 days.
John Harshman
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:38:46 -0800, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> One problem: it isn't the age of Ed's rocks that's in doubt. We all
>> agree that they're Carboniferous. The point is that they're just rocks,
>> and this new dating method won't help with that.
>
>
> WHY would you try to reason with a troll?/!!??
There's nothing better to do on sci.bio.paleontology. You want I should
snip sci.skeptic?
John Harshman
None.
> and this new dating method won't help with that.
> This new dating method will certainly falsify Darwinism sooner than
> you think, because there are numerous anomalous, out-of-place fossil
> bones and artifacts whose original living/manufacturing ages are not
> yet documented or ascertained, or generally accepted as they were not
> discovered in situ. Such fossil bones and artifacts can now be dated
> with this new method to show their ages, which ages will surely
> falsify Darwin's presupposition of common descent. Common descent
> requires a tree of life, which will be felled down by more complex
> animals existing earlier than less comples animals.
Isn't it amazing that you know what the dates will be before anyone
dates them. Almost as if your conclusion precedes the data.
Wretch Fossil
bones with the expensive new method? The following example shows why
someone is certain about the age of fossil bones before dating them
with the new method:
Someone saw a fossil bone embedded in ground. He dug it out without
documenting it or reporting it to anyone else since he had not been
trained to do so before digging out the bone. He took it to the
Smithsonian and experts there said it was just a rock. Other experts
say it was a Barbie doll buried or left in the Carboniferous stratum.
So he needs to date it with the new Uranium-lead dating method to get
a scientific age, even the age may be 10% younger than its real age of
300 million years in order to falsify Darwinism.
- 隱藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -
John Harshman
That isn't how science works.
> If not certainly, why would I or anyone want to date fossil
> bones with the expensive new method? The following example shows why
> someone is certain about the age of fossil bones before dating them
> with the new method:
> Someone saw a fossil bone embedded in ground. He dug it out without
> documenting it or reporting it to anyone else since he had not been
> trained to do so before digging out the bone. He took it to the
> Smithsonian and experts there said it was just a rock. Other experts
> say it was a Barbie doll buried or left in the Carboniferous stratum.
> So he needs to date it with the new Uranium-lead dating method to get
> a scientific age, even the age may be 10% younger than its real age of
> 300 million years in order to falsify Darwinism.
And if it's just a rock?
Wretch Fossil
You are not clear in your thoughts. I am certain about the fossil
bone's relative age by checking its stratum and want to verify that
age with the new dating method, which gives an absolute age, rather
than indirect, relative age. That is how science works.
>
> > If not certainly, why would I or anyone want to date fossil
> > bones with the expensive new method? The following example shows why
> > someone is certain about the age of fossil bones before dating them
> > with the new method:
> > Someone saw a fossil bone embedded in ground. He dug it out without
> > documenting it or reporting it to anyone else since he had not been
> > trained to do so before digging out the bone. He took it to the
> > Smithsonian and experts there said it was just a rock. Other experts
> > say it was a Barbie doll buried or left in the Carboniferous stratum.
> > So he needs to date it with the new Uranium-lead dating method to get
> > a scientific age, even the age may be 10% younger than its real age of
> > 300 million years in order to falsify Darwinism.
>
> And if it's just a rock?
Before dating with new method, I had checked for fossilized cells in
fossil bones as I mentioned above. Think before you ask. Check fossil
cells before dating.
John Harshman
> On 1月31日, 上午1時32分, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Wretch Fossil wrote:
>>>>> This new dating method will certainly falsify Darwinism sooner than
>>>>> you think, because there are numerous anomalous, out-of-place fossil
>>>>> bones and artifacts whose original living/manufacturing ages are not
>>>>> yet documented or ascertained, or generally accepted as they were not
>>>>> discovered in situ. Such fossil bones and artifacts can now be dated
>>>>> with this new method to show their ages, which ages will surely
>>>>> falsify Darwin's presupposition of common descent. Common descent
>>>>> requires a tree of life, which will be felled down by more complex
>>>>> animals existing earlier than less comples animals.
>>>> Isn't it amazing that you know what the dates will be before anyone
>>>> dates them. Almost as if your conclusion precedes the data.
>>> Certainly.
>> That isn't how science works.
>
> You are not clear in your thoughts. I am certain about the fossil
> bone's relative age by checking its stratum and want to verify that
> age with the new dating method, which gives an absolute age, rather
> than indirect, relative age. That is how science works.
No, you were talking about a "fossil" you find on the ground without any
stratigraphic information at all. Keep your story straight.
>> And if it's just a rock?
> Before dating with new method, I had checked for fossilized cells in
> fossil bones as I mentioned above. Think before you ask. Check fossil
> cells before dating.
Your fossilized cells are all hallucinations. You see them everywhere,
including in randomly selected rocks.
Wretch Fossil
> WretchFossilwrote:
> > On 1月31日, 上午1時32分, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>WretchFossilwrote:
> >>>>> This new dating method will certainly falsify Darwinism sooner than
> >>>>> you think, because there are numerous anomalous, out-of-placefossil
> >>>>> bones and artifacts whose original living/manufacturing ages are not
> >>>>> yet documented or ascertained, or generally accepted as they were not
> >>>>> with this new method to show their ages, which ages will surely
> >>>>> falsify Darwin's presupposition of common descent. Common descent
> >>>>> requires a tree of life, which will be felled down by more complex
> >>>>> animals existing earlier than less comples animals.
> >>>> Isn't it amazing that you know what the dates will be before anyone
> >>>> dates them. Almost as if your conclusion precedes the data.
> >>> Certainly.
> >> That isn't how science works.
>
> > You are not clear in your thoughts. I am certain about thefossil
> > bone's relative age by checking its stratum and want to verify that
> > age with the new dating method, which gives an absolute age, rather
> > than indirect, relative age. That is how science works.
>
> No, you were talking about a "fossil" you find on the ground without any
> stratigraphic information at all. Keep your story straight.
>
> >> And if it's just a rock?
> > Before dating with new method, I had checked for fossilized cells in
> > cells before dating.
>
> Your fossilized cells are all hallucinations.
You see them everywhere,
> including in randomly selected rocks.- 隱藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -
John Harshman
Impenetrability.
Steven Bornfeld
What about the Haversian canals, John, huh? How about those freakin'
canalsssss!
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
John Harshman
Apparently you don't know the definition of impenetrability. I meant
that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if
you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to
stop here all the rest of your life.
Ben Finney
> Apparently you don't know the definition of impenetrability. I meant
> that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if
> you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to
> stop here all the rest of your life.
That's a great deal to make one word mean.
--
\ “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to |
`\ persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” —Carl |
_o__) Sagan |
Ben Finney
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> Apparently you don't know the definition of impenetrability. I meant
>> that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if
>> you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to
>> stop here all the rest of your life.
>
> That's a great deal to make one word mean.
>
pnyikos
I recognized the allusion to _Through the Looking Glass_ the first
time around, and I'm delighted to see you continue with it. I wonder
how many other people cottoned on.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Won't you take my advice, Wretch Fossil, and take them to some
reputable expert in paleontology, and ask if they are fossilized bone
without breathing a word about what kind of bone you think they are?
preferably not even guessing at their age, just telling where they
were found.
Maybe you could get an unbiased answer that way. If the answer is
negative, try to point out what you think are cells, or haversian
canals, under the microscope, and ask how he interprets them.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
How many people even read this newsgroup? Both people who responded
apparently got the reference. Presumably Mr. Wretch would not.
John Harshman
Ed did that, you know.
Wretch Fossil
> reputable expert in paleontology, and ask if they are fossilized bone
> without breathing a word about what kind of bone you think they are?
> preferably not even guessing at their age, just telling where they
> were found.
>
> Maybe you could get an unbiased answer that way. If the answer is
> negative, try to point out what you think are cells, or haversian
> canals, under the microscope, and ask how he interprets them.
>
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -
Mr. Ed Conrad, the owner of numerous Carboniferous human/animal
fossils, has done just that many times. All experts said they were
just rocks. The experts include: Prof. Kurt Wise, Prof. PZ Myers,
Prof. Andrew MacRae, Smithsonian experts, etc.
The only exception was the late Prof. Wilton Krogman, one-time
president of American Association of Physical Anthropologists. He
said, " Man, oh, man, you got something that will go down in the book
of paleontology......" (see evidence at
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=22&f=1472332488&p=6
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=22&f=1472310629&p=7
)
Many paleontologists know my following article correctly identifes a
Carboniferous human femur at:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2010/02/human-leg-bone-fossil-of-300-mya.html
However, they simply cannot admit it. You know why. Loss of too much.