She didn't have to address the young earth at all to keep her funding. So your theory is that she is secretly a creationist and everything she says to support evolution is just to get funding? Where is the proof for this conspiracy theory? Maybe the only reason you are taking the creationist perspective is because your wife is a creationist and your marriage would not last without her, but really you are an atheist.
Really weird post...and fyi I am the wife. But yes, even before any young earth or creationist said anything she knocked out the possible use of her findings for their use. Very smart move. And she did not carbon date the material. Another smart move. You do that and your career is over. I read at least of one case where a researcher offered the possibility of rethinking timelines when he had his soft tissue sample...and he was fired. You have to be very, very careful.
When did I say that that is what I'm bassing my info on? I referred to the movy because it is entirely plausible.
Schweitzer wants no connection with psuedoscience and creationist nonsense. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She's horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
She was on the defensive from when she first discover the tissue before creationist even knew. She is an excellent strategist. Funding is key to her work. I imagine any scientist with a finding that might put a chip in the established narrative will figure a plan if they want a career.
Creation 'science' only attempts to prove the idea by whatever evidence it can find - even if the evidence doesn't actually support it - and ignores or excuses any evidence against it. Real science doesn't make excuses for evidence.
BEWARE! The OPer is punking you. The linked video has NOTHING to do with the title or topic. It's just 1 1/2 minutes of preaching.
I'm not debating creation science. I am saying that a scientist who finds something that could threaten the approved narrative, if smart, will devise a strategy so that funding remains intact. Publically denouncing creationism is crucial to that strategy.
The point is that you can create a conspiracy for anything. However, it is much harder to actually prove a conspiracy theory. I think the burden of evidence is on the conspiracy theory because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that a scientist is lying about her beliefs, the burden of proof is on you to show that she is lying not on her to show that she is innocent. If she was a secret young earth creationist then she would realize that creationists misuse scientific findings for their use all the time, e.g. Gould and punctuated equilibrium. As long as she uses evolutionary reasoning in her papers she is not in trouble with this secret evolutionist illuminati. If she was secretly a creationist then she would know that denouncing creationists using her work for their theories would do great damage to the real truth coming out. Actually it was dated to 68 million years old. It even in her own paper. By the way, because of the high speed that carbon degrades it is not useful for very old fossils. So you obviously don't understand how dating even works. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/ Well, her career is very much alive. Notice that you didn't say that he was fired because of his ideas. He could have been fired for some other reason. Also another smart move on your part is that you didn't cite your source. If you want to prove that scientists are being fired for doing dating on fossils like they are supposed it, then you have to prove it.
You'll probably try to discredit this, but here it is. C14 discovered in fossils. More evidence that they cannot be millions of years old. No one has been able to discredit these findings. http://crev.info/2015/06/c14-dinosaur-bone/
I don't think you understand dating very well. Carbon dating is only used when analysis is done to make sure that there is no significant C14 leaving or entering the rock through other means. If there was, then the date would be inaccurate. So it is very much possible that a very old fossil could have a lot of C14 if there was a factor that we introducing it into the rock. So you will have to show that there is nothing like that going on if you are to prove that dating is inaccurate. Also, even when C14 degrades, there is still some left even though it is less and less. Theoretically it doesn't disappear.
I generally don't get into using science to argue a point with a creationist -- I have to prove things that have already been accepted to the scientific community, while the creationist merely references the Bible. Not a very easy argument to make, if I were to use a text that had an unknown author and nessesitated translation from an ancient language that did not use punctuation, it, undoubtedly, would be meet with scepticism and rightly so. The creationist is not held to this same standard, even when interpreting his text however he deems nessesary in order to refute "evil" science.
You are 100% correct. The RC dating of numerous samples from around the world are now being refused at labs because of the politics / money as numerous previous samples tested showed ages from circa 10k to 40k years. Various "science" web sites refuse to post the data, let alone attempt to refute it. The narrative must be maintained!
Can you imagine the chaos?? Every textbook revised, every hypothesis under scrutiny, every museum in a flux as they change according to the new information. But most of all...since the timelines have been a building block in every aspect of geology and evolutionary research...it would basically devalue the research done to this point. Its a pretty serious thing. A consequence of science built on nothing.
Science had no issue in proving the dates of dinasaurs and showing other evidence to refute young earth theories. De-valueing alot of the earth age theology at the point in time. By the same token, young earth creationists should have no issue in proving their theories. But they can't because their theories are ridiculous, not even worthy of the word theory, to be honest not even worthy of the word fairy tale, more suitable for an adult living in delusions belonging in a mental asylum with padded walls and a crazy suit.
I dunno young earth theories. But I do know that scientists found soft tissue and automatically made the assumption it was millions of years old. Dating the actual material was simply wasn't an option.
What I imagine is that proponents of creation science will eventually move on to some other nonsense.
bernie isn't el presidente yet. You're responsible for your own research. It's out there. Here's an exercise for the cowardly real science deniers: Call any reputable lab - either a university or commercial lab - that does carbon -14 dating. Tell them you've found some dino soft tissue, and ask them if they're willing to test it? Ask them how much they would charge. Offer them money in excess of what would be normal. They'll refuse, and after they do you'll still be in denial because the loons live a lie.
Mary Schweitzer is a real scientist yet "science" web sites are loath to put her findings out there for open discussion. Q: Why is that? A: Because "science" is highly politicized.
They will refuse you for the same reason that mechanics who only repair Mercedes would refuse if you brought them a Toyota. Carbon-14 dating is only good for objects less than 50,000 years old. You're dino soft tissue is about 64,950,000 years too old to date with Carbon-14.
Her findings are out there if you just look for them. https://academic.microsoft.com/#/se...tzer%40&q=Mary Higby Schweitzer&from=0&sort=0 Yes, you have to pay to see most of them, but science is a job too, and there is this thing called intellectual property.
