[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

It didn't take me very long to find this article from 1979 that is still linking Seymouria and Diadectes. Read the last sentence of the abstract if nothing else. This is well after radioisotope dating and is published in a peer reviewed journal. I will look for the other example if you want me to.

Now you are switching up the argument and it is getting really fucking old.
I need you to be very blunt in your asking of the question.

The original article on Dawinisdead.com was making a false claim that Seymouria and Diadectes were being used as transitional fossils.

Duane Gish correctly states that both Seymouria and Diadectes are not transitional. No one ever said they were.

That article you just linked me doesn't mention a think about either Seymouria and Diadectes being transitional to other samples like Hylonomus, Paleothyris and some weird reference to Discosauriscus.

The Journal of Paleontology article only says that Seymouria and Diadectes may be related to eachother.

So what was the point of linking me that Journal of Paleontology article? I honestly think you are just googling fossil names and pasting what you find here without applying any real critical thought to the articles themselves.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Disregarded? What if conclusions have been made from a sample? Does someone write a paper saying, "well, Dr. Smith's proposals were revolutionary for their time but THEY WERE ALL LIES!!!!" Or does the fact stay in the textbook and give creationists targets to pick apart?

Also, what is an acceptable amount of error? I have read that deviations of hundreds of millions of years are acceptable. Is this true? If it is that is a hell of error bar.

I'll go over it again and I will be quite honest, for someone claiming to have a strong scientific background, you sure need a hell of a lot of nudging to understand how basic experimentation works. I don't really mean to be insulting but explaining to someone that results can be changed without calling them lies seems a little pointless if you have experience in genetics and biology.

To answer your question, if Dr. Smith's sample is dated using K/Ar and Rb/Sr and is given a specific date, then that date is the date of the sample.

If a similar sample is taken from the exact location with very similar characteristics but is given a different date using both K/Ar and Rb/Sr then BOTH samples are retested using other methods. Depending on what is found the samples may force a re-writing of the geological time scale at a very small level, or they may be found to both or either be contaminated by outside sources.

As for samples being dated by millions of years apart, yes that happens but it does not mean that the samples are then judged to be exactly the same but with different dates. Most of the time that signifies that a specific geological event took place that either moved those samples apart or closer together. Maybe a new lava flow causes a breakdown of the chemical components and the Parent element was lost.

Like I said, the geological time scale is in constant flux on a very small scale.

Give me a specific examples of two samples being millions of years apart and I can probably explain why.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Again, great link, but why hasn't information that would put this debate to bed been prominently displayed on every anti-creationist site there is? I submit it is because there is still room for debate.

It has and no, there is no room for debate. People keep using age old arguments and flatly denying evidence There is one group of people with evidence, and another group that does nothing but poke virtual made up holes in the evidence without providing any credibly evidence of their own.

There is no debate at all. There are no scientific claims made on any creationist website and as is demonstrating here in this thread, even well educated people have a difficult time with all of the data.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

This article has documentation from the University of Arizona dating an Allosaurus sample to ~16,000 years. Yes that is 16 THOUSAND. Now don't give me a bunch of shit about the crazy shit that is on the page with the documentation. I often have to go to crazy YE creationists to get info that rebuts scientific claims because scientists themselves won't do it. This is why I argue so vehemently against people totally accepting all things related to evolutionary theory, because it has become like a dogma to folks that should know better.

Like I said before, I dare you to link me something similar to the "Jurassic Wood" test that Creationists use. You did. You sure use a ton of really bad and really old Creationist arguments.

YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Now I will walk you through why that link is also full of shit.

Carbon-14 is only good for objects around 40,000-60,000 years ago. We are both in total agreement on that issue. What happens when you date something that is older than that?

It will give unreliable results.

Well what if you are not sure how old something is? Then you test it using a variety of methods until you can narrow it down. If you cannot narrow a date down and all of the data is all over the place, you DON'T just pick a date (which is what they did in the case that link you posted) and run with it. You test further for contamination and human error. You seem to be under the impression this happens every time when in fact it almost never happens.

Radiocarbon dating is very good and it has been tested and verified on everything from ancient Sumerian wood, Dead Sea Scrolls and even thousands of tree-ring samples. When a creationist misuses a technique and it gives strange results, the fault is with the creationist and not the technique. I told you that earlier and yet you still posted something exactly the way a YE Creationist would.

Whats next are you going to link me the recently dead seal that was dated to 2,000 years ago even though the biological contamination of the specimen was never even factored in?

Why do you keep linking me to Creationist websites with horrible data that can be proved wrong with a simple application of critical thought? You are obviously not even reading the links you are posting because you confused a relationship between Seymouria and Diadectes with a relationship between Seymouria, Diadectes and Hylonomus, Paleothyris.

I am going to ask again, why do you keep linking me to Creationist websites that have incorrect information that is easily fact-checked? Someone with your claimed expertise in a field like genetics does not get there by reading stuff and running with it. They read it, then read what someone else said about it, then read some more. You obviously didn't bother doing step 1 with any of the sites you have linked me.