Jump to content


Photo

Out Of Place Fossils Falsify Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#201 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 July 2016 - 10:15 PM

But somehow the malachite bones date to 1450 yrs ago


I will grant to you that the date is a problem in my mind. However Patton has told me that because of the known infiltration from another location which did cause the mineralization of the bones, making them turn green and become partially malachite... then we should not be surprised that there is a younger c14 date. I believe if someone would attempt AMS dating of tooth pulp (they did find teeth), and if there was a young date for that then I would agree that the bones must have been recently intrusively buried. If the date is 4500 years or older, possibly up to 25,000 to 40000 then that would be consistent with humans who became buried by the flood. However I would expect that you would just blow that off and say that it was just some human who lived alongside Neanderthals. I guess in your mind that means heads you win tails I lose, eh?

BTW, Patton's video shows the still photos that were supplied by the Bureau of Land Management so that is all the evidence there is. But Patton does not say that all of the material surrounding the bones is rock hard. Some of it is what he would call partially consolidated sandstone. You can see the tooth marks of the back hoe in the side of the wall but it is certainly not just sand or else it would not be perpendicular nor would there be tooth marks visible remaining in the wall after twenty years. And you can see from the position of the body that the top part of it is gone but there is no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart. If you are fair-minded you would see that as strong evidence they were killed and buried by a flood which deposited all the sediments. A mining accident or purposeful burial in no way fits with the fact that the bodies were disarticulated. People don't chop up their family members before they bury them nor do mine collapses cause bodies to be torn apart.

#202 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 22 July 2016 - 04:47 AM

I will grant to you that the date is a problem in my mind. However Patton has told me that because of the known infiltration from another location which did cause the mineralization of the bones, making them turn green and become partially malachite... then we should not be surprised that there is a younger c14 date.


The bones from the 1971 excavations were reported as slightly mineralized and stained blue green by leaching copper minerals. I don't see anywhere where it states the bones are "partially malachite" and even if they were do you think a professional lab would be so incompetent as to not date an appropriate section of the bone ? Besides, you complain when  a very small amount of contamination (in the case of the mosasaur bone in the Lindgren paper 4.8%, and all other dinosaur 'young' bone dates cited by creationists substantially less than that) is given as the cause of non infinite dates yet in the case of the malachite man bone carbon age of just 1450 yrs you think contamination is the answer. That would need about 90% replacement with modern carbon !

 

Attached File  136402_max.jpg   22.24KB   0 downloads
 
Having said that I don't think the analysis commissioned by the Moab Archaeological Society even used the actual bone. The MAS report I showed you states it was organic material associated with one of the skeletons excavated by a team of professional archaeologists in Autumn 1990. This doesn't help you of course because any organic material would have to have been buried with the body at the time of death.
 
 

BTW, Patton's video shows the still photos that were supplied by the Bureau of Land Management so that is all the evidence there is. But Patton does not say that all of the material surrounding the bones is rock hard. Some of it is what he would call partially consolidated sandstone. You can see the tooth marks of the back hoe in the side of the wall but it is certainly not just sand or else it would not be perpendicular nor would there be tooth marks visible remaining in the wall after twenty years. And you can see from the position of the body that the top part of it is gone but there is no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart. If you are fair-minded you would see that as strong evidence they were killed and buried by a flood which deposited all the sediments. A mining accident or purposeful burial in no way fits with the fact that the bodies were disarticulated. People don't chop up their family members before they bury them nor do mine collapses cause bodies to be torn apart.


If that's all the evidence there is and that has been your main basis for arguing the bones were not just found in consolidated sand and rock fragments then I question your objectivity. And how can you state so definitively that there is "no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart" ? If the miner was buried in a crouched position for example why couldn't the leg bones become separated from the upper skeleton in this way ?
 
I also don't see why skeletons disarticulated in this way is strong evidence for a flood. As I've said before a flood violent enough to rip bodies apart would not keep all the pieces in such a small area. Also, under a violent flood scenario, why would the Dakota formation been laid in such a way, with soft sandy layers alternating with hard sandstone ?



#203 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 11:07 AM

W>>even if they were do you think a professional lab would be so incompetent as to not date an appropriate section of the bone ?>>

Hmmm...isn't that I should say about the mosasaur?  Actually they DID try as hard as they could (by abrading away outer layers) to get into a part of the bone that they thought would NOT have bacteria. 

 

>>in the case of the malachite man bone carbon age of just 1450 yrs you think contamination is the answer. That would need about 90% replacement with modern carbon !>>

As I said, the c14 dates are a problem, unless there is infiltration/contamination.  I am inquisitive about it and would like to see a date from inside an intact tooth.  Are you inquisitive about it?  Or are you ready to just dismiss it as well as the young date for the mosasaur?

 

>>The MAS report I showed you states it was organic material associated with one of the skeletons excavated by a team of professional archaeologists in Autumn 1990. This doesn't help you of course because any organic material would have to have been buried with the body at the time of death.>>

That does raise some issues.  Why would they NOT use a bone?  Maybe it is regarded as "sacred" by Indians. 

 

>>And how can you state so definitively that there is "no way that a backhoe or bulldozer tore the body apart" ? If the miner was buried in a crouched position for example why couldn't the leg bones become separated from the upper skeleton in this way ?>>

The only leg you have to stand on (no pun) is an absurd idea that the upper body was ripped up by a back hoe (with no one noticing a skull or torso) and then the lower body got covered up in such a way that it appeared as it does in the still photos...being revealed in a matrix that shows no evidence at all of the supposed destruction of the context right at the point where the bones that SHOULD be there...are not. 

 

>>I also don't see why skeletons disarticulated in this way is strong evidence for a flood. As I've said before a flood violent enough to rip bodies apart would not keep all the pieces in such a small area.>>

You seem to believe it is all (fully articulated) or nothing (every bone is disarticulated).  I don't think real life works that way.

 

>>Also, under a violent flood scenario, why would the Dakota formation been laid in such a way, with soft sandy layers alternating with hard sandstone ?>>

Whether you have incredulity about it or not, there is good evidence from many places that there was quick deposition.  Sometimes even AE's admit this.  Just look as the polystrate trees, where multiple layers of coal and limestone (maybe it is sandstone...don't recall) are laid in a short enough time that the tree did not decompose. 

 

Why have you disregarded the argument I made (and presented to Lindgren) that they could easily rule out bacterial contamination if they got C14 dates from multiple places in a single bone, or compared smaller bones to larger ones.  If they got the same 24,600 year date every time, then that rules out bacteria...AGREE?



#204 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 11:16 AM

W>>>>The MAS report I showed you states it was organic material associated with one of the skeletons excavated by a team of professional archaeologists in Autumn 1990. This doesn't help you of course because any organic material would have to have been buried with the body at the time of death.>>>>

I think you are purposely blinding yourself if you think the 1450 date is valid, but the 200 yr date is not.  Why so?  If they are both valid then you have to try to say there were TWO unlikely mine collapses.  It is just your grasping at any straw you can come up with to save your theory.  And besides, just as you would be suspicious if Patton did the C14 dating with no one overseeing him, I am also suspicious of the ev's doing the dating without being overseen by a YE person.  The truth is these dating procedures are pretty rife with corruption.  They toss out any date they don't like and make any adjustments they can to get a "correct" date.  They even ask ahead of time what the EXPECTED date is!



#205 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 12:55 PM

In this article LINK Mark Armitage (former microscopy instructor at Cal State) compares dino bones which DID have endogenous collagen with the Moab Man bones...and he found NO collagen, and DID find the remains of a boring insect and suggested they consumed all the original collagen inside the bones.  I would suggest that this could also be the cause of the young dates.  If they got INSIDE the hip bone (it was found after it was pressure cracked) then they probably were also inside the "associated organic material associated with the bones."  He also pointed out that plenty of collagen was found in ancient Egyptian mummies. 



#206 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 01:35 PM

Wibble, why did you totally IGNORE the good evidence I showed you of the cat track?  It was cross-sectioned, and it shows clear compression features.  If it were carved, there would be clear evidence of truncations. 



#207 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 03:04 PM

W>>Ok, that video worked. When you said a video of the bones being uncovered I thought you meant an actual video sequence of that event, not a series of poor quality stills. There's no way to tell from that how hard or how sandy the material around the bones is. Call me biased but I'll go with the reports from multiple workers that the bones were buried in unconsolidated blowsand rather than believe the single person (Patton) who maintains they were in solid rock.>>

Ok, it is total bullcrap for you to try to say that in that video at 47:44, which is the same photo as this:

 

malachite-man-1990-leg-knee.jpg

 

is BLOWSAND where the femur is and where the pelvis and spine would have to be...BUT ARE NOT.  I don't care WHAT any ev authors might have written about it, that photo puts the lie to the idea it was just BLOWSAND.  But you are not objective or inquisitive about it.  The same goes for this picture too.

 

post-1952-0-10157200-1459944907.jpg

 

Some IS crumbly, but much of it is clearly solidified ROCK.  It is just BOGUS for you to try to suggest they were in blowsand.  Do you even know what that word MEANS?  And how could anyone tunnel 200 feet through sand anyway???



#208 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 03:13 PM

I did see this in the Coulam article:

 

In the fall of 1995, Mr. Harrison allowed several creationists to dig for additional human remains. They
discovered several skeletal fragments in loose unconsolidated fill about 15 m north of the 1971 discoveries. These
specimens appear to be some of the missing skeletal parts of the two individuals excavated by Jack Marwitt. They
were apparently pushed into this area during the 1971 bulldozer activities that originally uncovered the remains.

 

 

So SOME of the remains were in a pile of loose fill that may have been unintentionally pushed by a bulldozer in 1971.  I would think that after the 1971 discoveries they were quite careful with the heavy equipment.  The leg bones shown in my previous post were in a totally different location than the 1971 finds.  And in 1990, as can be seen in the sequence of stills, the BLM archaeologists were careful when exposing the bones they found. 



#209 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 03:45 PM

At 48:30 of the video the location is shown after the articulated legs were removed.  You cannot see any backhoe marks at all.  You see 2 rather deep holes from the careful excavation.  The picture seen at 49:07 is after the site was "cleaned up"  and you can see tooth marks of the backhoe.  BUT before the excavation of the bones, there were none. 

 

Also, regarding the 210bp date taken from a humerus bone...from this source: UCLA radiocarbon dates XI, 1989 Radiology vol 31 No. 1  (When I gave a link before, that did not work...here it is again, in case it works now:  LINK  Here is the intro:

 

The radiocarbon dates reported in this list are almost all based on collagen measurements from human archaeologic bone material. This collagen was isolated according to the methods developed by Berger, Homey and Libby (1964), Ho, Marcus and Berger (1969), Longin (1971) and
Protsch (1973). All samples were counted as CO2 gas at close to 1 atm in a 7.5L proportional counter with three energy channels. The 14C reported dates are calculated with the Libby half-life of 5568 ± 30 years as required by convention. 13C measurements were used to normalize to 25%o in the standard manner. The biospheric standard is 95% the count
rate of NBS oxalic acid for radiocarbon laboratories. Background is based on CO2 obtained from marble. The accuracy of counter operation is checked against historically dated wood from the funerary boat of Sesostris III, 1872_8 BC (Hayes, 1962). The 14C ages are not tree-ring calibrated.

 

However, the electron microscope work by Armitage could find NO COLLAGEN inside his bone sample.  Hmmm. 



#210 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 July 2016 - 01:27 PM

I just spoke with Joe Taylor who was very involved with Malachite Man...had possession of some of the bones.  (Maybe no longer).  He said that there was indeed a female who was holding an infant.  Not very likely to be someone entering a long and low mine tunnel!






2 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    wibble