Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…209210212214215…232

Comments

  • #6332
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    T-Rex did exist. Date of extinction unknown.

    Well the exact date is obviously unknown. But paleontologists agree that it was approximately 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6333
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Well the exact date is obviously unknown. But paleontologists agree that it was approximately 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?
    Not a lot :) ... the recent discoveries of soft T Rex tissue and even blood is indicating that their fossils are quite recent indeed.


  • #6334
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Not a lot ... the recent discoveries of soft T Rex tissue and even blood is indicating that their fossils are quite recent indeed.

    Come on JC, I had a busy day and could do with a good laugh, how recent?

    MrP


  • #6335
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Not a lot ... the recent discoveries of soft T Rex tissue and even blood is indicating that their fossils are quite recent indeed.

    Nope. The pliability of the soft tissue was due to an abundance of iron. Check out molecular paleontologist Mary Schweitzer's work.

    So, all paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6336
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Nope. The pliability of the soft tissue was due to an abundance of iron. Check out molecular paleontologist Mary Schweitzer's work.

    So, all paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?
    That was their initial position ... but since then, they have found blood and proteins in several fossils.

    So they have changed their tune ... and they now accept that there is blood and proteins in dinosaur fossils ... and ...
    they now say that it (miraculously) survived for millions of years ... but 75 million year old blood and collagen is stretching credulity beyond all limits.
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/06/09/blood-cells-dinosaur-bones/#.WQut6_nyvIU

    ... and the Nolan Show covered this topic on 11th April 2017
    https://audioboom.com/posts/5807018-prehistoric-preachers-to-teach-children-dinosaurs-and-men-lived-together

    If anybody wants to attend the CMI roadshow, here are the details of times, dates and venues throughout Ireland:-
    http://creation.com/prehistoric-preachers-dinosaur-roadshows


  • Advertisement
  • #6337
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Come on JC, I had a busy day and could do with a good laugh, how recent?

    MrP
    A new, nice and pleasant Mr P. (WRT me).
    I welcome this development.:)

    ... and the answer to your question, is very recent indeed (a maximum of thousands and not millions of years). They have even found amino acid chains that are almost identical to those from a living Emu !!!:eek:

    We are finding blood cells and intact proteins present in Dinosaur fossils ... these would be destroyed in thousands (and not millions of years).

    Quote James Scott:-
    "The way that the scientific method works is that when scientists discover any empirical data that contradicts their theory or hypothesis, scientists become obliged to either throw out their theory or revise it, so that their theory conforms to the facts. They are not supposed to reinterpret the facts so that the facts conform to their theory. That would be a violation of the scientific method! And that is precisely what I detect here. Instead of drawing an inference to the best explanation which would be that these bones are not 75 million years old, they are absurdly claiming that it is somehow possible after all for soft tissue and red blood cells to be preserved in natural volatile conditions for over 75 million years. Give me a break."

    I couldn't have said it any better myself ... thanks Mr Scott!!!


  • #6338
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    That was the initial position ... but since then they have found blood and proteins in several fossils.

    So they have changed their tune ... and they now accept that there is blood and proteins in dinosaur fossils ... and ...
    they now say that it (miraculously) survived for millions of years ... but 75 million year old blood and collagen is stretching credulity beyond all limits.
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/06/09/blood-cells-dinosaur-bones/#.WQut6_nyvIU

    ... and the Nolan Show covered this topic on 11th April 2017
    https://audioboom.com/posts/5807018-prehistoric-preachers-to-teach-children-dinosaurs-and-men-lived-together

    If anybody wants to attend the CMI roadshow, here are the details of times, dates and venues throughout Ireland:-
    http://creation.com/prehistoric-preachers-dinosaur-roadshows

    Nobody has changed their tune. Even your first link asserts that dinosaurs existed 75 million years ago. In fact, none of your links counter the fact that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

    So, all paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6339
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Nobody has changed their tune. Even your first link asserts that dinosaurs existed 75 million years ago. In fact, none of your links counter the fact that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

    So, all paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?
    As I have previously said, I don't think a lot of it.

    All paleontologists don't agree any such thing ... and now we are beginning to get radiocarbon in the fossilised dino bones ... which dates them to less than 50,000 years ... more like less than 10,000 years actually, when corrected radiometric alogrithms are used.

    http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/content/radiocarbon-dating-dinosaur-fossils

    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html


  • #6340
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    As I have previously said, I don't think a lot of it.

    All paleontologists don't agree any such thing ... and now we are beginning to get radiocarbon in the fossilised dino bones ... which dates them to less than 50,000 years ... more like less than 10,000 years actually, when corrected radiometric alogrithms are used.

    Do you have any credible research that confirms this amazing discovery? The fact that dinosaurs co-existed with man changes everything. Reports on this incredible news must have been hidden in the media, what with Brexit, Trump, etc.

    All paleontologists agree that they died out millions of years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6341
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Do you have any credible research that confirms this amazing discovery? The fact that dinosaurs co-existed with man changes everything. Reports on this incredible news must have been hidden in the media, what with Brexit, Trump, etc.
    Amazing allright !!!:rolleyes:
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    All paleontologists agree that they died out millions of years ago. What do you think of that?
    Its erroneous.
    Apart from the fact that they are now admitting that there is actual blood cells and intact proteins in 'fossilised' Dinosaur bones ... there is also Radiocarbon aged variously between 20,000 and 50,000 years.
    ... and the old canard that if Human remains were to be found beside dinosaur remains this would change everything and make Evolutionists lose their faith in evolution ... is just that ... a canard ... and it always was, because crocodiles have been dated as 'older' than Dinosaurs ... and their fossils are identical to living crocodiles (which currently co-exist with Mankind).
    ... so, if supposedly 200 million year old crocodiles living contemporaneously with Mankind changed nothing about faith in evolution, why should the discovery of thousands of years old Dinosaurs change anything either ... and this is what we find.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #6342
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    As I have previously said, I don't think a lot of it.

    All paleontologists don't agree any such thing ... and now we are beginning to get radiocarbon in the fossilised dino bones ... which dates them to less than 50,000 years ... more like less than 10,000 years actually, when corrected radiometric alogrithms are used.

    http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/content/radiocarbon-dating-dinosaur-fossils

    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    Neither of those links refer to a single paleontologist.

    Have you any links to (or information on) those paleontologists that express opposition to current scientific understanding about when dinosaurs roamed the Earth?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #6343
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    A new, nice and pleasant Mr P. (WRT me).
    I welcome this development.:)

    ... and the answer to your question, is very recent indeed (a maximum of thousands and not millions of years). They have even found amino acid chains that are almost identical to those from a living Emu !!!:eek:

    We are finding blood cells and intact proteins present in Dinosaur fossils ... these would be destroyed in thousands (and not millions of years).

    Quote James Scott:-
    "The way that the scientific method works is that when scientists discover any empirical data that contradicts their theory or hypothesis, scientists become obliged to either throw out their theory or revise it, so that their theory conforms to the facts. They are not supposed to reinterpret the facts so that the facts conform to their theory. That would be a violation of the scientific method! And that is precisely what I detect here. Instead of drawing an inference to the best explanation which would be that these bones are not 75 million years old, they are absurdly claiming that it is somehow possible after all for soft tissue and red blood cells to be preserved in natural volatile conditions for over 75 million years. Give me a break."

    I couldn't have said it any better myself ... thanks Mr Scott!!!

    So, the earliest cave paintings date from about 40,000 years ago. We have depictions of all sorts of animals mammoths, tigers etc. Can you point me at the dinosaur cave paintings please?

    MrP


  • #6344
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Amazing allright !!!:rolleyes:

    Its erroneous.
    Apart from the fact that they are now admitting that there is actual blood cells and intact proteins in 'fossilised' Dinosaur bones ... there is also Radiocarbon aged variously between 20,000 and 50,000 years.
    ... and the old canard that if Human remains were to be found beside dinosaur remains this would change everything and make Evolutionists lose their faith in evolution ... is just that ... a canard ... and it always was, because crocodiles have been dated as 'older' than Dinosaurs ... and their fossils are identical to living crocodiles (which currently co-exist with Mankind).
    ... so, if supposedly 200 million year old crocodiles living contemporaneously with Mankind changed nothing about faith in evolution, why should the discovery of thousands of years old Dinosaurs change anything either ... and this is what we find.:)

    Nah.

    Firstly, who is James Scott and what are his qualifications?

    Secondly, dinosaur fossils were not radiocarbon dated to 50,00 years ago. That didn't happen.

    Thirdly, the rocks within which that soft tissue was encased were radiocarbon dated to 75 million years ago.

    All paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6345
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    Only came across this thread tonight and read only the the past few pages and I am just curious that you believe in creation ,my question is -do you have to be Christian to believe in that ?/.do creation believers crop up in other religions? and if they do-do they believe in much the same events happening like a flood covering the whole world??do you have to believe that the bible is fact to become a creation believer-in other words if you are not religious would anyone come up with creationism ???


  • #6346
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Neither of those links refer to a single paleontologist.

    Have you any links to (or information on) those paleontologists that express opposition to current scientific understanding about when dinosaurs roamed the Earth?
    Quote-
    "Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

    Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)."

    ... and you can read all about the controversy that erupted below ... when the evolutionists were told that dinosaur bone had been radiocarbon dated to between 22,000 to 39,000 years old!!!!
    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html


  • #6347
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    Only came across this thread tonight and read only the the past few pages and I am just curious that you believe in creation ,my question is -do you have to be Christian to believe in that ?/.do creation believers crop up in other religions? and if they do-do they believe in much the same events happening like a flood covering the whole world??do you have to believe that the bible is fact to become a creation believer-in other words if you are not religious would anyone come up with creationism ???
    I know of Creationists who are Christian, Jewish and Muslim. I also know of a number of former Atheists, who became Christians as a result of examining Creation Science research results.

    Intelligent Design proponents take no fixed position on what intelligence did the design of life ... some believe that Aliens did it.

    There are hundreds of 'flood' stories across all kinds of different peoples (and they are all describing Noah's Flood, with varying degrees of accuracy and embellishments:-

    https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/


  • #6348
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Quote-
    "Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

    Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)."

    ... and you can read all about the controversy that erupted below ... when the evolutionists were told that dinosaur bone had been radiocarbon dated to between 22,000 to 39,000 years old!!!!
    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    So you are going along with this "proof" and agreeing that these bones are only 22 - 39,000 years old?

    So that must mean you are now dropping your belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


  • #6349
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So you are going along with this "proof" and agreeing that these bones are only 22 - 39,000 years old?

    So that must mean you are now dropping your belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
    What's 10,000 years amongst friends?
    ... it's a lot better than millions and millions of years, anyway!!!!:)

    In any event, I go where the evidence leads.


  • #6350
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    What's 10,000 years amongst friends?
    ... it's a lot better than millions and millions of years, anyway!!!!:)

    So is the earth 10,000 years old as you have stated as proven for how many years now? Or is it older?


  • #6351
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    In any event, I go where the evidence leads.

    Sure, as long as where it leads is where you wanted to go in the first place.

    You seem very keen on radiometric dating all of a sudden. When radiometric dating produces evidence that some things on earth are millions of years old, do you go where that evidence leads?


  • Advertisement
  • #6352
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Quote-
    "Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

    Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)."

    ... and you can read all about the controversy that erupted below ... when the evolutionists were told that dinosaur bone had been radiocarbon dated to between 22,000 to 39,000 years old!!!!
    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    Seiler has a degree in physics. And his work has been dismissed.

    All paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6353
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Seiler has a degree in physics.
    ... which would make him an expert in radiometrics.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    And his work has been dismissed.
    Dismissed ... but not disproven!!!
    Quote:-
    "Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

    The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

    Many dinosaur bones are not petrified. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone. Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone. Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies. Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make. In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters. Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded. That is, if they really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.

    Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs."


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    All paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?
    ... only some of the evolutionist paleontologists ... and they also agree that crocodiles existed 200 million evolutionist years ago ... What do you think of that?:)


  • #6354
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So is the earth 10,000 years old as you have stated as proven for how many years now? Or is it older?
    What do you think?


  • #6355
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Sure, as long as where it leads is where you wanted to go in the first place.
    No ... that's what some evolutionists do.:)
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You seem very keen on radiometric dating all of a sudden. When radiometric dating produces evidence that some things on earth are millions of years old, do you go where that evidence leads?
    Radio-carbon dating has merit (although it becomes more inaccurate with increasing age) ... but measuring the other isotopes tells us very little.


  • #6356
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    What do you think?

    I believe the earth is billions of years old I have always believed this, you on the other hand change your position on an almost daily basis.


  • #6357
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... which would make him an expert in radiometrics.

    Dismissed ... but not disproven!!!
    Quote:-
    "Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

    The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

    Many dinosaur bones are not petrified. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone. Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone. Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies. Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make. In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters. Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded. That is, if they really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.

    Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs."



    ... only some of the evolutionist paleontologists ... and they also agree that crocodiles existed 200 million evolutionist years ago ... What do you think of that?:)

    Scweitzer has very angrily dismissed creationists who misrepresent her work. As I have already pointed out, she discovered that high levels of iron caused the fibres to retain their pliability. So...

    Schweitzer's. Work. Does. Not. Support. Creationism.

    Thomas Seiler's work has been dismissed out of hand. His abstract in Singapore was subsequently thrown out. He has refused to publish his findings in full and his work has never been peer reviewed. Also, there was one obvious and fundamental problem with his methodology: All paleontologists use radiometric testing of surrounding rock to date fossils because...

    There. Is. No. Carbon. In. Dinosaur. Fossils.

    All paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6358
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Sure, as long as where it leads is where you wanted to go in the first place.
    J C wrote: »
    Radio-carbon dating has merit (although it becomes more inaccurate with increasing age) ... but measuring the other isotopes tells us very little.

    Case in point. Measuring other isotopes doesn't tell you what you want to hear, so you dismiss it.


  • #6359
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    All paleontologists use radiometric testing of surrounding rock to date fossils because...
    ... because they don't believe that radiocarbon dating will work ... because the fossils are supposed to be millions of years old (and radio-carbon dating has an effective maximum age measuremeent range of 50,000 years).
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    There. Is. No. Carbon. In. Dinosaur. Fossils.
    ... that's the problem for long ages evolution... there is Carbon in the proteins present inside fossilised Dinosaur bones ... and even more importantly, there is radio-carbon C14.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    All paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?
    ... all true scotsmen agree on many things ... what do you think of that?:)


  • #6360
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Case in point. Measuring other isotopes doesn't tell you what you want to hear, so you dismiss it.
    Measuring isotopes tells us their ratios ... but not the age of the rock ... because we don't know what the starting ratios were and whether there was contamination or leaching of isotopes since the rocks were laid down.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #6361
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I believe the earth is billions of years old I have always believed this, you on the other hand change your position on an almost daily basis.
    I know that the earth isn't billions of years old ... and I know this, since I stopped believing in (pondkind to mankind) Evolution ... which was before I began posting on the Boards.ie.


Advertisement