Adam and Eve Possible

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, radiocarbon dating is not the only way that something can be dated. Radiometric dating isn’t fool proof, so anomalies can be checked against other methods.
 
And that was the surprise. When they cut the bone they found soft tissue. Now they had to explain how it lasted 60 million years when all the prior claims were it could last only thousands of years.
 
I said - let’s start here.

Soft tissue found in the dino bones or not?
 
RC dating is good for around 50,000 years. The find of 28000 years was quite surprising.
 
Which you represented as a response to my pointing out the folly of your 28,000 year old fossil assertion.
I’m not going to argue with someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You don’t.
Sorry.
Take basic earth science class please.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly. I am a forum elder and have been on this forum since 2004. I have debated this subject and a few others for a long time.

I will back with science my points.
 
Have you ever heard of a document called “theology of the body” by Saint John Paul 2?
Do you need a link or can you find that on your own?
 
buffalo said:
Not exactly. I am a forum elder and have been on this forum since 2004. I have debated this subject and a few others for a long time.

I will back with science my points.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you quit while you are ahead. You’ve already misrepresented one well respected scientist by misrepresenting her work.
 
Here’s my point.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
That is the point. You are not a scientist, and not a well read layperson at that.
 
When out of arguments always attack the poster. Nice,

“The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, ‘Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that’s not going to be there?’ and nobody looks,” was Schweitzer’s explanation as to why soft tissue hasn’t been observed in other fossil excavations.

At the same time, Schweitzer’s explanation for the preservation of soft tissue on dinosaur bones is still just a theory, and one that supporters of Armitage say ignores the presence of radioactive carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of dinosaur bones collected from many different sites across the U.S. have revealed that, at most, these bones are only 39,000 years old.

“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 wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs,” says New Geology. Scientist fired from university after discovering shocking dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 years old - NaturalNews.com
 
Spyridon said:
Good luck evangelizing the world when your first requirement is that one must check his brain at the door.
Click to expand...
Like I said, your attitude is indicative of your own insecurities. Instead of giving evidence, you seek to silence dissent with various fallacies and personal attacks. It does your position no favors.
jcm2017 said:
This is scandalous to readers. To say the Catholic Church has no well developed theory of creation is just laughable. Please educate yourself.
Click to expand...
You should complain to the priest who wrote it then, because I’m pretty sure Buffalo was just quoting the book description. You should also complain the Bishop who wrote the forward.

Honestly though, the fact is that besides Traditional Creation, the Church actually doesn’t have a very detailed, theologically sound explanation for creation. There is a lot of hand-waving and ‘it works, don’t worry about it’ but that’s all I’ve ever found.
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn’t.

If you and @ChunkMonk would spend the rest of the night reading, say, an encyclopedia instead of YEC websites and CAF, you guys might actually learn something.
 
Yes, I am awaiting a response with the details. I am sure more ad hominems will show up before though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top