Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Archaeopteryx is a transitional between dinosaurs and birds. It has features from dinosaurs: teeth and a bony tail. It has a feature from birds: flight.
Click to expand...
Uh no and I gave science links. Tiktaalik, too.
 
rossum said:
No, that is cosmology. Without cosmology evolution could not have happened. There would be no atoms to even begin abiogenesis, let alone evolution.

If you are against godless creation myths, then direct your criticism against cosmology.
Click to expand...
Evolution continues the god of BUC creation story.
 
Last edited:
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

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).

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
It must have been quite a busy day.
Click to expand...
Creation week was really busy.

You do realize Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts from their day 1, including infused knowledge.
Click to expand...
Well, now you’re comparing science with theology. And I heard somewhere that you shouldn’t treat the bible as a science book.
o_mlly said:
The Bible is not a science book.
Click to expand...
But you are saying that A and E were the guys who discovered how to control fire, cook, clothe themselves etc. None of that happened prior to those two. So they went through the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age in, what…a couple of days?

And then made an epic amount of tools for each of those ages and then buried them at different sites around the world at different levels so it just LOOKED like somebody else made them over a period of millions of years.

The problem with the points that you make, which you just make up as you go along to maintain the world view you are stuck with, is that none of them are coherent. Each leads to more nonsensical positions. For which you have to make up more risible arguments.

But the hole is already too deep for you to climb out. So…carry on digging. I could watch you do it for weeks.
 
buffalo said:
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

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).

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
Click to expand...
Ah yes. Good ol’ John Michael Fischer. What a character (the author of that web site).

To give you an idea of the bubble of misinformation in which he lives, he seriously believes that:
‘…there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish.’
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94664

OK, stop laughing at the back. He was being serious. In passing, I was wondering why you were asking about giraffe lungs before. You got the question from some rather unintelligent meanderings off one of his other sites. I mean, is THIS the guy from whom you are getting your info? He’s reasonable well know around some parts. You can find a lot of what he says on the web site ‘Fundies Say The Darndest Things’ (link above). He’s generally looked upon at best as uneducated and harmless. Just someone who brings a little amusement to the masses now and then.

So that’s where you go for your info…
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Well, now you’re comparing science with theology. And I heard somewhere that you shouldn’t treat the bible as a science book.
Click to expand...
That is a historical narrative.
Click to expand...
And the stone, bronze and iron age tools? Don’t forget that your point doesn’t include them. So what was the explanation?
 
Bradskii said:
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
Click to expand...
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

Deal with the data. Have you done dating of the bones? What does your data show?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
Click to expand...
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

Deal with the data. Have you done dating of the bones? What does your data show?
Click to expand...
Ooh, millions and millions of years. But you must be right 'cos Johnny sez so.

Incidentally, could you advise us of John’s credentials? Now we know where your info comes from it will add weight to you points if you can show that Mr. Fischer has a cew degrees in the relevant subjects being discussed.

Or is he just a creationist/fundamentalist type of guy with an internet connection and some spare time on his hands.

We need to know!
 
buffalo said:
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
Click to expand...
The author of the article you cited was rightly rejected by the conference in which he presented his findings. If C-14 dating really did show dino bones less than 40,000 years old, then such extraordinary findings need to be verified independently. Did he make the bones available and invite others to date them? Did they concur with his findings? No? Well, moving on…
 
This isn’t a peer reviewed scientific article. It’s like a Wikipedia article. Anyone can write anything
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The author of the article you cited was rightly rejected by the conference in which he presented his findings. If C-14 dating really did show dino bones less than 40,000 years old, then such extraordinary findings need to be verified independently. Did he make the bones available and invite others to date them? Did they concur with his findings? No? Well, moving on…
Click to expand...
Indeed. These results need to be verified. It seems by the above video that Jack Horner refused testing even though it would be independently funded. One has to wonder what they are afraid of.
 
Do you see that letter in the link? The peer review committee of the conference rejected the findings.

“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).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:”

The abstract would not have made it into the conference, to begin with. It would have been read, questioned, and thrown out . And for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
o you see that letter in the link? The peer review committee of the conference rejected the findings.

“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).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:”

The abstract would not have made it into the conference, to begin with. It would have been read, questioned, and thrown out . And for good reason.
Click to expand...
Yes, they did, after first accepting it and then the backlash caused them to revoke it. Sad…
 
Where’s your proof the study you linked to is genuine… there is no study in that link that would be regarded as genuine or valid.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The author of the article you cited was rightly rejected by the conference in which he presented his findings. If C-14 dating really did show dino bones less than 40,000 years old, then such extraordinary findings need to be verified independently. Did he make the bones available and invite others to date them? Did they concur with his findings? No? Well, moving on…
Click to expand...
Indeed. These results need to be verified.
Click to expand...
And until they are, they are rightly treated as having been based on faulty technique. Lots of people are constantly dating dinosaur bones. Common sense tells us that if Miller is the only one finding C-14 dating of <40,000 years, then the most likely reason is the Miller is wrong. If everyone else is doing something wrong then Miller should demonstrate what error they are making. The fact that mainstream scientists do not drop everything to investigate crackpot claims does not mean they are afraid of the results. It means they have better things to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top