Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would help if they did the work themselves, rather then sending dodgy samples to unsuspecting labs
 
It’s not peer reviewed, it means nothing in the world of science. Anyone could make a similar mock up. It means nothing until peer review. And a scientist doesn’t react to having his or her research rejected like they have. It’s so dodgy. Why are you buying into it

We don’t go around screaming prejudice and similar shite because our peers say there are errors in our research.

And real science won’t have sampling rejected at a lab. a real scientist will have his or her own lab for testing.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
It’s not peer reviewed, it means nothing in the world of science. Anyone could make a similar mock up. It means nothing until peer review. And a scientist doesn’t react to having his or her research rejected like they have. It’s so dodgy. Why are you buying into it
Click to expand...
We can wait. Have you read the latest on the issues with peer-review? You might want to bring yourself up to date.

Now, if I show you peer reviewed papers supporting ID, will you doubt them?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
t’s not peer reviewed, it means nothing in the world of science. Anyone could make a similar mock up. It means nothing until peer review. And a scientist doesn’t react to having his or her research rejected like they have. It’s so dodgy. Why are you buying into it
Click to expand...
Do you doubt the soft-tissue findings?
 
Have you ever worked in the field , ever done your own research and testing.
 
So tell me , what are the issues with peer review, and in what field , But first tell me what it is.

Gets 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿😎😎😎😎
 
Last edited:
So that’s a no, you have never worked in the field, never sampled or tested with any age dating technique, and you have no idea what peer review is all about
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, we can only carbon date samples less than 50,000 years old. There is typically too much decomposition in older samples to do the analysis. The reason that it would be less than 40,000 years would be because there was organic material in the sample. There typically isn’t, so that is why it is thought that the result was due to contamination. Washing out the sample to eliminate contamination would thereby remove any non-petrified remains of the creature; what is one to do?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
So that’s a no, you have never worked in the field, never sampled or tested with any age dating technique, and you have no idea what peer review is all about
Click to expand...
Since you have completed your ad hominem attack we can move on to the actual data.
 
Aloysium said:
From what I understand, we can only carbon date samples less than 50,000 years old. There is typically too much decomposition in older samples to do the analysis. The reason that it would be less than 40,000 years would be because there was organic material in the sample. There typically isn’t, so that is why it is thought that the result was due to contamination. Washing out the sample to eliminate contamination would thereby remove any non-petrified remains of the creature; what is one to do?
Click to expand...
Mary’s soft elastic tissue should be thrown out? What about other soft tissue findings?
 
You are the one , with little education in what you are trying to pass off as valid to win a point, attacking a body of scientists and several labs who called out errors or inaccuracies in sampling.

Move on, find a valid thing to refute evolution with, to the educated scientists on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
You are the one , with little education in what you are trying to pass off as valid to win a point, attacking a body of scientists and several labs who called out errors or inaccuracies in sampling.
Click to expand...
Show me your sources.

Do you still doubt the soft elastic tissue finding?
 
Last edited:
Sources for what, your error in attempting to shove a dodgy abstract under our noses, that has been rejected by professionals?

Move on, try something with a bit of authenticity
 
Last edited:
It would be really easy to do the testing themselves. $10K solves it. Why aren’t they doing it? Curious? Afraid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top