Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
10k is cheap mate, any idea what those machines cost, etc. scientists conducting proper research have funding and access to good equipment.

It takes a good deal more then 10k.

Ever used a machine that goes bing, to date something
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
What about other soft tissue findings?
Click to expand...
I really don’t know enough to voice an opinion. When I do, I am certain about what I am saying. I’m going to see where this goes. As you say elsewhere, ad hominems are the least convincing arguments.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Lots of people are constantly dating dinosaur bones.
Click to expand...
Really? They never did in the past. Show me the evidence they did?
Click to expand...
So, your claim is that Miller is the only one who ever bothered to try to date dino bones? Get real.
 
My goodness, you really have no idea.

Here’s the first hole in that dodgy research, a real scientist doesn’t waste money on dating something, with the wrong tests.

That’s your first clue.

Second , a real scientist hoping to be accepted in publishing, doesn’t go around posting rejection letters in dodgy articles on the internet

Third , a real scientist who wants to use a specific lab for its SHRIMp for example, doesn’t post disparaging things about all labs with SHRIMp.

Give it up, move on.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Show me the independent verification of Miller’s finding.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean. To retest the sample would produce the same results. The question has to do with the source of the organic material - whether it belonged to the dinosaur or some creature which met its death on the petrified remains which could have been open to the elements at one point in the last 50,000 years and later covered up again.
 
Did I say with the wrong tests loudly enough, should I put it in caps.

Dodgy brothers incorporated
 
buffalo said:
Uh no and I gave science links. Tiktaalik, too.
Click to expand...
Uh yes. Are you saying that Archaeopteryx does not have teeth? Are you saying that Archaeopteryx does not have a bony tail?

By the standard definition,Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are transitional fossils. The creationist definition is different, but I am using the scientific definition.

rossum
 
Dodgy is as dodgy does is my comment. Error is error.

And just why does this person claim labs are turning him/her away in droves

Anyway about your claim there is issue with peer review, Care to elucidate ?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Evolution continues the god of BUC creation story.
Click to expand...
Your inability to understand that natural selection is not chance is becoming tedious I’m afraid. By all means criticise evolution for what it is. Criticising it for what it isn’t is useless and ineffective; about as useful as criticising Christianity because it has three different Gods.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
Click to expand...
Yup. That is about as far back as C-14 dating can measure. If I stand on my kitchen scales I weigh about 20 pounds. All you are doing is maxing out the measure.

Take some time to notice that your creationist sources always use C-14 dating, never one of the other methods, which would give more reasonable results, like my bathroom scales: 149 pounds. All that 20 pound result showed was the limit on my kitchen scales, and nothing about my weight.

rossum
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Did I say with the wrong tests loudly enough, should I put it in caps.

Dodgy brothers incorporated
Click to expand...
The louder such comments are made, the less convincing is the argument.

It seems to me the correct test was done seeing that they found organic material.

The question then has to do with the sample’s origins. The researchers would have to demonstrate that no other cause could have resulted in its presence, since they would know that contamination would be the widely accepted explanation for their results.
 
buffalo said:
Still doubt the soft tissue findings?
Click to expand...
The soft tissue findings are not as crazy as the bone dating, since one can imagine ways in which they might be preserved that long. But that might be crazy too, if I knew more about material preservation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top