Send me the papers!!
And where did I claim its contamination? I said it’s something that needs to be seriously considered.
You mean the event for which there is no evidence? Goodness. Just blows my mind that you think a handful samples of outweighs literally hundreds of thousands of other samples that reach the exact opposite conclusion. Especially when there is an extensively studied process that can cause the outliers. But that’s what science deniers have always done. Ignore huge bodies of data and trends and instead look at the outliers and then claim these outliers refute the theory/hypothesis. Have a good day
How is he supposed to when you won’t confirm which fossil you’re talking about?
Just want to say that the AiG piece was about Dragons not dinosaurs. Where is the scientific evidence for Dragons?
Just want to say that the AiG piece was about Dragons not dinosaurs. Where is the scientific evidence for Dragons?
Interesting. When do you think the word ‘Dinosaur’ was first coined?
Wasn’t it 'Terrible Lizard" in the 1800"s?
This topic was about AiG pseudoscience. AiG uses bible quotes to misrepresent paleontology. It is blatant lying as the bibical quotes were written at a time when nobody knew much of anything about extinct animals. Today the science of paleontology is extensive and the passages of the bible has no relevance to the science. AiG should stop lying about the science.
The assumptions behind C14 dating are invalid. Creationists do not accept it as a workable dating method–especially not for anything coming from at or before the time of the Flood–because the assumptions involved ignore the Flood completely, and all the ways that that huge event would have thrown off the C14-C12 ratio, both ambient and in the resulting fossils. That’s all beside the point. The point is that results like these (and this is not the only example) serve to disconfirm deep time, even while granting the assumptions of the old earth scientists who use these methods.
I see you’ve completely ignored the C14 calibration data I provided which uses a dozen independent dating proxies to calibrate results back 50,000 years.
That’s OK, in years of presenting this I’ve never seen a YEC honestly deal with the calibration data.
The point is that results like these (and this is not the only example) serve to disconfirm deep time, even while granting the assumptions of the old earth scientists who use these methods.
How is that? Either the 25K year date is valid which disproves a YEC young Earth, or the results are invalid and say nothing about the actual age of the fossils.
Can’t have it both ways. So which is it?
Actually there’s plenty of documented physical evidence for dinosaurs being around recently, whether from Vance Nelson’s book, Dire Dragons (which includes many examples of ancient human artifacts depicting living dinosaurs, as well as results from C14 testing performed on dino bone), or from the work of Dr Mary Schweitzer and others, who have begun documenting soft tissue still present in dinosaur bones, or from the work of Dr Hirotsugu Mori who documented unpermineralized hadrosaur bones in Alaska.
Just a note to say @PDPrice, you are coming through loud and clear and have my complete support. I am very much enjoying the dialogue and – of course – coming down on your side. I utterly love these kinds of investigations into the real ages of dino bones, etc. The nonsense of millions of years has sufficiently been jettisoned by several approaches over recent years. These guys you are arguing with of course will never come around to admit what the real data say. Hang in there! You are doing just fine.
Just a note to say @PDPrice, you are coming through load and clear
LOL! Freudian slip.
And oh, for the record @pdprice, this one is a live one. You will definitely have fun with him.
Wasn’t it 'Terrible Lizard" in the 1800"s?
You got it. So, what word do you think an English-speaking individual would have used to describe a living dinosaur, had they encountered one, prior to the coining of this term in the 1800’s?
And oh, for the record @pdprice, this one is a live one. You will definitely have fun with him.
Haven’t you been agreeing with an old Earth all this time? Now suddenly the YEC position is correct? Why don’t you take some time and get your story straight.
Oh, and feel free to be the first Creationist to explain the C14 calibration data.
Haven’t you been agreeing with an old Earth all this time? Now suddenly the YEC position is correct?
@PDPrice and I both agree on the age of life. For now that is enough. And for now, I am being thoroughly entertained. Not to mention I am taking some good notes from @PDPrice quotes.
You got it. So, what word do you think an English-speaking individual would have used to describe a living dinosaur, had they encountered one, prior to the coining of this term in the 1800’s?
Centaurs have been described in literature for thousands of years. Does that make half-man half-horse centaurs actually exist?
@PDPrice and I both agree on the age of life.
No you don’t. Price is arguing for a 6000 year Creation and fossils of animals killed in the Flood 4500 years ago. You have already agreed life goes back at least 50,000 years. Have you forgotten your Lake Suigetsu debacle already?
Have you forgotten your Lake Suigetsu debacle already?
@PDPrice (this guy loves to hear himself talk, by the way. He is hard – and I mean hard to silence). Just for the record I am YLC, not necessarily YEC but big deal. I am always ready to convert back to YEC. Keep going.
I am always ready to convert back to YEC. Keep going.
Really now?