You could silence me and the other pro-science posters here quite easily by providing your YLC/YEC explanations for the data we provide. But you won’t since you can’t. 
1 Like
Centaurs have been described in literature for thousands of years. Does that make half-man half-horse centaurs actually exist?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it would appear you ignored the question I asked you here. What word would be used to describe a living dinosaur prior to the 1800s?
1 Like
(this guy loves to hear himself talk, by the way. He is hard – and I mean hard to silence).
Looks like I’ve already silenced him in one area: the unfossilized duck bill dinosaur bones. You can check the thread.
Most people called them birds. Now answer some of the many questions you’ve dodged so far. Please explain the C14 calibration data. Please explain the occurrence of centaurs in stories and art for the last dozen centuries.
Yes, it is the purest explanation for the Genesis account. Jesus said The Scripture cannot be broken. I would love to be proved wrong in my YLC views. Right now, I don’t see a way. But we are all advancing toward something. While some are advancing consistently further away from the truth, I would like to think I am advancing toward it.
Wait. Hold up. This is what @Timothy_Horton does all the time. Why don’t you @Timothy_Horton answer @PDPrice about the duck bill dino bones first?
That was covered above. Here is what Creationists do all the time. It’s called the Gish Gallop to avoid questions they can’t answer.
Why don’t you explain the C14 calibration data and the occurrence of centaurs since you’re so chatty this morning? Mr. Price seems unable to.
Well PDPrice? Which is it?
I was the last one to reply on that topic. You didn’t ‘cover’ anything I wrote.
Ok, easy. The duck bill dino bones completely quash any need for the C14 data. Any idiot can see that they are not millions of years old. There. Done.
1 Like
You’re still dodging lots of questions. Why is that?
Give me some time and I’ll try to get around to answering all your gish gallops. 
LOL! That’s what passes for a “scientific explanation” with Creationists. 
Do you not understand the claimed 25,000 year old age was done by C14 dating?
OK I’ll wait. How much time to you need?
1 Like
Here’s my real point. No dating calibrations of any kind are necessary when dealing with reasonable individuals, who have no trouble calling something obviously young, …well…YOUNG
How do you know HOW young without some sort of dating technique? 66 million years is YOUNG compared to the 4.55 billion year age of the Earth.
LOL! That’s what passes for a “scientific explanation” with Creationists.
Do you not understand the claimed 25,000 year old age was done by C14 dating?
You’re off track. @r_speir is not talking about Nelson’s C14 test, he is talking about Mori et al’s report of unfossilized hadrosaur bones.
Your own source said the finder of the LBB stands by his claim the fossils were permineralized. Why Mori chooses to use his own pet definition of permineralized doesn’t change the fact these fossils were permeated with external minerals and were not “fresh” dino bones.
Do you really want to claim Mori thinks these fossils are only 4500 years “Flood” aged bones?
I don’t know Mori or what he personally believes, and that’s entirely beside the point. Mori personally examined these bones, and, along with others before him, has stood by his description, saying they are unpermineralized. Fiorillo is playing word games to obfuscate.
He hasn’t clicked on any of the links that have been sent his way. So don’t expect him to address much of anything. He is telling me to show that they were contaminated but won’t send me papers so I can see the methods section and results. He doesn’t understand how these tests are done. Doesn’t understand error bars. Statistical significance, etc. Then you have one person @r_speir, saying you can tell how old a fossil is just by looking at it. This thread, which was ridiculous from the start, has become even more so.
3 Likes