Older then we think

[mark francis]

How Creationists Lie To Us - Carbon Dating Hoax

The claim that a dinosaur fossil was carbon-dated is a hoax designed to mislead the scientifically illiterate, so of course, it is popular with creationists.

rosarubicondior.blogspot.com

Debunking it lol

I hardly think your guy's refutation of secular dating methods undermines just the lab test results of dinosaur bones. This guy's "debunking" of the lab results from testing dinosaur bones effectively debunks all old age results of all specimen from all sources.

 

[mark francis]

Even if anthropologists find videotapes of prehistoric humans doing the macarena with T Rexes, that will not prove that a human were condemned forever for eating the forbidden fruit because a talking snake put him up to it.

I'm guessing that Christian democrats, like Biden, must secretly mock the Biblical record in private among leftist friends as well in order to avoid being mocked themselves for their 'superstition' by the atheistic leftist 'faithful.'

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

The Adam and Eve tale is just a myth.

But the Church needs the Original Sin myth to stay in business. Do what the Church says, or you will be punished for all eternity.
It also needs the Myth of Heaven. Believe in all we say and win Eternal Salvation.

Salvation is the carrot, Original Sin is the stick.
And what could be more exciting that Heaven? In Heaven you get to sing
praises to God constantly in the Choir Celestial. What could be more fun than that?

There is never any mention of sex in Heaven.

 

[mark francis]

The Adam and Eve tale is just a myth.

Who fooled you into believing that nonsense?

 

[pjmret]

If scientists had been wise and honest they would have accepted the obvious fact that the discovery of dinosaur soft tissues destroyed old age assumptions about dinosaurs.

nope. a scientific explanation for the preservation of soft tissues has already been discussed here, science *****.

https://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-abstract/83/5/298/117017/Preservation-of-Soft-Tissues-in-Dinosaur?redirectedFrom=fulltext

here is one link again, not that I ever expect you to stop being a science *****. lol

 

[pjmret]

nope.

I hardly think your guy's refutation of secular dating methods undermines just the lab test results of dinosaur bones. This guy's "debunking" of the lab results from testing dinosaur bones effectively debunks all old age results of all specimen from all sources.

nope. lol

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

The existence or non existence of dinosaurs is unrelated to the silly Adam & Eve myth.

 

[pjmret]

I hardly think your guy's refutation of secular dating methods undermines just the lab test results of dinosaur bones. This guy's "debunking" of the lab results from testing dinosaur bones effectively debunks all old age results of all specimen from all sources.

nope it says that using carbon dating for things like dinosaur bones that are millions of years old isn't effective, because it can acquire "new" carbon that gives a false age, carbon from other, recent sources influences the results. carbon dating items in the relevant range is still valid

When a buried bone interacts with groundwater, the chemical composition of its mineral fraction changes as ions in the groundwater replace the ions in the mineral’s crystal structure. Such ion exchange is called recrystallization. In the case of bone mineral, recrystallization adds new radiocarbon via carbonate. Carbonate in groundwater is derived from dissolved atmospheric carbon dioxide and therefore contains new radiocarbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide (Zazzo 2014). As carbonate ions in groundwater replace the phosphate and hydroxide ions in buried bone mineral, this incoming carbonate adds new radiocarbon to the crystal structure of the bone mineral. Once recrystallization has incorporated the incoming carbonate with its new radiocarbon into the bone mineral’s crystal structure, no decontamination technique can remove it. The bone mineral is thus stuck with its contamination.

Bone mineral that is younger than about 5,000 years can yield an accurate radiocarbon date because it has not yet undergone much recrystallization

and this is just bone, carbon dating is used on other materials which have different properties and thus this isn't an issue for them.



so one has to not be a science ***** to understand all of this. lol

 

[mark francis]

nope. a scientific explanation for the preservation of soft tissues has already been discussed here, science *****.

Yes, the newly revised 'scientific' theory which had to be invented to replace old theories was forced onto evolutionists after Schweitzer's discovery of existing dinosaur soft tissues.

 

[pjmret]

Yes, the newly revised 'scientific' theory which had to be invented to replace old theories was forced onto evolutionists after Schweitzer's discovery of existing dinosaur soft tissues.

Yes science learns but no one is forced to do anything, science *****
Unlike mindless religious dogma

 

[mark francis]

Yes science learns but no one is forced to do anything, science *****
Unlike mindless religious dogma

There are more rewrites of formerly accepted evolutionist theories resulting from emerging new evidence debunks of old theories than there are leftist rewrites of American history in order to accommodate stupid historical errors favored by discontented leftists.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Science is about facts, not politics. No one can prove the Adam & Eve myth. No one can prove that 100% of the human race is descended from Noah and his family. There is no proof that the Exodus involved the huge number of escaped slaves that the Bible speaks of.

Mark does not understand how science works. He thinks that if there is evidence than some ancient Fred Flintstone rode a dinosaur, then that means that there was a talking snake and Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[pjmret]

There are more rewrites of formerly accepted evolutionist theories resulting from emerging new evidence debunks of old theories than there are leftist rewrites of American history in order to accommodate stupid historical errors favored by discontented leftists.

not major rewrites, the fundamental theory is well supported.

unlike bible dogma. lol

 

[mark francis]

not major rewrites, the fundamental theory is well supported.

unlike bible dogma. lol

I know of dozens of evolutionist theories and speculations that had to be replaced after new evidence proved the formerly touted scientific theories wrong. The American Museum of Natural History in New York had a beautiful horse evolution display showcasing the evolution of the horse. However, after many decades of display the museum had to take down the display entirely after their horse evolution theories and narratives were debunked by newer scientific discoveries.

 

[pjmret]

I know of dozens of evolutionist theories and speculations that had to be replaced after new evidence proved the formerly touted scientific theories wrong. The American Museum of Natural History in New York had a beautiful horse evolution display showcasing the evolution of the horse. However, after many decades of display the museum had to take down the display entirely after their horse evolution theories and narratives were debunked by newer scientific discoveries.

Yes specifics are changing as new evidence is found that happens to all such theories
But the general theory of evolution is well supported
The Bible story is scientific nonsense with zero support lol
The museum doesn't have a new exhibit showing God creating horses and coming off the ark lolololololol