Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Ros,

Well a little farther back in the thread I asked you about the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones, but you brushed it off.

This has been found in dozens of dinos now, from numerous locations.

These samples should be tested for C14, but I'm sure they won't be.

Why should they be tested for C14 since C14 is only accurate for 50,000 years? We can tell they are older than 50,000 years by other radiological testing.

Yeah, and we 'knew' that anything tens of millions of years old would be fossilized. But it's not. It's soft tissue.

Why are you afraid to use C14?

And your evidence that these were NOT tested with other radiological testing is what? Please provide that evidence.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Ros,

Well a little farther back in the thread I asked you about the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones, but you brushed it off.

This has been found in dozens of dinos now, from numerous locations.

These samples should be tested for C14, but I'm sure they won't be.

Why should they be tested for C14 since C14 is only accurate for 50,000 years? We can tell they are older than 50,000 years by other radiological testing.

Yeah, and we 'knew' that anything tens of millions of years old would be fossilized. But it's not. It's soft tissue.

Why are you afraid to use C14?
And your evidence that these were NOT tested with other radiological testing is what? Please provide that evidence.

Where did I say that?

Do you think that C14 testing should be done on these samples? If not, why not?

0 Replies

Since you want to be obstinate real life, please provide us with the complete provenance of these bones and which tests have been done.

Until such time that you have shown which tests WERE done I see no reason to believe your conjecture that they have NOT done C14 testing. We only have YOUR word for no C14 testing. Please give us evidence to support your claim.

0 Replies

Nice try.

'Prove a negative, RL............'

Do you think such samples should be (or should have been) tested for C14? Why or why not?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Nice try.

'Prove a negative, RL............'

So, you have no evidence one way or the other....

Gee.. that's nice.

Asking you to tell us which tests were conducted is asking you to prove a negative? In what universe is that a negative?

Quote:

Do you think such samples should be (or should have been) tested for C14? Why or why not?

Answered already. Too bad some people are too stupid to understand.

0 Replies

There's nothing negative about providing the source of the information regarding the bones with soft tissue you refer to. Where were they found? When? By whom. And what tests have been done on them?

Joe(those are simple questions needing simple, direct, verifiable answers.)Nation

0 Replies

Just for purposes of information :

T Rex soft tissue

T Rex soft tissue

0 Replies

Bought to you by the same formation that provided T.rex soft tissue; Hell Creek Formation.

T. rex footprint? Maybe.

If this T. rex was alive before Eve ate the apple we would not be surprised if human prints would be found with them. After all we all know that T. rex ate plants before Eve ate the apple Rolling Eyes

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/A-T-rex-Footprint-2.jpg

http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-T-rex-Footprint-68153.shtml

0 Replies

Francis,

Thanks for posting those again. I have posted them numerous times but I know that not everybody will travel back many pages to find a link.

I also had saved a more recent link at one time, which stated that Dr Schweitzer had now found in over 25 other dino fossils similar results to the initial find . But I can't locate the link now.

Take care.

0 Replies

Some interesting stuff here on the young age of the earth, the solar system, etc. Some of it appears rather dated but still interesting.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_4.htm

0 Replies

Pathlights? That's a hoot. Now there's an objective source only interested in finding the truth?

(Make sure your sarcasm detector is on, "real life.")

For anyone who wants to visit "Pathlights" to see what kind of site produced the "Creation/Evolution Encyclopedia," which is the source for the material linked above.

Things like this explain why i say that "real life" doesn't give a rat's ass what we think, but just wants to get the message out to any naive christians out there who might be entertaining doubts.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Some interesting stuff here on the young age of the earth, the solar system, etc. Some of it appears rather dated but still interesting.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_4.htm

By "interesting stuff" real life, do you believe it is true or not?

I would hate to assume what your position is on this real life. So why don't you tell us so we can't make a mistake. Do you believe the world is 6000 years old or more than 3 billion?

0 Replies

The member "real life" has for years stated that he doesn't necessarily hew to the line of Bishop Ussher's six thousand years, but that he believes the earth to be thousands of years old, as opposed to millions or billions of years. He has been quite consistent about that, and has been equally consistent in not being any more precise than that, and in not discussing his rationale for the belief.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
Some interesting stuff here on the young age of the earth, the solar system, etc. Some of it appears rather dated but still interesting.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_4.htm

By "interesting stuff" real life, do you believe it is true or not?

I would be glad to discuss any individual item.

I will not say that anything (or even everything) on the page is unfalsified or unfalsifiable.

Haven't even read it all. Laughing

But I would be glad to discuss any point.

I don't intend to post a long diatribe defending all 30+ points on the page. Nobody would read it all , even if I had time to write it.

Take your pick. Let's have some fun.

(Keep in mind that if even ONE of these points provides reliably convincing and substantial evidence of a young earth or young solar system, then evolution is in hot water. Cool

)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Some interesting stuff here on the young age of the earth, the solar system, etc. Some of it appears rather dated but still interesting.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_4.htm

By "interesting stuff" real life, do you believe it is true or not?

I would be glad to discuss any individual item.

I will not say that anything (or even everything) on the page is unfalsified or unfalsifiable.

Haven't even read it all.

But I would be glad to discuss any point.

I don't intend to post a long diatribe defending all 30+ points on the page. Nobody would read it all , even if I had time to write it.

Take your pick. Let's have some fun.

(Keep in mind that if even ONE of these points provides reliably convincing and substantial evidence of a young earth or young solar system, then evolution is in hot water. )

Considering the fact that creationists have NEVER substantiated ONE fact, then I'd say that creationism is dead. In fact 42 pages ago I put out the challenge for even one piece of testable evidence. So far - nothing. Come on RL. Stop playing games. Put up or shut up you loser.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Things like this explain why i say that "real life" doesn't give a rat's ass what we think, but just wants to get the message out to any naive christians out there who might be entertaining doubts.

Yes.

Also notice how RL doesn't even attach himself to the information (because he knows it's all just BS), instead he just says, "it's interesting". Then he even throws in a caveat, "it's a bit dated, but still interesting". The caveat effects an air of skepticism, which in turn, implies some level of balance in the information being presented (when the presentation is anything but balanced, and RL knows it).

RL's presentation plays like a textbook in manipulative presentation. Granted they are old tricks, but many people haven't seen them before, so they play like new for a while.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The member "real life" has for years stated that he doesn't necessarily hew to the line of Bishop Ussher's six thousand years, but that he believes the earth to be thousands of years old, as opposed to millions or billions of years. He has been quite consistent about that, and has been equally consistent in not being any more precise than that, and in not discussing his rationale for the belief.

I concur with this assessment of RL's position. Out of thousands of RL posts, I remember only a few with even the barest of reference to specific numbers. And I remember that even getting him to admit to an age between 10k and 1m was like pulling teeth from a squirming eel.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Some interesting stuff here on the young age of the earth, the solar system, etc. Some of it appears rather dated but still interesting.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_4.htm

By "interesting stuff" real life, do you believe it is true or not?

I would be glad to discuss any individual item.

I will not say that anything (or even everything) on the page is unfalsified or unfalsifiable.

Haven't even read it all.

But I would be glad to discuss any point.

I don't intend to post a long diatribe defending all 30+ points on the page. Nobody would read it all , even if I had time to write it.

Take your pick. Let's have some fun.

(Keep in mind that if even ONE of these points provides reliably convincing and substantial evidence of a young earth or young solar system, then evolution is in hot water. )

Interesting how you want to talk about specific points but when you quoted my post you left off the ONE question about a specific point so you wouldn't have to answer it.. So.. since you are willing to talk specific points. How old do you think the earth is? Lets make it simple..
Older than 1 billion years of younger? One point, that's all I want to talk about.

0 Replies

parados,

I've said that I don't know how old the earth is. I think the jury's still out on that.

I tend to favor thousands rather than billions of years because the dating schemes used to come up with billions of years are notoriously contradictory and based on unproven and usually unprovable assumptions. Wonder why I'm skeptical?

So you ONLY want to talk about how old the earth is, eh? (Can't blame you, based on your poor performance talking about the origin of life.)

from the link I posted:

Quote:

So , we'll take this one step at a time for you.

Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down?

0 Replies

Quote:

Using a different calculation

...that I can't get any SANE ASTRONOMER to agree with Laughing

If the calculation don't FIT you must ACQUIT!

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know