It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton
LOL! So you cite a random PDF from non-scientific creationist website? Right, OK mate.
The PDF is a compilation of all the citations of the many examples of the C-14 dating of dinosaurs. it is an objective compilation that is genuinely seeking the truth, and you dismiss it because it contradicts your dogma.
Don't you see how zealous you all have become from me merely posting contradictory evidence to your beloved dogmatic theories?
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Indigo5
If you have some science that you think is being denied by scientists...please provide it.
1) soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains.
2) carbon-dating dinosaur remains
It'd be a marvel if any of the mainstream scientismists actually earnestly looked into this and formed a non-bias opinion based on the empirical findings.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The claims made by science are factual, reproducible, and measurable. If they aren't, we aren't talking about science.
originally posted by: GetHyped
The very first citation in that list is from a non peer-reviewed creationist website. The scientific illiteracy being displayed here is astounding.
I also note you have not addressed any of my questions regarding the dating methods used to determine the age of the aforementioned dinosaur fossil.
I'm not going to sit here all day going round in circles with you holding up creationist nonsense to as evidence because you lack even the most basic understanding of the science being discussed. I rest my case.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped
Do you have reading comprehension issues? I specifically stated that I WASN'T a creationist...
The methods they used weren't wrong, the extrapolation they used was fundamentally flawed... You can't measure erosion patterns for 6 months or even 60 years and claim to know what happened for the last billion years. That's where it started. That was the foundation. As they discovered more methods, the STILL used that as a foundation. Then as they were proven wrong time and time again, they tweaked and made up and discarded etc...until they arrived where they wanted.
Jaden
originally posted by: Talorc
Science allows, science makes claims..... very interesting choices of words. It's been noted.
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped
Do you have reading comprehension issues? I specifically stated that I WASN'T a creationist...
The methods they used weren't wrong, the extrapolation they used was fundamentally flawed... You can't measure erosion patterns for 6 months or even 60 years and claim to know what happened for the last billion years. That's where it started. That was the foundation. As they discovered more methods, the STILL used that as a foundation. Then as they were proven wrong time and time again, they tweaked and made up and discarded etc...until they arrived where they wanted.
Jaden
Rather than offering up more conjecture, why not specifically state the methods they used and why they were flawed?
Here's the paper: HERE
originally posted by: Masterjaden
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped
Do you have reading comprehension issues? I specifically stated that I WASN'T a creationist...
The methods they used weren't wrong, the extrapolation they used was fundamentally flawed... You can't measure erosion patterns for 6 months or even 60 years and claim to know what happened for the last billion years. That's where it started. That was the foundation. As they discovered more methods, the STILL used that as a foundation. Then as they were proven wrong time and time again, they tweaked and made up and discarded etc...until they arrived where they wanted.
Jaden
Rather than offering up more conjecture, why not specifically state the methods they used and why they were flawed?
Here's the paper: HERE
umm yeah you have to be a member to see the full text...I'm not paying for the site to read the article as I have no need.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
It requires belief (faith) in its unprovable theories (doctrine).