43 Dinosaur Eggs Discovered in China by Construction workers.

a reply to: borntowatch
You forgot to say, "Amen!" after your post.
Scientific exploration is a human endeavor and yes, it comes with all the flaws of humankinds ego, corruption and greed. But science as a religion? Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Science over time, is indeed self-correcting, there is glory in overturning orthodoxy, while faith cannot be contested. Therefore it is true. All scientific claims are by nature contestable. Those differences cannot be reconciled as is proven by your corrupt, and dishonest approach.
In fact, what you are doing is exactly the opposite of science! You should be disqualified from ever having an opinion within science because you don't accept the scientific method, and you have no evidence, all the while crying for evidence, it is obvious to all but the most gullible the twisted game you perpetuate. Your posts belong in the comments section of Youtube, not here with educated people. If you want a real debate, learn to argue more honestly and with more thought and less venom.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: borntowatch

No solid replies to the dilemma have been forthcoming:

On the contrary. Your propensity to quote other quote mining sources does not actually accomplish much but demonstrate your enthusiastic propensity to confirmation bias. You have invented a "dilemma" to support yourself.

Your quote from O'rourke just says that the "circular argument" is so ridiculous that geologists find no point in disputing it. Read it again, it says that it's not worth the effort. In any case, in his conclusion O'rouke says:

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach.

O'rourke supports geological dating techniques. He is not someone you want to quote to prove your point. Unless, of course, you take him out of context and not expect anyone to follow up.


Oh, using Kitts? Not so good for you. The "circularity problem" is avoidable, he says so. Following your out of context quote:

Despite these pitfalls we can with reasonable care avoid the danger of presupposing what it is we want to ultimately to test and have at our disposal a distribution of organisms in space and time that we suppose to have been related to one another by descent.

www.talkorigins.org...

 

I just want an answer

What was the question?

Oh WOW Phage you are so AWESOME, I cant refute what you have said, I am at a loss

Did you answer my questions, evidently not

Just ...
just....
just

anyway well done, you will get lotsa stars for nothing

Your question has been answered. Not that you'll admit it. You never admit it, as you'll move the goalposts. Again. With added snark probably, because of course no-one can ever approach the level of answer that you need.

Can we just ignore the one who should be ignored (come on guys giving the guys a platform here to bleat nonsense) and get back talking about the eggs?.
I do wonder which dinosaur they came from.
Do we have any clue about any eggs found? from which dinosaur? have we found fossils of any dinosaurs on or around fossil egg sites?.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: borntowatch

No solid replies to the dilemma have been forthcoming:

On the contrary. Your propensity to quote other quote mining sources does not actually accomplish much but demonstrate your enthusiastic propensity to confirmation bias. You have invented a "dilemma" to support yourself.

Your quote from O'rourke just says that the "circular argument" is so ridiculous that geologists find no point in disputing it. Read it again, it says that it's not worth the effort. In any case, in his conclusion O'rouke says:

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach.

O'rourke supports geological dating techniques. He is not someone you want to quote to prove your point. Unless, of course, you take him out of context and not expect anyone to follow up.


Oh, using Kitts? Not so good for you. The "circularity problem" is avoidable, he says so. Following your out of context quote:

Despite these pitfalls we can with reasonable care avoid the danger of presupposing what it is we want to ultimately to test and have at our disposal a distribution of organisms in space and time that we suppose to have been related to one another by descent.

www.talkorigins.org...

 

I just want an answer

What was the question?

Oh WOW Phage you are so AWESOME, I cant refute what you have said, I am at a loss

Did you answer my questions, evidently not

Just ...
just....
just

anyway well done, you will get lotsa stars for nothing

Your question has been answered. Not that you'll admit it. You never admit it, as you'll move the goalposts. Again. With added snark probably, because of course no-one can ever approach the level of answer that you need.

Can you show me where my question was answered.

I hear that alot but never actually see it.

Please do me a favor and show me where the question was answered


and flyingfish. if you note, all I am doing is asking a question, maybe I should start a thread asking this question, it worked in relation to the statistic question I couldnt get answered in this thread

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: borntowatch

No solid replies to the dilemma have been forthcoming:

On the contrary. Your propensity to quote other quote mining sources does not actually accomplish much but demonstrate your enthusiastic propensity to confirmation bias. You have invented a "dilemma" to support yourself.

Your quote from O'rourke just says that the "circular argument" is so ridiculous that geologists find no point in disputing it. Read it again, it says that it's not worth the effort. In any case, in his conclusion O'rouke says:

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach.

O'rourke supports geological dating techniques. He is not someone you want to quote to prove your point. Unless, of course, you take him out of context and not expect anyone to follow up.


Oh, using Kitts? Not so good for you. The "circularity problem" is avoidable, he says so. Following your out of context quote:

Despite these pitfalls we can with reasonable care avoid the danger of presupposing what it is we want to ultimately to test and have at our disposal a distribution of organisms in space and time that we suppose to have been related to one another by descent.

www.talkorigins.org...

 

I just want an answer

What was the question?

Oh WOW Phage you are so AWESOME, I cant refute what you have said, I am at a loss

Did you answer my questions, evidently not

Just ...
just....
just

anyway well done, you will get lotsa stars for nothing

Your question has been answered. Not that you'll admit it. You never admit it, as you'll move the goalposts. Again. With added snark probably, because of course no-one can ever approach the level of answer that you need.

Can you show me where my question was answered.

I hear that alot but never actually see it.

Please do me a favor and show me where the question was answered


and flyingfish. if you note, all I am doing is asking a question, maybe I should start a thread asking this question, it worked in relation to the statistic question I couldnt get answered in this thread

And once again you prove me right. Do you actually ever read past parts of the thread? Or are you unable to admit that you could ever be wrong?

a reply to: borntowatch

I'd say given the fact that answers to your questions, and related information has been provided to you ad nauseum, that the burden of proof is now in your court to show how and why they're wrong. That's just my opinion though.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Nice find but the real question is

Are they still good, you know, to eat

I just finished catching up on this thread and mind blown.

At this point I feel the need to admit to there being a world-wide conspiracy in the scientific community to deny creation. I was hoping this would stay under wraps but.. Well..You see.. Recently a gathering of scientists were caught on tape performing a ritual. It's undeniable now.

Not sure how to embed to start at the correct point. Jump to 11:08!

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Very nice presentation. Creationists rely on the poor science education and lack of critical thinking of their followers. It's a cult whose success is reliant on belief in Creationist dogma without question.

An easy challenge to Creationists is modern scientific technology. For instance, since the discovery of C14 as a dating method of organic matter in 1945, there have been numerous superior spectroscpic methods which can determine not only the dates of fossils, but the age of the Earth and inorganic matter which make up the Earth. However, Creationists simply ignore these methods because the results of these methods contradicts the crap they're selling to their followers.

You'll never hear a creationist use any of the following dating methods to prove their corrupted science:

Radiometric dating including:

Radiocarbon dating.
Uranium-lead dating.
Uranium-thorium dating.
Potassium-argon dating and argon-argon dating.
Electron spin resonance (ESR) dating

Fission-track dating

Cosmogenic nuclide geochronology

Luminescence dating

Incremental dating

Incremental dating
• Dendrochronology
• Ice cores
• Lichenometry
• Varves

Paleomagnetic dating

Magnetostratigraphy

Chemostratigraphy