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: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm
So somebody faked fossilized footprints long long ago...
OK gotcha..
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Heh I knew they had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...
I still find thier debunking lacking any real evidence that they are that of another dinosaur, for the reason they use the equal depth argument...
Well why are they not shaped the same then???
They use the claw marks and off set big toe as an argument also...
Why does the evolution crowd not use this as evidence of the evolution of ape to man?
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
Oh you mean books on evolution?
Or books about you?
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
Ya guess we are both left waiting for actual proof...
And I guess all the ancient texts older then 2000 years are all fakes too huh?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
Oh you mean books on evolution?
Or books about you?
I mean a certain book that was written 150 years after some event was supposed to take place.
Science is about observing what has actually happened. You know, with actual proof?
Religion is about believing something happened 2000 years ago where there is no solid proof for it.
originally posted by: Ghost147
originally posted by: cooperton
I think carbon dating is going to be an integral part of discerning the truth of the matter. Dinosaurs which were carbon dated were shown to be between 4,000-40,000 years old according to C-14 data:
Carbon dating dinosaur fossils
Insistent data is obviously required, but this is a curious empirical observation. Finding DNA and other soft tissues in dinosaurs indicate these organisms are not millions of years old, and carbon-dating agrees with such a conclusion.
Ah yes, ye ol' Carbon Dating argument.
Radiocarbon dating isn't used to date Dinosaur fossils, and the reason for that is because Carbon has a half life of 5,730 ± 40 years. We don't use radiocarbon dating to date dinosaur fossils because there isn't any carbon to date.
That fact alone makes your link just ridiculous.
Radiocarbon dating cannot date anything over 50,000 years because of that.
We can, however use other methods, by using the isotopes such as uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.
Of course, we can also determine general age simply by the sediment that the fossil is found in as well, which cross-confirms those other methods used, among other things.
To determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.
Furthermore, we have other techniques that can determine the age of sedimentary rock, which include analyzing amino acids and measuring changes in an object's magnetic field. Scientists have also made improvements to the standard radiometric measurements. For example, by using a laser, researchers can measure parent and daughter atoms in extremely small amounts of matter, making it possible to determine the age of very small samples.
I wasn't lying when I said "everything we observe in nature on and around Earth goes against a young earth/universe"
For more information, please visit this link
I will have a crack without reading your link
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman
Well you weren't there when the Bible was written, were you? But I would bet you get all your "science" from the Bible.
Explain that please.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Heh I knew they had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
I still find thier debunking lacking any real evidence that they are that of another dinosaur, for the reason they use the equal depth argument...
Well why are they not shaped the same then???
They use the claw marks and off set big toe as an argument also...
Why does the evolution crowd not use this as evidence of the evolution of ape to man?
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
Ya guess we are both left waiting for actual proof...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
And I guess all the ancient texts older then 2000 years are all fakes too huh?