• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What kind of twisted explicit sexual perversions are schools now teaching?

Lisa said:
Try facts,
Click to expand...

You are going to pull a Joe Biden on me? "We are not interested in facts, just the truth." The "truth" in this case being the approved secularist narrative that starkly contradicts the facts.
 
marke said:
Your source does not refute the facts. "Nuh-uh" is not a persuasive scientific argument. I have read articles from both sides and I am convinced the creationists have properly represented the facts while Darwinists and assorted secular scientists remain stuck on erroneous assumptions.

Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds | Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read it? AIG's claims are lies, They always lie.
A common misconception encountered in the discussion of C-14 dating is that, supposedly, C-14 can only last for 60,000 years, and after that, all of the C-14 in a sample simply "disappears". This is not the case. The carbon sample continues to undergo it's approximate 5700 year old halflife, growing smaller and smaller even after most of the readable carbon has been converted to nitrogen -14. It is true that after the 60,000 year mark, the sample is so small that it is no longer useful in radiocarbon dating or most methods of measurement, but that does not mean it has all decayed away into another isotope. It is still there, progressively shrinking. Astonishingly, the Old Carbon Project, funded by both the United States and Canada, sought to improve detection methods to allow discovery of the some of the oldest samples of natural radiocarbon conceivable in coal (180,000 years old!).

Thus the evidence seems to strongly suggest that the samples of coal used by the RATE Project were subjects of in-situ or in-lab contamination, and do not possess any levels of intrinsic radiocarbon that would suggest that the earth is only thousands of years old as opposed to billions, nor does their work in this area establish any viable doubts regarding the current methods of radiocarbon dating.
Click to expand...
 
Lisa said:
Did you bother to read it? AIG's claims are lies, They always lie.
Click to expand...

The secularists are the ones in denial. You will just have to believe what you like, but you cannot prove the truth wrong. If the secularists want to claim test results are flawed in this case because of things like contamination, then they cannot trust any test results. You cannot have it both ways.
 
marke said:
Darwinists do not do radiometric testing on dinosaur bones. If you think that is a lie then you show you remain ignorant of a very commonly known fact among scientists.
Click to expand...

Err, what did the link say ?

Did I not say that rocks all also used in the dating process ?
 
marke said:
The secularists are the ones in denial. You will just have to believe what you like, but you cannot prove the truth wrong. If the secularists want to claim test results are flawed in this case because of things like contamination, then they cannot trust any test results. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

What evidence who you believe ?

What do you need to prove your "revealed truth" wrong ?

Why do you believe it in the absence of evidence anyway ?
 
marke said:
The secularists are the ones in denial. You will just have to believe what you like, but you cannot prove the truth wrong. If the secularists want to claim test results are flawed in this case because of things like contamination, then they cannot trust any test results. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

AIG intentionally used a contaminated sample to bolster their YEC beliefs and you are ignorant of science so you believe it. It's circular logic. If the world is actually 6000 years old, which most protestant religions do not believe then how do you explain that there are galaxies and star clusters that are more than 10,000 light-years away? Rocks from the Candian shield are more than 3 billion years old.

Comprising over half the area of present-day Canada, the eight million square kilometers of pre-Cambrian “shield” is the exposed portion of the ancient geological core of North America. Radiometric dating and other recent techniques have revealed that parts of it are four billion years old and that the whole is made up of various fragments of material, which erupted from hundreds of now-extinct volcanoes that coalesced and amalgamated between 2.45 and 1.24 billion years ago. But such a fine-grained understanding was beyond scientific reach until it became possible, in the latter part of the 20th century, to determine the age of rocks by calibrating decay in their radioactive elements.
Click to expand...

Behind the Canadian Shield | Canadian Geographic
 
Lisa said:
AIG intentionally used a contaminated sample to bolster their YEC beliefs and you are ignorant of science so you believe it. It's circular logic. If the world is actually 6000 years old, which most protestant religions do not believe then how do you explain that there are galaxies and star clusters that are more than 10,000 light-years away? Rocks from the Candian shield are more than 3 billion years old.
Behind the Canadian Shield | Canadian Geographic
Click to expand...

Darwinists have opinions which they are unwilling to question, no matter what the evidence shows. Secularists are unwilling to consider that their hundred year old untested age estimates for dinosaurs are wrong even though modern testing, which had never been done before, proves dinosaurs lived on earth less than 50,000 years ago.
 
marke said:
Darwinists have opinions which they are unwilling to question, no matter what the evidence shows. Secularists are unwilling to consider that their hundred-year-old untested age estimates for dinosaurs are wrong even though modern testing, which had never been done before, proves dinosaurs lived on earth less than 50,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence for dinosaurs living on the earth 50,000 years ago? Isa this something you also got from AiG?
 
Lisa said:
Where is the evidence for dinosaurs living on the earth 50,000 years ago? Isa this something you also got from AiG?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence.
 
Lisa said:
Where is the evidence for dinosaurs living on the earth 50,000 years ago? Isa this something you also got from AiG?
Click to expand...

Have you not been paying attention? The only dinosaur bones which have ever been radiometrically age tested have proven dinosaurs were alive from 30,000 to 50,000 years ago or earlier.
 
marke said:
Darwinists have opinions which they are unwilling to question, no matter what the evidence shows. Secularists are unwilling to consider that their hundred year old untested age estimates for dinosaurs are wrong even though modern testing, which had never been done before, proves dinosaurs lived on earth less than 50,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "Darwinist"

You mean biologist or a related discipline.

A biologist will not put forward any personal assumption and call it science.

Science is demonstrable and can be repeated to get the same results.


Other scientists will always question those results and/or method of testing and put forward a new hypothesis that will in turn be also thoroughly tested and peer reviewed.


Your crazy idea that dinosaurs lived on Earth a mere number of thousands of years ago has been refuted by science. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago - but what are your scientific qualifications to make such an assertion.

Are you not merely parroting what you've been told by a church?
 
Rich2018 said:
There is no such thing as a "Darwinist"

You mean biologist or a related discipline.

A biologist will not put forward any personal assumption and call it science.
Science is demonstrable and can be repeated to get the same results.
Other scientists will always question those results and/or method of testing and put forward a new hypothesis that will in turn be also thoroughly tested and peer reviewed.
Your crazy idea that dinosaurs lived on Earth a mere number of thousands of years ago has been refuted by science. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago - but what are your scientific qualifications to make such an assertion.
Are you not merely parroting what you've been told by a church?
Click to expand...

Old assumptions about the ages of dinosaur bones have now been contradicted by test results showing ages less and sometimes considerably less than 50,000 years. Old assumptions about the ages of dinosaur bones were compiled through various means which NEVER INVOLVED ACTUALLY TESTING THE BONES THEMSELVES FOR AGE.
 
marke said:
Have you not been paying attention? The only dinosaur bones which have ever been radiometrically age tested have proven dinosaurs were alive from 30,000 to 50,000 years ago or earlier.
Click to expand...

Where are these bones and who did the testing? Dinosaurs died off 50+ million years ago.
 
marke said:
Old assumptions about the ages of dinosaur bones have now been contradicted by test results showing ages less and sometimes considerably less than 50,000 years. Old assumptions about the ages of dinosaur bones were compiled through various means which NEVER INVOLVED ACTUALLY TESTING THE BONES THEMSELVES FOR AGE.
Click to expand...

Says who ? Who says the bones are 50,000 years old - certainly not the people who discovered them.

Contradicted by results that have been explained by the very people who published their soft tissue findings ? And whose results about the test of the age of the bones you support ?
If the were wrong and dinosaurs did live as late as 50,000 years ago, would we find more bones to confirm that and in rock layers of the same age ?

No assumption was EVER made about the age of bones or the rocks surrounding them

What about all the tests that confirm fossilized dinosaur bones are tens of millions of years old - they're not a contradiction ?

Again what is your biological or geological training training ?
What was your part in the study ?

You are just parroting nonsense from creationist web pages.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
NEVER INVOLVED ACTUALLY TESTING THE BONES THEMSELVES FOR AGE.
Click to expand...

Post# 741

"Btw this is also supported by radio-metric dating of the sedimentary rock layers in which their fossils are found."
 
Lisa said:
Where are these bones and who did the testing? Dinosaurs died off 50+ million years ago.
Click to expand...

That's what nearly everybody says because they think everybody says that.
Speculators first claimed dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago and millions of others just took them at their word, not knowing nobody had ever actually tested dinosaur remains for age.
 
Rich2018 said:
Says who ? Who says the bones are 50,000 years old - certainly not the people who discovered them.

Contradicted by results that have been explained by the very people who published their soft tissue findings ? And whose results about the test of the age of the bones you support ?
If the were wrong and dinosaurs did live as late as 50,000 years ago, would we find more bones to confirm that and in rock layers of the same age ?

No assumption was EVER made about the age of bones or the rocks surrounding them

What about all the tests that confirm fossilized dinosaur bones are tens of millions of years old - they're not a contradiction ?

Again what is your biological or geological training training ?
What was your part in the study ?

You are just parroting nonsense from creationist web pages.
Click to expand...

If you think scientists have tested the actual dinosaur bones themselves and found them to be millions of years old then you should post your source.
 
Rich2018 said:
Post# 741

"Btw this is also supported by radio-metric dating of the sedimentary rock layers in which their fossils are found."
Click to expand...

Testing rocks is one thing. Testing bones is another.
 
marke said:
If you think scientists have tested the actual dinosaur bones themselves and found them to be millions of years old then you should post your source.
Click to expand...

If those bones are less than 50k years old, absolutely they'd be tested....like any soft tissue discovery.

The age of dinosaurs fossils are dated by the rock surrounding it.
 
marke said:
That's what nearly everybody says because they think everybody says that.
Speculators first claimed dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago and millions of others just took them at their word, not knowing nobody had ever actually tested dinosaur remains for age.
Click to expand...

And who, apart from you with your lack of training in any related scientific discipline, thinks dinosaurs roamed the Earth a mere 50k years ago ?
 
Rich2018 said:
If those bones are less than 50k years old, absolutely they'd be tested....like any soft tissue discovery.

The age of dinosaurs fossils are dated by the rock surrounding it.
Click to expand...

Darwinist: "Oh, looky! A dinosaur bone that is younger than 50,000 years old. Let's test it! Look! There is another one! Oh crap, it is more than 65 million years old, We cannot test that one."
 
marke said:
Darwinist: "Oh, looky! A dinosaur bone that is younger than 50,000 years old. Let's test it! Look! There is another one! Oh crap, it is more than 65 million years old, We cannot test that one."
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to repeat your crazy idea that thee is such a thing as a "Darwinist"

If such a thing as 50,000 bones belong to a dinosaur were found, biologists would sure as hell test them and it would wreck our understanding of dinosaurs BUT not evolution.
But they're not.
Dinosaur "bones" are fossilized. Do you know what that means ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom