Fossils from the day the dinosaurs died

[LittleNipper]

This seems to be the most honest assessment:

 

[progressive hunter]

DENIALS IN WHAT???

your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself

and youve done nothing but throw insults

You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name. Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts. Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you. It is you who insult my intelligence.

Nobody is going to watch a video you never watched and don't understand, and then spoonfeed it back to you.

that explains why you are so ignorant on the subject and resort to personal attacks instead of logical debate

 

[alang1216]

DENIALS IN WHAT???

your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself

and youve done nothing but throw insults

You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name. Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts. Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you. It is you who insult my intelligence.

Nobody is going to watch a video you never watched and don't understand, and then spoonfeed it back to you.

I watched it (not that I posted it) and it is not at all hard to understand (though I'm sure a Uniformatarian would have to disagree or cut his own throat). Remember Mount St. Helen. Things are seldom what they seem --- skim milk masquerades as cream...

I watched and was saddened by the half-truths it contained The Mt St. Helen dating was an excellent example of this. The decay of K is given as 1.25 billion years. This means that half the K will decay in 1.25 billion years. How much of the K will decay in 10 years? I can tell you, so little will decay that it will be impossible to accurately measure it. The youngest material dated with this method is 20,000 years so no honest scientist would use this method on such young material.

 

[progressive hunter]

DENIALS IN WHAT???

your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself

and youve done nothing but throw insults

You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name. Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts. Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you. It is you who insult my intelligence.

Nobody is going to watch a video you never watched and don't understand, and then spoonfeed it back to you.

I watched it (not that I posted it) and it is not at all hard to understand (though I'm sure a Uniformatarian would have to disagree or cut his own throat). Remember Mount St. Helen. Things are seldom what they seem --- skim milk masquerades as cream...

I watched and was saddened by the half-truths it contained The Mt St. Helen dating was an excellent example of this. The decay of K is given as 1.25 billion years. This means that half the K will decay in 1.25 billion years. How much of the K will decay in 10 years? I can tell you, so little will decay that it will be impossible to accurately measure it. The youngest material dated with this method is 20,000 years so no honest scientist would use this method on such young material.

the rocks at mt st helena are the same age as all rocks,,they didnt just appear when it blew,, there is more to it than what you focused on

and what about the others???

sorry but dating is nothing but speculation based on assumption and in noway can be trusted

 

[alang1216]

DENIALS IN WHAT???

your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself

and youve done nothing but throw insults

You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name. Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts. Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you. It is you who insult my intelligence.

Thank you. Was that so hard? The video was weak on science but at least you tried.

When you walk down the street do you worry that you'll fly up into the air? No, you 'assume' gravity will not suddenly cease since, in your experience, it never has. You're welcome to doubt your eyes and believe something different but that is not how science works.

 

[progressive hunter]

DENIALS IN WHAT???

your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself

and youve done nothing but throw insults

You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name. Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts. Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you. It is you who insult my intelligence.

Thank you. Was that so hard? The video was weak on science but at least you tried.

When you walk down the street do you worry that you'll fly up into the air? No, you 'assume' gravity will not suddenly cease since, in your experience, it never has. You're welcome to doubt your eyes and believe something different but that is not how science works.

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

 

[Hollie]

DENIALS IN WHAT???

your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself

and youve done nothing but throw insults

You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name. Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts. Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you. It is you who insult my intelligence.

Thank you. Was that so hard? The video was weak on science but at least you tried.

When you walk down the street do you worry that you'll fly up into the air? No, you 'assume' gravity will not suddenly cease since, in your experience, it never has. You're welcome to doubt your eyes and believe something different but that is not how science works.

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

Your science vocabulary is lacking. Your crank fundamentalist ministries have a reason to keep you ignorant.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[alang1216]

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

No difference. Theory is a explanatory framework. Law is a formula. There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.

 

[progressive hunter]

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

No difference. Theory is a explanatory framework. Law is a formula. There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.

no there isnt any laws of evo,,,

and as I've proven there are to many flaws in evolution to consider it anything but a religion

 

[Hollie]

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

No difference. Theory is a explanatory framework. Law is a formula. There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.

no there isnt any laws of evo,,,

and as I've proven there are to many flaws in evolution to consider it anything but a religion

You're everyones hero. With a single YouTube video, you refuted 150 years of peer reviewed science.

I think a bible autographed by Heyzeus H. Christ should be your reward.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What were the CO2 levels in the fossil fish?

 

[Jitss617]

If I catch any Mexican fish it’s over for them!

 

[alang1216]

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

No difference. Theory is a explanatory framework. Law is a formula. There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.

no there isnt any laws of evo,,,

and as I've proven there are to many flaws in evolution to consider it anything but a religion

Darwin's Law of Evolution by Natural Selection (traditionally referred to as a "theory" to honor Darwin's original treatise, but now confirmed through observation and experiment) consists of four main tenets.

• First, he describes how species can change in shape and character through selective breeding. No reasonable person, whether creationist or scientist, doubts selective breeding can morph a wolf into a pony-sized mastiff. Or evolve the same wild animal into a comically shrunk, rat-sized Chihuahua.
• Second, he describes how species are neither completely uniform nor immutable, and how these natural variations are the grist upon which human selective breeding grinds. Once a new characteristic is established, these variations persist from generation to generation, and are systematically and predictably passed from parent to child. Again, all but the most radical creationists accepts these facts, widely employed since the birth of animal husbandry and agriculture [3] .
• Third, he recognized that Nature, through selective pressures like environmental shifts or changes in predation, can play the role of humans in selective breeding. Whether man selects a long-haired dog for its appearance, or colder winters favor the survival of thick furred over short-haired canines, the result is identical. Again, the power of evolution by Natural Selection is confirmed though field work (such as Darwin's finches), genetic mapping, and the experience of anyone who chooses to listen openly to nature.
• Fourth, everyone agrees that, while changes within a species are indisputable and can be observed within a lifetime, no one has ever seen (nor is there a recorded observation after 5000 years of written history) one species transmuting to another. Fish never become fowl, insects never become birds, and monkeys certainly never become humans.

 

[progressive hunter]

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

No difference. Theory is a explanatory framework. Law is a formula. There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.

no there isnt any laws of evo,,,

and as I've proven there are to many flaws in evolution to consider it anything but a religion

Darwin's Law of Evolution by Natural Selection (traditionally referred to as a "theory" to honor Darwin's original treatise, but now confirmed through observation and experiment) consists of four main tenets.

• First, he describes how species can change in shape and character through selective breeding. No reasonable person, whether creationist or scientist, doubts selective breeding can morph a wolf into a pony-sized mastiff. Or evolve the same wild animal into a comically shrunk, rat-sized Chihuahua.
• Second, he describes how species are neither completely uniform nor immutable, and how these natural variations are the grist upon which human selective breeding grinds. Once a new characteristic is established, these variations persist from generation to generation, and are systematically and predictably passed from parent to child. Again, all but the most radical creationists accepts these facts, widely employed since the birth of animal husbandry and agriculture [3] .
• Third, he recognized that Nature, through selective pressures like environmental shifts or changes in predation, can play the role of humans in selective breeding. Whether man selects a long-haired dog for its appearance, or colder winters favor the survival of thick furred over short-haired canines, the result is identical. Again, the power of evolution by Natural Selection is confirmed though field work (such as Darwin's finches), genetic mapping, and the experience of anyone who chooses to listen openly to nature.
• Fourth, everyone agrees that, while changes within a species are indisputable and can be observed within a lifetime, no one has ever seen (nor is there a recorded observation after 5000 years of written history) one species transmuting to another. Fish never become fowl, insects never become birds, and monkeys certainly never become humans.

DARWIN???
YOURE GOING TO CLAIM DARWINS THEORY IS LAW????

AND NOW WHO BELIEVES IN MAKE BELIEVE

a change within species based on environment and breeding in no way shape or form proves that life came from non living matter, humans decended from apes or a common ancestor or the planet is billions of yrs old,,,or that anything ever gave birth to anything other than its kind

in fact all darwin did was prove life exists differently depending on environment,,,which we knew for centuries

 

[alang1216]

You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name. Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts. Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you. It is you who insult my intelligence.

Nobody is going to watch a video you never watched and don't understand, and then spoonfeed it back to you.

I watched it (not that I posted it) and it is not at all hard to understand (though I'm sure a Uniformatarian would have to disagree or cut his own throat). Remember Mount St. Helen. Things are seldom what they seem --- skim milk masquerades as cream...

I watched and was saddened by the half-truths it contained The Mt St. Helen dating was an excellent example of this. The decay of K is given as 1.25 billion years. This means that half the K will decay in 1.25 billion years. How much of the K will decay in 10 years? I can tell you, so little will decay that it will be impossible to accurately measure it. The youngest material dated with this method is 20,000 years so no honest scientist would use this method on such young material.

the rocks at mt st helena are the same age as all rocks,,they didnt just appear when it blew,, there is more to it than what you focused on

and what about the others???

sorry but dating is nothing but speculation based on assumption and in noway can be trusted

Actually, if they came from the magma source, they did just appear when it blew. Magma is a fluid that does not become rock until it cools.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nobody is going to watch a video you never watched and don't understand, and then spoonfeed it back to you.

I watched it (not that I posted it) and it is not at all hard to understand (though I'm sure a Uniformatarian would have to disagree or cut his own throat). Remember Mount St. Helen. Things are seldom what they seem --- skim milk masquerades as cream...

I watched and was saddened by the half-truths it contained The Mt St. Helen dating was an excellent example of this. The decay of K is given as 1.25 billion years. This means that half the K will decay in 1.25 billion years. How much of the K will decay in 10 years? I can tell you, so little will decay that it will be impossible to accurately measure it. The youngest material dated with this method is 20,000 years so no honest scientist would use this method on such young material.

the rocks at mt st helena are the same age as all rocks,,they didnt just appear when it blew,, there is more to it than what you focused on

and what about the others???

sorry but dating is nothing but speculation based on assumption and in noway can be trusted

Actually, if they came from the magma source, they did just appear when it blew. Magma is a fluid that does not become rock until it cools.

thats a new one I havent heard before,,,but they change so much its hard to keep up

 

[alang1216]

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

No difference. Theory is a explanatory framework. Law is a formula. There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.

no there isnt any laws of evo,,,

and as I've proven there are to many flaws in evolution to consider it anything but a religion

Darwin's Law of Evolution by Natural Selection (traditionally referred to as a "theory" to honor Darwin's original treatise, but now confirmed through observation and experiment) consists of four main tenets.

• First, he describes how species can change in shape and character through selective breeding. No reasonable person, whether creationist or scientist, doubts selective breeding can morph a wolf into a pony-sized mastiff. Or evolve the same wild animal into a comically shrunk, rat-sized Chihuahua.
• Second, he describes how species are neither completely uniform nor immutable, and how these natural variations are the grist upon which human selective breeding grinds. Once a new characteristic is established, these variations persist from generation to generation, and are systematically and predictably passed from parent to child. Again, all but the most radical creationists accepts these facts, widely employed since the birth of animal husbandry and agriculture [3] .
• Third, he recognized that Nature, through selective pressures like environmental shifts or changes in predation, can play the role of humans in selective breeding. Whether man selects a long-haired dog for its appearance, or colder winters favor the survival of thick furred over short-haired canines, the result is identical. Again, the power of evolution by Natural Selection is confirmed though field work (such as Darwin's finches), genetic mapping, and the experience of anyone who chooses to listen openly to nature.
• Fourth, everyone agrees that, while changes within a species are indisputable and can be observed within a lifetime, no one has ever seen (nor is there a recorded observation after 5000 years of written history) one species transmuting to another. Fish never become fowl, insects never become birds, and monkeys certainly never become humans.

DARWIN???
YOURE GOING TO CLAIM DARWINS THEORY IS LAW????

AND NOW WHO BELIEVES IN MAKE BELIEVE

a change within species based on environment and breeding in no way shape or form proves that life came from non living matter, humans decended from apes or a common ancestor or the planet is billions of yrs old,,,or that anything ever gave birth to anything other than its kind

in fact all darwin did was prove life exists differently depending on environment,,,which we knew for centuries

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

What Darwin did was offer a mechanism for how life descended from a common ancestor.

 

[progressive hunter]

NO HE DIDNT

its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference

No difference. Theory is a explanatory framework. Law is a formula. There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.

no there isnt any laws of evo,,,

and as I've proven there are to many flaws in evolution to consider it anything but a religion

Darwin's Law of Evolution by Natural Selection (traditionally referred to as a "theory" to honor Darwin's original treatise, but now confirmed through observation and experiment) consists of four main tenets.

• First, he describes how species can change in shape and character through selective breeding. No reasonable person, whether creationist or scientist, doubts selective breeding can morph a wolf into a pony-sized mastiff. Or evolve the same wild animal into a comically shrunk, rat-sized Chihuahua.
• Second, he describes how species are neither completely uniform nor immutable, and how these natural variations are the grist upon which human selective breeding grinds. Once a new characteristic is established, these variations persist from generation to generation, and are systematically and predictably passed from parent to child. Again, all but the most radical creationists accepts these facts, widely employed since the birth of animal husbandry and agriculture [3] .
• Third, he recognized that Nature, through selective pressures like environmental shifts or changes in predation, can play the role of humans in selective breeding. Whether man selects a long-haired dog for its appearance, or colder winters favor the survival of thick furred over short-haired canines, the result is identical. Again, the power of evolution by Natural Selection is confirmed though field work (such as Darwin's finches), genetic mapping, and the experience of anyone who chooses to listen openly to nature.
• Fourth, everyone agrees that, while changes within a species are indisputable and can be observed within a lifetime, no one has ever seen (nor is there a recorded observation after 5000 years of written history) one species transmuting to another. Fish never become fowl, insects never become birds, and monkeys certainly never become humans.

DARWIN???
YOURE GOING TO CLAIM DARWINS THEORY IS LAW????

AND NOW WHO BELIEVES IN MAKE BELIEVE

a change within species based on environment and breeding in no way shape or form proves that life came from non living matter, humans decended from apes or a common ancestor or the planet is billions of yrs old,,,or that anything ever gave birth to anything other than its kind

in fact all darwin did was prove life exists differently depending on environment,,,which we knew for centuries

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

What Darwin did was offer a mechanism for how life descended from a common ancestor.

what he proved is what man had known for centuries. that life changes based on environment and breeding and never has anything given birth to anything other than its kind

and I have yet to see this common ancestor or proof of it

 

[alang1216]

Actually, if they came from the magma source, they did just appear when it blew. Magma is a fluid that does not become rock until it cools.

thats a new one I havent heard before,,,but they change so much its hard to keep up

It's a part of geology older than you are.

 

[progressive hunter]

Actually, if they came from the magma source, they did just appear when it blew. Magma is a fluid that does not become rock until it cools.

thats a new one I havent heard before,,,but they change so much its hard to keep up

It's a part of geology older than you are.

source????