Fossils from the day the dinosaurs died

[alang1216]

NO HE DIDNT

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

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

If you're looking for a common ancestor, Darwin's finches are the classic study.

 

[progressive hunter]

NO HE DIDNT

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

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

If you're looking for a common ancestor, Darwin's finches are the classic study.

hahahahhahahahaha

so a guy that saw a bird knows all,,,yeah right,,,,

 

[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.

source????

College geology 101 textbook

 

[progressive hunter]

there i

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????

College geology 101 textbook

there in lies the problem,,,

 

[alang1216]

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

If you're looking for a common ancestor, Darwin's finches are the classic study.

hahahahhahahahaha

so a guy that saw a bird knows all,,,yeah right,,,,

So you think you know more than someone who did field work and studied the results for 20+ years?

 

[alang1216]

there i

College geology 101 textbook

there in lies the problem,,,

Education?

 

[progressive hunter]

there i

College geology 101 textbook

there in lies the problem,,,

Education?

that education is based on speculation made from assumptions and most of it proven wrong

 

[progressive hunter]

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

If you're looking for a common ancestor, Darwin's finches are the classic study.

hahahahhahahahaha

so a guy that saw a bird knows all,,,yeah right,,,,

So you think you know more than someone who did field work and studied the results for 20+ years?

I never said that,,what I said was he discovered something that man knew for centuries

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God Created and fools trick themselves into believing such is impossible.

Nah, thats a red herring. Nothing about science precludes creation. It merely precludes your very specific dogma of young earth bullshit. Get your story straight before commenting again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I watched it

No you didn't. Else you could summarize an argument from it . You are lying.

 

[Hollie]

NO HE DIDNT

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

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

If you're looking for a common ancestor, Darwin's finches are the classic study.

hahahahhahahahaha

so a guy that saw a bird knows all,,,yeah right,,,,

That is just profoundly ignorant. It was more than finches.

Were you raised in a cave? Did you ever attend school?

Your sentence structure and lack of punctuation, among such limited knowledge of basic biology, suggests limited education.

 

[Hollie]

Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

If you're looking for a common ancestor, Darwin's finches are the classic study.

hahahahhahahahaha

so a guy that saw a bird knows all,,,yeah right,,,,

So you think you know more than someone who did field work and studied the results for 20+ years?

I never said that,,what I said was he discovered something that man knew for centuries

Darwin's work was groundbreaking.

You're just sprouting nonsense.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications? Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED. Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?

 

[alang1216]

You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications? Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED. Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?

I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it. Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many. In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.

The world may only be a few thousand years old but it certainly LOOKS much, much older. For instance, mountains rise and erode, we can see the evidence for ourselves. It is hard to believe the Rockies were raised in just a few millennia or that the Appalachians rose and were eroded in the same time frame.

 

[progressive hunter]

You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications? Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED. Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?

I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it. Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many. In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.

The world may only be a few thousand years old but it certainly LOOKS much, much older. For instance, mountains rise and erode, we can see the evidence for ourselves. It is hard to believe the Rockies were raised in just a few millennia or that the Appalachians rose and were eroded in the same time frame.

and every one of these dating methods are flawed since if you test the same item 3 times you get 3 different dates ranging in thousands of yrs

 

[miketx]

Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.

Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died

Sixty-six million years ago, a massive asteroid crashed into a shallow sea near Mexico. The impact carved out a 90-mile-wide crater and flung mountains of earth into space. Earthbound debris fell to the planet in droplets of molten rock and glass.

Ancient fish caught glass blobs in their gills as they swam, gape-mouthed, beneath the strange rain. Large, sloshing waves threw animals onto dry land, then more waves buried them in silt. Scientists working in North Dakota recently dug up fossils of these fish: They died within the first minutes or hours after the asteroid hit, according to a paper published Friday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a discovery that has sparked tremendous excitement among paleontologists.

BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW IT WAS 60 MILLION YRS AGO???

there is no way known to man to accurately date that far back

They don't. They just guess.

 

[Hollie]

You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications? Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED. Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?

I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it. Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many. In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.

The world may only be a few thousand years old but it certainly LOOKS much, much older. For instance, mountains rise and erode, we can see the evidence for ourselves. It is hard to believe the Rockies were raised in just a few millennia or that the Appalachians rose and were eroded in the same time frame.

and every one of these dating methods are flawed since if you test the same item 3 times you get 3 different dates ranging in thousands of yrs

There are margins of error in all measurements. Plus or minus a few thousand years when science is dealing with timeframes of billions of years is a small margin of error.

That doesn't mean the testing is flawed. It just means the hyper-religious are desperately trying to defend a biblical 6,000 year old earth.

 

[alang1216]

I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it. Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many. In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.

and every one of these dating methods are flawed since if you test the same item 3 times you get 3 different dates ranging in thousands of yrs

Did you even read my post? You're saying counting is flawed? You're just fixated on isotope dating and pulling retorts out of your butt.

 

[progressive hunter]

I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it. Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many. In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.

and every one of these dating methods are flawed since if you test the same item 3 times you get 3 different dates ranging in thousands of yrs

Did you even read my post? You're saying counting is flawed? You're just fixated on isotope dating and pulling retorts out of your butt.

your response doesnt change my facts,,,

all radio dating is flawed and most dates are selected from several dates given from the process

 

[Hollie]

I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it. Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many. In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.

and every one of these dating methods are flawed since if you test the same item 3 times you get 3 different dates ranging in thousands of yrs

Did you even read my post? You're saying counting is flawed? You're just fixated on isotope dating and pulling retorts out of your butt.

your response doesnt change my facts,,,

all radio dating is flawed and most dates are selected from several dates given from the process

"Radio dating" is a meaningless term. To claim multiple methods of dating are flawed with nothing more than ".... because I say so", is comical.