Fossils from the day the dinosaurs died

[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.

your response doesnt change my facts,,,

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

Please don't respond to my posts if you won't do me the curtesy of reading them first.

 

[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

Please don't respond to my posts if you won't do me the curtesy of reading them first.

I DID

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

But imagine the area underwater from the FLOOD. Those mountains were most likely lower and because of the wave action and the weight of water mounding up and the fracturing of the earth's crust, the now eroded mounds rise up and continued to look worn. Other mountain ranges formed where the crust fractured and slid upward, creating newer looking exposed rock. In other placed canyons were formed from runoff where mud, silt, and gravel built up...

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

No, I feel people who are hoping to negate the existence of SIN and its consequences are bent on not believing in GOD the CREATOR. The very growing disintegration of our environment is proof of GOD trying to get our attention as our society becomes more insanely selfish and indifferent and in reality cannot do anything to stop it themselves....

 

[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.

No, I feel people who are hoping to negate the existence of SIN and its consequences are bent on not believing in GOD the CREATOR.

There are many inventions of gods and creators. Why are you hoping to negate the existence of sin and its consequences at the hand of all those other gods?

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

No, I feel people who are hoping to negate the existence of SIN and its consequences are bent on not believing in GOD the CREATOR.

There are many inventions of gods and creators. Why are you hoping to negate the existence of sin and its consequences at the hand of all those other gods?

The wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of GOD is eternal life through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.

I'm not the one who thinks abortion is hunky dory and GAY/SODOMY liaisons equals GOD's marriage design, and believes GOD is some joke.

 

[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.

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.

No, I feel people who are hoping to negate the existence of SIN and its consequences are bent on not believing in GOD the CREATOR.

There are many inventions of gods and creators. Why are you hoping to negate the existence of sin and its consequences at the hand of all those other gods?

The wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of GOD is eternal life through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.

I'm not the one who thinks abortion is hunky dory and GAY/SODOMY liaisons equals GOD's marriage design, and believes GOD is some joke.

The wages of sin being death is an unsupported religious claim.

 

[alang1216]

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.

But imagine the area underwater from the FLOOD. Those mountains were most likely lower and because of the wave action and the weight of water mounding up and the fracturing of the earth's crust, the now eroded mounds rise up and continued to look worn. Other mountain ranges formed where the crust fractured and slid upward, creating newer looking exposed rock. In other placed canyons were formed from runoff where mud, silt, and gravel built up...

All this geologic activity in the last few thousand years but no evidence of fractured crust or faults where upward sliding took place. Miraculous! Literally.

Sorry but you're grasping at straws. To a geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, biologist, or just about any other scientist, the Earth and the universe look immensely old. To believe in a young Earth requires a belief in the supernatural.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

But imagine the area underwater from the FLOOD. Those mountains were most likely lower and because of the wave action and the weight of water mounding up and the fracturing of the earth's crust, the now eroded mounds rise up and continued to look worn. Other mountain ranges formed where the crust fractured and slid upward, creating newer looking exposed rock. In other placed canyons were formed from runoff where mud, silt, and gravel built up...

All this geologic activity in the last few thousand years but no evidence of fractured crust or faults where upward sliding took place. Miraculous! Literally.

Sorry but you're grasping at straws. To a geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, biologist, or just about any other scientist, the Earth and the universe look immensely old. To believe in a young Earth requires a belief in the supernatural.

or maybe youre just blind since the proof is all over the planet

and evolution also includes the supernatural since it claims we came from a rock

 

[alang1216]

All this geologic activity in the last few thousand years but no evidence of fractured crust or faults where upward sliding took place. Miraculous! Literally.

Sorry but you're grasping at straws. To a geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, biologist, or just about any other scientist, the Earth and the universe look immensely old. To believe in a young Earth requires a belief in the supernatural.

or maybe youre just blind since the proof is all over the planet

and evolution also includes the supernatural since it claims we came from a rock

You claim proof but offer only vague theories of geologic processes that are not seen today and certainly violate everything we know about geology and physics.

As you've been told before, evolution does not include the origin of life so whenever you say it does you just show your ignorance of both. Also, all the non-creationist hypotheses on the origin of life I know of use only natural forces and processes. No supernatural component required.

 

[Hollie]

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.

But imagine the area underwater from the FLOOD. Those mountains were most likely lower and because of the wave action and the weight of water mounding up and the fracturing of the earth's crust, the now eroded mounds rise up and continued to look worn. Other mountain ranges formed where the crust fractured and slid upward, creating newer looking exposed rock. In other placed canyons were formed from runoff where mud, silt, and gravel built up...

All this geologic activity in the last few thousand years but no evidence of fractured crust or faults where upward sliding took place. Miraculous! Literally.

Sorry but you're grasping at straws. To a geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, biologist, or just about any other scientist, the Earth and the universe look immensely old. To believe in a young Earth requires a belief in the supernatural.

or maybe youre just blind since the proof is all over the planet

and evolution also includes the supernatural since it claims we came from a rock

Evolution claims we came from a rock?

Even by your standards of nonsense claims, that is plowing new furrows through ignorance.

 

[progressive hunter]

All this geologic activity in the last few thousand years but no evidence of fractured crust or faults where upward sliding took place. Miraculous! Literally.

Sorry but you're grasping at straws. To a geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, biologist, or just about any other scientist, the Earth and the universe look immensely old. To believe in a young Earth requires a belief in the supernatural.

or maybe youre just blind since the proof is all over the planet

and evolution also includes the supernatural since it claims we came from a rock

You claim proof but offer only vague theories of geologic processes that are not seen today and certainly violate everything we know about geology and physics.

As you've been told before, evolution does not include the origin of life so whenever you say it does you just show your ignorance of both. Also, all the non-creationist hypotheses on the origin of life I know of use only natural forces and processes. No supernatural component required.[/QUOTE

origin of life is the basis for evolution

 

[alang1216]

origin of life is the basis for evolution

So you are doubling down on your ignorant assertion? Evolution doesn't address how life began, it could be completely natural, it could be divine intervention, it could be alien transplants, etc., doesn't matter, the theory is still the same. Only once life exists do evolutionary forces come into play.

 

[progressive hunter]

origin of life is the basis for evolution

So you are doubling down on your ignorant assertion? Evolution doesn't address how life began, it could be completely natural, it could be divine intervention, it could be alien transplants, etc., doesn't matter, the theory is still the same. Only once life exists do evolutionary forces come into play.

seems like you are ignorant as to what evo claims as to the origin of life,,,

ever heard of the primordial soup???

of course you have cause I have posted about it many times

Primordial soup, or prebiotic soup (also sometimes referred as prebiotic broth), is the hypothetical set of conditions present on the Earth around 4.2 to 4.0 billions of years ago. It is a fundamental aspect to the heterotrophic theory of theorigin of life, first proposed by Alexander Oparin in 1924, and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1929.[1][2]

 

[alang1216]

origin of life is the basis for evolution

So you are doubling down on your ignorant assertion? Evolution doesn't address how life began, it could be completely natural, it could be divine intervention, it could be alien transplants, etc., doesn't matter, the theory is still the same. Only once life exists do evolutionary forces come into play.

seems like you are ignorant as to what evo claims as to the origin of life,,,

ever heard of the primordial soup???

of course you have cause I have posted about it many times

Primordial soup, or prebiotic soup (also sometimes referred as prebiotic broth), is the hypothetical set of conditions present on the Earth around 4.2 to 4.0 billions of years ago. It is a fundamental aspect to the heterotrophic theory of theorigin of life, first proposed by Alexander Oparin in 1924, and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1929.[1][2]

I see no connection between evolution and the origin of life in your post.

 

[progressive hunter]

you wouldnt,,,

origin of life is the basis for evolution

So you are doubling down on your ignorant assertion? Evolution doesn't address how life began, it could be completely natural, it could be divine intervention, it could be alien transplants, etc., doesn't matter, the theory is still the same. Only once life exists do evolutionary forces come into play.

seems like you are ignorant as to what evo claims as to the origin of life,,,

ever heard of the primordial soup???

of course you have cause I have posted about it many times

Primordial soup, or prebiotic soup (also sometimes referred as prebiotic broth), is the hypothetical set of conditions present on the Earth around 4.2 to 4.0 billions of years ago. It is a fundamental aspect to the heterotrophic theory of theorigin of life, first proposed by Alexander Oparin in 1924, and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1929.[1][2]

I see no connection between evolution and the origin of life in your post.

you wouldnt

 

[Hollie]

you wouldnt,,,

origin of life is the basis for evolution

So you are doubling down on your ignorant assertion? Evolution doesn't address how life began, it could be completely natural, it could be divine intervention, it could be alien transplants, etc., doesn't matter, the theory is still the same. Only once life exists do evolutionary forces come into play.

seems like you are ignorant as to what evo claims as to the origin of life,,,

ever heard of the primordial soup???

of course you have cause I have posted about it many times

Primordial soup, or prebiotic soup (also sometimes referred as prebiotic broth), is the hypothetical set of conditions present on the Earth around 4.2 to 4.0 billions of years ago. It is a fundamental aspect to the heterotrophic theory of theorigin of life, first proposed by Alexander Oparin in 1924, and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1929.[1][2]

I see no connection between evolution and the origin of life in your post.

you wouldnt

How is it you know nothing of the subject you attempt to argue against?

 

[alang1216]

I see no connection between evolution and the origin of life in your post.

you wouldnt

Because I don't see things that don't exist? So what is the connection (I'd appreciate something more than your word that there is one)?

 

[progressive hunter]

I see no connection between evolution and the origin of life in your post.

you wouldnt

Because I don't see things that don't exist? So what is the connection (I'd appreciate something more than your word that there is one)?

most people can take info and use it to expand their understanding of it,,,

sadly there are some that can only understand what their told too, and refuse to educate themselves

 

[alang1216]

sadly there are some that can only understand what their told too, and refuse to educate themselves

I know just how you feel.