Evolution

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 09, 2017, 08:11:01 PM

"We don't know everything therefore we don't know anything" is not a good argument.

It's a good thing that wasn't my argument then isn't it?

That's what it looked like to me. If that's not the case, then I don't have the foggiest idea of what point you are trying to make.

Here it is again for the comprehension challenged.

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 07:28:31 PM

It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.

The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.

Here it is again for the comprehension challenged.

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 08:18:48 PM

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 07:28:31 PM

It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.

The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.

Ok, we can all agree there is much to learn,  captain Obvious,  but did you actually have a point to make,  or are you just going to spout the obvious.

Here it is again for the comprehension challenged.

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 08:18:48 PM

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 07:28:31 PM

It shows we don't understand as much as some people think we do.

The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.

Um... ok. Great platitude, but what does that have to do with this thread?

Anyway, here's one link http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda. So they cite a bunch of "creationist research institutes", like RATE etc. Why do these institites never publish their results in respected journals?

No, samples of known age aren't "always dated wrong". The experiment has been performed thousands of times and it gives accurate results. Of course there are restrictions, and creationists deliberately go outside them to prove it wrong.

what does that have to do with this thread?

did you actually have a point to make.

That evolution is the best theory we have however it might turn out to be totally incorrect. FYS paradox throws a bit of a spanner in the works.

Brainlets.

That evolution is the best theory we have however it might turn out to be totally incorrect. FYS paradox throws a bit of a spanner in the works.

Brainlets.

How you came to that conclusion is a bit of a mystery.    I suspect you don't understand evolution.   

Brainlet indeed.

The more we discover the more we realise how much more there is to understand.

Wow, you're like sooooooooooo smart.

I'll ask again.  Do you have anything to support that statement?  Because it very much looks like an opinion.

Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.

That's bullshit.  I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement?  Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it.  I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.

I provide a link...

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

You might not be smart, but at least you're entertaining.


Edit: Better read this instead of your icr propaganda: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Quote from: Badxtoss on August 09, 2017, 04:37:29 PM

I'll ask again.  Do you have anything to support that statement?  Because it very much looks like an opinion.

Quote from: observer on August 09, 2017, 03:23:43 PM

Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.

Quote from: Badxtoss on August 09, 2017, 02:44:21 PM

That's bullshit.  I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement?  Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it.  I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.

I provide a link...

Quote from: Definitely Not Official

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

Both me and Totes provided reasons why what the link says is wrong, but you ignored that. He pointed out that a research it sites is outdated, I explained to you why what they're claiming about dating samples of known age giving wrong results is nonsense.

Here's a nice link: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/radiometric-dating-of-items-with-a-known-age.610772/

You're the one conflating science and religion. All these creationist institutes are created with the express purpose of proving something wrong because they don't like it. They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.

They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.

I've always said Atheists are rampant liars and always attributing their own lies to the opposition. The above is a perfect example. This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do with radiometric dating. Tests based on predefined results using assumptions as the calculating factor. BILLIONS of years lol

Quote from: Badxtoss on August 09, 2017, 04:37:29 PM

I'll ask again.  Do you have anything to support that statement?  Because it very much looks like an opinion.

Quote from: observer on August 09, 2017, 03:23:43 PM

Unfortunately for you it's not an opinion. There's plenty of research available but the Scientific research is no good to you because it's from Scientists who believe in God. According to Darwinians aka Evolutionists, any Scientist who believes in God is not a Scientist although the belief in God is absolutely unrelated to Science. So any source I provide will instantly be dismissed as is the norm on these type of forums. Both parties provide information, both parties dismiss each other on grounds that are unrelated to the problem at hand and like it or not but Atheists have a tendency to dismiss EVERYTHING that opposes their religion. Yes, Christians do the same but they dismiss it on belief/faith, Darwinians dismiss it in the name of Science when it's Science that's debunking the very core of their belief.

Quote from: Badxtoss on August 09, 2017, 02:44:21 PM

That's bullshit.  I know respected scientists who believe in god.
Now how about you link us to some of that research that supports your statement?  Because so far you are just making claims with nothing to back it.  I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking you to show the evidence you are basing it on.

I provide a link...

Quote from: Definitely Not Official

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

You provided a link to someone making a lot of claims.  Where are the peer reviewed studies to support it?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 10, 2017, 05:44:57 AM

They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.

I've always said Atheists are rampant liars and always attributing their own lies to the opposition. The above is a perfect example. This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do with radiometric dating. Tests based on predefined results using assumptions as the calculating factor. BILLIONS of years lol

Do you have the ability to read? If yes, there were links provided for you, to enlighten your stupidity.

If you have already read those links, you might have some reading-comprehension issues. Which sucks, but hey, it could be worse!

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 10, 2017, 05:44:57 AM

They've already reached their conclusion BEFORE their experiments and use all sorts of dishonest tactics and cherry picking to serve their agenda.

I've always said Atheists are rampant liars and always attributing their own lies to the opposition. The above is a perfect example. This is EXACTLY what evolutionists do with radiometric dating. Tests based on predefined results using assumptions as the calculating factor. BILLIONS of years lol

You haven't provided an example, you gave us a link full of inane ramblings. Just pick a piece of rambling you like and present it to us. For example you may want to explain to us how the rate of radioactive decay changes over time, or why dating samples of known age gives the correct date, even though radiometric dating is wrong. Give us something, all you ever say is "ITS INAKOORATE SAIENS, IS BEYSD ON ASSAMPSIONS, ATHIESTS ARE LAING!".

Oh btw, many scientists are religious, so give up that shtick.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 03:59:20 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?

Simple, they didn't.

That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 10, 2017, 03:29:09 PM

Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?

Simple, they didn't.

Are you denying that the follow up studies exist? If so, I would like to direct your attention to my previous post where I linked to an article describing them.

Or are you denying that ICR didn't ignore them? If so, feel free to cite where ICR addressed the follow up studies.

That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.

Poe's law is a doozy.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 10, 2017, 03:29:09 PM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 03:59:20 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?

Simple, they didn't.

That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.

Oh this is amazing. If a mainstream study approves what you're saying, it's perfectly acceptable. If it disagrees with you, it's pseudoscience. Way to go.

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 03:46:50 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 10, 2017, 03:29:09 PM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 03:59:20 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?

Simple, they didn't.

That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.

Oh this is amazing. If a mainstream study approves what you're saying, it's perfectly acceptable. If it disagrees with you, it's pseudoscience. Way to go.

If actual Science disproves the evolution religion in any way, it's dismissed as "unqualified", "religious", "outdated" (even though it's not)... "rambling" "peer reviews" (lol @ expecting atheists to review it)... there's no limits to the dumb excuses given by Darwinians to dismiss facts with pseudoscience. The above was the perfect example earlier. You asked for source, I gave one and it was dismissed with "rambing", "follow-up studies" etc. Nothing from the link itself was actually answered, just baseless claims and dismissals. Yes very forward thinking (pseudo)scientific of you

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 11, 2017, 02:14:11 AM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 03:46:50 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 10, 2017, 03:29:09 PM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 03:59:20 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official

Finally, SOMETHING!

But it's from ICR. Totes said it better. They don't give a fuck if it's right, they just want it to fit their agenda.

Dismissed exactly as I predicted a few posts before. That's how Darwinians works. Fantasy and pseudoscience complete deluded into thinking it's actual real science. Anyway, you believe in your religion as Science and I'll stick to Science as Science and religion as religion.

Why do you think ICR ignored the follow-up studies that contradicted the point they were trying to make? Why do you think they still rely on a source that has been shown to be wrong?

Simple, they didn't.

That's just the evolutionists method of dismissing research and Scientific facts to prolong their dying Darwinian religion. No matter how many verified Scientific facts are thrown at you, it'll be flogged back with pseudoscience.

Oh this is amazing. If a mainstream study approves what you're saying, it's perfectly acceptable. If it disagrees with you, it's pseudoscience. Way to go.

If actual Science disproves the evolution religion in any way, it's dismissed as "unqualified", "religious", "outdated" (even though it's not)... "rambling" "peer reviews" (lol @ expecting atheists to review it)... there's no limits to the dumb excuses given by Darwinians to dismiss facts with pseudoscience. The above was the perfect example earlier. You asked for source, I gave one and it was dismissed with "rambing", "follow-up studies" etc. Nothing from the link itself was actually answered, just baseless claims and dismissals. Yes very forward thinking (pseudo)scientific of you

Stop ignoring everything. Just copy something you like from the link and tell us. You obviously can't expect us to answer EVERYTHING from your link at once, there's pages of stuff there. Pick a point you like.

Totes showed you that the research it cites was later found to be incorrect. Why did you accept the first result, but you did not accept the follow up checks? Same big bad atheist scientists. It's clear that it was because you're biased.

Oh, and for the last time, there are many, many, MANY religious scientists. Not every christian is a nut like you.

radiometric dating

Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 09:14:56 AM

radiometric dating

Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?

Radiometric dating also refers to K-Ar dating etc., which are very frequently used to date fossils. They conveniently ignore that other dating methods give the same results. Also carbon dating gives dates greater than 6000 years, and young earth creationists are pretty convinced that it's how old the earth is.

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 09:14:56 AM

radiometric dating

Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?

It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel.  Admit that and their argument is lost.

So likewise,  the "Young Earth Creationists"  can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible.  6000 years is the bible literalist position.   It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements,  mid atlantic ridge spreading,  the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.

So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular,  since it covers their time range.  And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils.  The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.

If they admit that carbon dating works,  then their world view starts to collapse.

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 12, 2017, 04:42:31 AM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 09:14:56 AM

radiometric dating

Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?

It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel.  Admit that and their argument is lost.

So likewise,  the "Young Earth Creationists"  can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible.  6000 years is the bible literalist position.   It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements,  mid atlantic ridge spreading,  the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.

So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular,  since it covers their time range.  And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils.  The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.

If they admit that carbon dating works,  then their world view starts to collapse.

  There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? 

Quote from: Rayzor on August 12, 2017, 05:46:20 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 12, 2017, 04:42:31 AM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 09:14:56 AM

radiometric dating

Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?

It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel.  Admit that and their argument is lost.

So likewise,  the "Young Earth Creationists"  can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible.  6000 years is the bible literalist position.   It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements,  mid atlantic ridge spreading,  the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.

So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular,  since it covers their time range.  And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils.  The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.

If they admit that carbon dating works,  then their world view starts to collapse.

  There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? 

Surprisingly enough there is  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Explained here https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

That's what's got the YEC's knickers in a twist about carbon dating fossils. 

Here is the abstract from one of Schweitzer's papers  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952

Abstract
Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 12, 2017, 06:01:21 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 12, 2017, 05:46:20 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 12, 2017, 04:42:31 AM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 09:14:56 AM

radiometric dating

Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?

It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel.  Admit that and their argument is lost.

So likewise,  the "Young Earth Creationists"  can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible.  6000 years is the bible literalist position.   It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements,  mid atlantic ridge spreading,  the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.

So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular,  since it covers their time range.  And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils.  The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.

If they admit that carbon dating works,  then their world view starts to collapse.

  There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? 

Surprisingly enough there is  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Explained here https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

That's what's got the YEC's knickers in a twist about carbon dating fossils. 

Here is the abstract from one of Schweitzer's papers  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952

Quote

Abstract
Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.

Wow. The Bible must be right then.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 12, 2017, 06:04:49 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 12, 2017, 06:01:21 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 12, 2017, 05:46:20 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 12, 2017, 04:42:31 AM

Quote from: observer on August 10, 2017, 09:14:56 AM

radiometric dating

Why are creationists so obsessed with carbon dating. It is something archeologists use. in paleontology it would be mostly useless. Does he think they try to carbon date fossils?

It's the same as Flat Earthers needing to dismiss all space travel, and especially photos from space, it's their achilles heel.  Admit that and their argument is lost.

So likewise,  the "Young Earth Creationists"  can't admit to an earth that's 4 billion years old, because it make evolution possible.  6000 years is the bible literalist position.   It's not just radioactive decay half life that get their motors running, it's also tectonic plate movements,  mid atlantic ridge spreading,  the Hawaii hot spot cell movement and on and on it goes.

So they invest considerable resources into trying to find something wrong with carbon dating in particular,  since it covers their time range.  And yes they are in fact trying to carbon date fossils.  The OP in this thread was on about carbon dating soft tissue in 65 million year old triceratops bones.

If they admit that carbon dating works,  then their world view starts to collapse.

  There is no 65 million year old soft tissue. There are not even 65 million year old bones. And why should a sane person try to carbon date a fossil? 

Surprisingly enough there is  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Explained here https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

That's what's got the YEC's knickers in a twist about carbon dating fossils. 

Here is the abstract from one of Schweitzer's papers  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952

Quote

Abstract
Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.

Wow. The Bible must be right then.

LOL.  The YEC's would like to think so.  Pity about the facts.

Totes showed you that the research it cites was later found to be incorrect. Why did you accept the first result, but you did not accept the follow up checks?

No he didn't. He provided this link: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html which does NOT answer the link I provided. The link he provided is even refuted on the very same page lol. Besides, that does NOT change the outcome and conclusion of the article. Dating methods are still based on ASSUMPTIONS. That's never changed. It's always been that way and cannot be proven until there's 5000+ years of records. Until then, it's ASSUMPTIONS. Get over it already.

Oh, and for the last time, there are many, many, MANY religious scientists. Not every christian is a nut like you.

Once again, this is an evolutionists only defense. When there's no answer, instantly attack "Chritianity" "God" "Faith" - that's great Scientific rebuttal you guys have in your arsenal. I've made many posts here, find me a single post where I quote or mention the bible in opposition to Science or to prove any point. Go on. You'll probably say you don't have time for this which is complete bull because you're on an online forum of Flat Earthers, time is the only thing you have if you're here. But you won't check as you won't find it because religion cannot disprove the stupidity of Evolution. Only science can prove how ridiculous evolution really is and how it's ALL based on faith. The evolution religion is weak and surviving due to being funded by taxes. These are all facts that hurt you no doubt but I won't apologise for your beliefs.

Kinda thought science had to be observable & repeatable....

Evolution is neither.

Therefore it ain't science.

We done here yet?