1.6-billion-year-old fossils push back origin of multicellular life by tens of millions of years

[Ragdoll]

Any one that insists on a time machine is immediately doing science fiction. Good luck with that. It seems you have little to no interest in actual science and have learnt nothing at all from the article I posted, even though it explained why carbon dating (an assumption you made) is not appropriate to measure the age of these particular fossils.

I'm not saying a time machine is possible. But if you want to stay true to scientific method you do have to invent a time machine so you can go back in time to make sure your present guesswork about the age of the earth is accurate. Science is not philosophy and there is no room for vague assumptions. A theory is something a scientist should keep to himself until he is able to do all the necessary work to prove his theory before presenting his facts. There is no way, scientifically, of dating the earth with any degree of accuracy. Carbon dating is useless past 2000 years and even then you need a core sample of something known of that age to check the date with.

The earth went through a major catastrope. It doesn't matter whether one accepts the Flood or the asteroid. Both events will greatly disrupt the carbon balance making it impossible to get correct results from modern dating methods. The earth has changed since the catastrope. So without a time machine there is no getting accurate results. Its all philosophy until that time machine is invented.

Science cannot solve everything. Modern science is for present issues. It can be useful for some investigations in history but had its limitations. You may believe what you want about the date of the earth but that is your belief and science cannot verify anything about that.

 

[dlamberth]

Call me a liar then. I refuse to support any of my claims because supported claims do not change how you feel about God. I have done all that in the past and not a single atheist changed his view. So no more supporting claims. You do your own research just as I have. Go ahead and fact check my claims. A 5 minute check on google will provide you with numerous links to dinosaur graveyards within the blast zone of the alleged Chicxulub asteroid. Do you research. I am not doing it for you. Oh, those dinosaurs are said to be from the Cretaceous period and found in sedimentary rock. Asteroid? Nope! The cause of death was water and sedimentary rock proves just that.

I did the google thing and found no links to dinosaur graveyards within the Chicxulub blast zone. It would be helpful if you back up your words with at least one link.

Other than their own connections to the Biblical Flood, Answers in Genesis disagrees with you regarding the Chicxulub Asteroid. Your pretty much standing alone with your claims.
Dinosaur Killer: Chicxulub Asteroid Impact

 

[Ragdoll]

I did the google thing and found no links to dinosaur graveyards within the Chicxulub blast zone. It would be helpful if you back up your words with at least one link.

Even Answers in Genesis disagrees with you regarding the Chicxulub Asteroid. Your pretty much standing alone with your claims:
Dinosaur Killer: Chicxulub Asteroid Impact

That's because you type into your google search engine "Dinosaur graveyards within Chicxulub blast zone." You do your searches like that and you will find zero results on google. You need to know Mexico and its states. You need to know these things before you can find results. Then you will find several links taking you to the dinosaur graveyards in the Mexicans states which I will provide for you in the maps below.

 

[stevil]

I'm not saying a time machine is possible.

So why rush into the impossible? Why foolishly rush into science fiction rather than do actual science?

But if you want to stay true to scientific method you do have to invent a time machine so you can go back in time to make sure your present guesswork about the age of the earth is accurate.

That's not part of the scientific method. Are you able to produce a peer reviewed and published science paper talking about the necessity to build and use a time machine to travel into the past?
You are unfortunately stuck in a loop of nonsense gibberish and it seems to be impacting your ability to learn things.

A theory is something a scientist should keep to himself until he is able to do all the necessary work to prove his theory before presenting his facts.

Also it seems that you don't know what a scientific theory is.

There is no way, scientifically, of dating the earth with any degree of accuracy.

Please provide a peer reviewed and published scientific paper showing this?

Carbon dating is useless past 2000 years and even then you need a core sample of something known of that age to check the date with.

Carbon dating is highly effective upto about 50,000 years back. Did you read anything from that post where I quoted the science?

The earth went through a major catastrope. It doesn't matter whether one accepts the Flood or the asteroid. Both events will greatly disrupt the carbon balance making it impossible to get correct results from modern dating methods.

It doesn't matter whether what you say here is true or not. They didn't use carbon dating to age these fossils. So what you are saying here is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Antropomorphism as his readers are human, it helps them connect better with ideas when you convey ideas in ways that humans can relate to.

Sorta like saying "science can take a hike"?

 

[Ragdoll]

So why rush into the impossible? Why foolishly rush into science fiction rather than do actual science?

That's not part of the scientific method. Are you able to produce a peer reviewed and published science paper talking about the necessity to build and use a time machine to travel into the past?
You are unfortunately stuck in a loop of nonsense gibberish and it seems to be impacting your ability to learn things.

Also it seems that you don't know what a scientific theory is.


Please provide a peer reviewed and published scientific paper showing this?

Carbon dating is highly effective upto about 50,000 years back. Did you read anything from that post where I quoted the science?

It doesn't matter whether what you say here is true or not. They didn't use carbon dating to age these fossils. So what you are saying here is irrelevant.

It seems you are the one who has no understanding of scientific method. I guess this explains why atheists invent nothing and only write books about how much they like evolution theory and hate God. But modern science is about visible progress in the form of useful inventions in medicine and industry etc. Without inventions the scientist has no standing within the scientific community. Thus science is about proof and facts. Science is not about pushing off theories as facts. That's what philosopher's do. The problem with "scientists" today is most of them are not properly trained in scientific method and just believe that what they do is still science when in reality they are philosopher's and philosophy means not true. A theory is never to be respected. You gotta theory on automechanics? No thanks. I'll take my car to someone who knows what they are doing. And that's how science works.
You do not know what happened 50,000 years ago because you were not there. This gadget philosophy is nothing more then a scam just like the potion philosophy during the same time gadget philosophy took off. I think the Michael Jackson video sums up carbon dating well. Step right up gather around, this gadget will tell you how old the earth is.

 

[Ragdoll]

No. There is iridium on Earth because there was iridium in the dust that formed the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. The concentration of iridium in the Sun is *higher* than on Earth (no volcanoes there). When the Earth coalesced from the pre-Solar cloud, the iridium preferentially attached chemically to the iron-rich parts and sunk to the center where most of the Earth's iron is located. As for the pre-Solar cloud, the iridium got in that from the rapid neutron capture process in a violent stellar explosion.

This is philosophy. Where you there when the earth began? There is not much iridium on earth and what is on earth is largely due to volcanism.
As for that violent stellar explosion, I have no interest ever in discussing Deep Space Fantasia. I seriously will not make time for that.

 

[sjastro]

That's because you type into your google search engine "Dinosaur graveyards within Chicxulub blast zone." You do your searches like that and you will find zero results on google. You need to know Mexico and its states. You need to know these things before you can find results. Then you will find several links taking you to the dinosaur graveyards in the Mexicans states which I will provide for you in the maps below.

View attachment 342040

View attachment 342041

View attachment 342042

View attachment 342043

My goodness this post is hilarious for the rank stupidity demonstrated in its construction.
Anyone with half a brain will ask the obvious question, does the age of these dinosaur graveyard fossils if they do in fact exist, contemporary with the extinction event, postdate it.......?
But wait a moment you claim you can't trust dating methods because one needs a time machine to confirm the dates so what is your basis for making the comparison??
The answer is nothing and your post represents a total breakdown in critical thinking.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not part of the scientific method.

From Amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?

Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.
Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

SOURCE

 

[stevil]

I think the Michael Jackson video sums up carbon dating well. Step right up gather around, this gadget will tell you how old the earth is.

Carbon dating isn't used to work out the age of the earth.

 

[Ragdoll]

My goodness this post is hilarious for the rank stupidity demonstrated in its construction.
Anyone with half a brain will ask the obvious question, does the age of these dinosaur graveyard fossils if they do in fact exist, contemporary with the extinction event, postdate it.......?
But wait a moment you claim you can't trust dating methods because one needs a time machine to confirm the dates so what is your basis for making the comparison??
The answer is nothing and your post represents a total breakdown in critical thinking.

Yes, if you take the time to read the articles (and there are many) about the dinosaur graveyards you'll see they are from the Cretaceous period. Now of course the Cretaceous period and dates of that period come from evolutionists. I personally don't believe that stuff. But to stict with the theory the graveyards is from the Cretaceous. Now when did this alleged asteroid slam into the Yucatan? Was that not the Cretaceous period? Is that not in line with the theory? Where did I go wrong here? If the fossils from the Cretaceous period are not contemporary the please tell me of the catastrope that happened prior to the K/pg extinction or after K/pg. Its a mass graveyard of fossils caused by an extinction event. So you tell me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, if you take the time to read the articles (and there are many) about the dinosaur graveyards you'll see they are from the Cretaceous period. Now of course the Cretaceous period and dates of that period come from evolutionists. I personally don't believe that stuff. But to stict with the theory the graveyards is from the Cretaceous. Now when did this alleged asteroid slam into the Yucatan? Was that not the Cretaceous period? Is that not in line with the theory? Where did I go wrong here? If the fossils from the Cretaceous period are not contemporary the please tell me of the catastrope that happened prior to the K/pg extinction or after K/pg. Its a mass graveyard of fossils caused by an extinction event. So you tell me.

How about you actually play ball for once in this thread and either drop a link to one of said graveyards or name one, instead of telling everyone to look it up themselves, an answer that does nothing.

 

[Ragdoll]

Instruments in science have to produce solid facts that go beyond the scope of philosophy. Its true that scientific method tends to be interpreted differently by different scientists. However, looking into the past when science was taken seriously, and the philosopher sat and watched as his world collapsed, we saw one useful invention after the next. If not in the world of medicine it was in the world of engineering. But all these inventions produced true results that could not be refuted by any human being. There is no arguing with true science. There is no debate. Real science produces results.

For example, I go to the shooting range and will test new pistols. What goes on that target doesn't lie. When my new Springfield "Ronin" 45 acp places all its rounds into the dead center bullseye then how can argue that the Springfield "Ronin" is a bad gun? It shoots straight and is well designed. That is science. There is no arguing with targets because targets don't lie. That is how science is supposed to be. Yet (figurately speaking), evolutionists merely claim they are hitting the bullseye on the target without actually being at the range. Their targets look like puncture holes and not like bullet holes. And that analogy is basically how many of us see their methods. Sloppy, rushed, untrustworthy, and often fabricated.

 

[Ragdoll]

How about you actually play ball for once in this thread and either drop a link to one of said graveyards or name one, instead of telling everyone to look it up themselves, an answer that does nothing.

Google it. There are a multitude of links on the subject. I will not throw the ball for you. You need to pick up the ball and throw it for yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Google it. There are a multitude of links on the subject. I will not throw the ball for you. You need to pick up the ball and throw it for yourself.

No, because I'm probably going to find many sources that say the complete opposite of what you've said.

You make the claim, you back it up with evidence. It's not my job to go and look up your evidence for you. You've been convinced by something that you feel is scientifically accurate, so share it.

 

[Ragdoll]

No, because I'm probably going to find many sources that say the complete opposite of what you've said.

You make the claim, you back it up with evidence. It's not my job to go and look up your evidence for you. You've been convinced by something that you feel is scientifically accurate, so share it.

I doubt it. The sources are there and there are no sources that contradict it. There are dino graveyards within the blast zone. But if an asteroid did make impact in that region, no dinosaur bones from any time in that zone should be found. All the rocks would have been evaporated, including layers of rocks beneath where the asteroid, with all its kinetic energy, would drive down deep and evaporate all that rock. Any living creature in that region subject to the blast wave will also be evaporated into nothingness. So you see, finding mass graveyards in the region just isn't possible if the asteroid theory is true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I doubt it. The sources are there and there are no sources that contradict it. There are dino graveyards within the blast zone.

Except that for me looking, I cannot find a single damn site that agrees with what you're saying in the slightest. Nothing for dinosaur graveyards within the blast radius of the Chicxulub blast zone.

But if an asteroid did make impact in that region, no dinosaur bones from any time in that zone should be found. All the rocks would have been evaporated, including layers of rocks beneath where the asteroid, with all its kinetic energy, would drive down deep and evaporate all that rock. Any living creature in that region subject to the blast wave will also be evaporated into nothingness. So you see, finding mass graveyards in the region just isn't possible if the asteroid theory is true.

And then you say the opposite, and say we shouldn't find any graveyards if there was an asteroid impact in Chicxulub. Which is what we find. Further afield, continents away, we find dinosaur graveyards dated to the extinction, but closer afield in Mexico, nothing. Any dinosaur graveyards in that region are dated to BEFORE the KT extinction but not during.

So prove me wrong. Either put up or be shown to be a liar.

 

[Ragdoll]

Except that for me looking, I cannot find a single damn site that agrees with what you're saying in the slightest. Nothing for dinosaur graveyards within the blast radius of the Chicxulub blast zone.



And then you say the opposite, and say we shouldn't find any graveyards if there was an asteroid impact in Chicxulub. Which is what we find. Further afield, continents away, we find dinosaur graveyards dated to the extinction, but closer afield in Mexico, nothing. Any dinosaur graveyards in that region are dated to BEFORE the KT extinction but not during.

So prove me wrong. Either put up or be shown to be a liar.

Nah. I prefer to let you put on a show and call me a liar. Let the reader google it and decide. I'm sure anybody googling it will find plenty of links. But you do not even know how to do your search which is why you can't find anything.

Wasn't it you I posted maps for to help your google search? Strange how you still can't find a single link using the right words in your search. Then again, you could just type Dinosaur Graveyards in Mexico and a ton of links will pop up.

The temperature of the blast is said to be 18,032°F. Bones disintegrate at 2732°F. Rock evaporates at 6740.33°F. And somehow you expect to find fossils? Sorry but that is not gonna happen if the asteroid theory is true. Do you even understand the process of fossilization? I'll give you a hint: its not a process caused by firestorms of extreme heat. Fossils are buried rapidly in the sediments where fossilization takes place. Fossilization is very rare and only happens under the right conditions. A global Flood will leave plenty of fossils!

Then you resort to a past extinction that is not mentioned by a single evolutionists. There are 5 extinctions every evolutionist agrees with and some evolutionists say there were six mass extinctions on earth. I don't believe any of this but that's what the theory says. Now you seem to think that there was another mass extinction during the Cretaceous period but that is not accounted for in your theory. So its the make-it-all-up-as-you-go type of reasoning that I'm quite used to from evos. The problem with that type of thinking is that it doesn't bother taking into account how deep the asteroid would have gone into the earth. So past extinctions would also be evaporated, leaving no evidence that it ever happened. Many layers of the earth would have been subject to that 18,032°F temperature that the blast is said to induce. This is not to mention the temperature of the firestorm that many evos say circled the earth. In reality, nothing lives and the earth would die. There would be no water in the oceans and no water in the atmosphere. But even if you go by the local firestorm version of the story you will not be able to find dino fossils in the Yucatan region within the blast zone.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nah. I prefer to let you put on a show and call me a liar. Let the reader google it and decide. I'm sure anybody googling it will find plenty of links. But you do not even know how to do your search which is why you can't find anything.

Wasn't it you I posted maps for to help your google search? Strange how you still can't find a single link using the right words in your search. Then again, you could just type Dinosaur Graveyards in Mexico and a ton of links will pop up.

The temperature of the blast is said to be 18,032°F. Bones disintegrate at 2732°F. Rock evaporates at 6740.33°F. And somehow you expect to find fossils? Sorry but that is not gonna happen if the asteroid theory is true. Do you even understand the process of fossilization? I'll give you a hint: its not a process caused by firestorms of extreme heat. Fossils are buried rapidly in the sediments where fossilization takes place. Fossilization is very rare and only happens under the right conditions. A global Flood will leave plenty of fossils!

Then you resort to a past extinction that is not mentioned by a single evolutionists. There are 5 extinctions every evolutionist agrees with and some evolutionists say there were six mass extinctions on earth. I don't believe any of this but that's what the theory says. Now you seem to think that there was another mass extinction during the Cretaceous period but that is not accounted for in your theory. So its the make-it-all-up-as-you-go type of reasoning that I'm quite used to from evos. The problem with that type of thinking is that it doesn't bother taking into account how deep the asteroid would have gone into the earth. So past extinctions would also be evaporated, leaving no evidence that it ever happened. Many layers of the earth would have been subject to that 18,032°F temperature that the blast is said to induce. This is not to mention the temperature of the firestorm that many evos say circled the earth. In reality, nothing lives and the earth would die. There would be no water in the oceans and no water in the atmosphere. But even if you go by the local firestorm version of the story you will not be able to find dino fossils in the Yucatan region within the blast zone.

Yeah, you're a liar. Simple as.

 

[AV1611VET]

Warden!?