Jackdonekings #fundie

Jackdonekings #fundie city-data.com

my point is dinosaurs are not as old as the carbon dating proves, they died during the Noah's ark flood to prove that, is fossilization process is rapid that a buried carcass well preserved would take over 40years. the have been some discoveries of human fossil that dated back to the dinosaur era and they(evolutionist/scientist) have even discovered dinosaurs intestines, blood, tissue, and cells. But evolutionist would never tell you that, because it debunks the theory of evolution, because it would trigger other questions. see why evolution is a religion

54 comments

old comment by Zabimaru

I love the theory of evolution. I think it's beautiful and elegant, I love reading about it, and I have lots of fun adapting the process of natural selection to the field of computer science, making self-developing algorithms.
And I have to say that if I found irrefutable evidence that evolution as it is understood today haven't occurred (and isn't occurring) on earth, I would sure as hell not hide that, no matter how much I love the theory.

A scientist who can prove that one of our most well-founded scientific theories is utterly false would be an instant celebrity. It would bring massive amounts of money in research grants, it would sell millions of books and tons of articles. There would be NO reason to hide something like that.

I'm tired of this stupid idea that many scientists know that old earth and evolution is false, but hide that fact. That just wouldn't happen.

old comment by rw23

I may have to make some assumptions about what I think you're trying to say because your grammar and punctuation are so appalling, but here goes.

If you're so sure that fossilisation is a rapid process, why don't you go chuck a freshly-dead monitor lizard into a big pool of mud and leave it there. Advertise what you're doing beforehand, of course, and ensure the entire place is sealed off from any possible interference (but leave public access so that people can see no-one has got in to interfere). Then in forty years get a couple of paleontologists to dig the lizard up and examine it to see just how fossilised the skeleton really is.

Personally, I think you'll be lucky if the mud has even dried out.

old comment by Ivy Mike

Listen very carefully...

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. None whatsoever. You've just, in fact, made it plain that when it comes to scientific issues, you are absolutely without credibility.

You've half-read and poorly-understood some creationist rantings filled with omissions and untruths, and swallowed them whole without doing a shred of investigation into the REAL scientific evidence. You've accepted lies simply because you like them better than truth.

You've decided to believe an ancient myth, completely disregarding all known science which says it never happened. You know nothing of fossilization, carbon dating, paleontology, physics, or genetics.

In short, you have absolutely no cause to think you have any sort of valid opinion on the topic. Fuck straight off.

old comment by Papabear

"my point is dinosaurs are not as old as the carbon dating proves,"

You don't carbon date inorganic materials.

"they died during the Noah's ark flood to prove that, is fossilization process is rapid that a buried carcass well preserved would take over 40years."

Word salad, but I DO agree that the fossilization process takes over 40 years.

"the have been some discoveries of human fossil that dated back to the dinosaur era"

No, there haven't.

Is English not your first language or is it the think part that's jamming you up?

"and they(evolutionist/scientist) have even discovered dinosaurs intestines, blood, tissue, and cells. But evolutionist would never tell you that, because it debunks the theory of evolution, because it would trigger other questions."

Or, because it simply isn't true.

"see why evolution is a religion"

Is that an offer or a question? How do you expect anyone to care about your opinions if you can't even put them into understandable sentences?

old comment by Rusty_Professor

"dinosaurs are not as old as the carbon dating proves"
You can't carbon date fossils because there's no @$#! carbon in them!

"have been some discoveries of human fossil that dated back to the dinosaur era"
All hoaxes and frauds, only keep alive by hopefuls like you, and if you really wanted to shock me. Find bunnies in the precambrian!

"have even discovered dinosaurs intestines, blood, tissue, and cells."
Fossilized intestines, blood, tissues, and cells. Fossilized being the key word there.

"because it would trigger other questions"
Wait, since when do scientists, who spend years of there lives doing research and experiments, hate new questions? Oh wait... when the questions are stupid and incoherent like your "question", right...

old comment by Rat of Steel

(Zabimaru)
"I'm tired of this stupid idea that many scientists know that old earth and evolution is false, but hide that fact. That just wouldn't happen."

That's all part of the incredibly bad habit fundies have of projecting their own insecurity onto others. They can't imagine themselves behaving honorably without their god there to watch over them, so they proclaim it impossible for anyone else to disbelieve in God and still be moral. Similarly, if scientists find evidence that Darwin's ToE is false, why wouldn't they go to extreme lengths to hide said evidence, or loudly proclaim that the events that produced it never actually happened? After all, that's just what they do regarding evidence against a literal interpretation of their book of Bronze Age fairy tales.

(Nowhereman)
"Fuck, why does everything have to be a religion with these people?"

Basically, it's the same thing I said to Zabimaru. They can't imagine a world without religion, for their religion is their whole world. Ergo, when they see scientists answering some of the planet's big questions without any mention of any god being involved, their minds freeze up for a moment, then they resolve the cognitive dissonance with a thought something like, "oh, that evolution stuff must be what those eggheads think religion is, and this Darwin guy must be their Messiah".

old comment by Osiris

they died during the Noah's ark flood to prove that, is fossilization process is rapid that a buried carcass well preserved would take over 40years.
If this is the case then dinosaur fossils would be buried in the same strata layer and would all be preserved in the same condition.

But we don't see this. Dinosaurs are buried in different strata layers, and show a clear evolutionary progression. On top of that only a select few dinosaurs are preserved in a manner you are talking about. Most of the time dinosaur remains are badly preserved and in some state of decomposition.

have even discovered dinosaurs intestines, blood, tissue, and cells.
All of which have been fossilized. Like I said some dinosaurs are preserved in a very quick fashion, probably due to an actual flood. But most are not. Most fossils are scattered remnants and show signs of haven been eaten by scavengers and decomposed for a period of time.

old comment by Zoo

"my point is dinosaurs are not as old as the carbon dating proves"

Carbon dating doesn't work on anything older than about 60K years (carbon-14's half-life is relatively short and it would decay to an undetectable level in about that amount of time), nor on anything that wouldn't have testable carbon in it (generally anything that was not formerly living, which includes mineralized fossils -- the fossil is of something that used to be living, but that tissue has been completely replaced in most cases by something that was not). There are other methods to date items than just carbon dating.

"they died during the Noah's ark flood to prove that"

WTH? God killed all the dinosaurs to prove to scientists thousands of years later that carbon dating doesn't work on dinosaur fossils? What did he kill to prove K-Ar dating and other methods don't work on them?

"is fossilization process is rapid that a buried carcass well preserved would take over 40years."

Citation? (And all those fossils that date older than forty years took "over 40years" to fossilize :P.)

"But evolutionist would never tell you that, because it debunks the theory of evolution, because it would trigger other questions."

Science thrives on questions, actually. Come meet me at my local university library. It's not the biggest, but I'll take you to the half a floor with the biology journals on it (5 dozen or more long and tall aisles of shelves) and let you get started on reading those things you claim we won't tell each other or anyone else. I'll even spring for the parking fee for the day, so you get totally free access to the library (just like anyone else who is willing to ride the bus over or pay the daily parking fee). I might look up paleontology for you while we're there, and I can show you to the archaeology and anthropology sections as well.

"see why evolution is a religion"

No, it's not. Religion generally requires a lot of faith in things that are difficult or impossible to test. Science is all about replication of results and having lots of evidence for what we "believe".

old comment by Darwin's Lil' Girl

my point is dinosaurs are not as old as the carbon dating proves,
From Richard Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale: "[...] we have a range of reliable meathods for putting an absolute age on fossils [...] different methods in this range provide sensitivity across the whole spectrum of ages from hundreds of years (tree rings), through thousands of years (carbon 14), millions, hundreds of millions (uranium-thorium-lead) to billions of years (potassium-argon).

they died during the Noah's ark flood to prove that, is fossilization process is rapid that a buried carcass well preserved would take over 40years.
Fossilization takes far longer than that - you may have a mummy in less that time, but certainly not a fossil.

the have been some discoveries of human fossil that dated back to the dinosaur era and they(evolutionist/scientist) have even discovered dinosaurs intestines, blood, tissue, and cells.
You're wrong on the first point - the oldest modern human fossils are 50 000 years old. As for the second point, we discovered fossilized soft tissue in the femur of a tyranosaurus. We did not discover intestines, blood, or tissu - not in the way you're thinking.

But evolutionist would never tell you that, because it debunks the theory of evolution, because it would trigger other questions.
No, it would not. It would only mean that we have to seriously rethink our theories.

see why evolution is a religion
Let's see...No supernatural element, no part taken entirely on faith, testable by scientific means...Nope, not a religion, sorry.

Y'know, you could've done some basic research...I could refute most your points with my basic background knowledge of the subjects you were speaking about and the first few chapters of The Ancestor's Tale to fill in little details.

old comment by Giveitaday

my point is dinosaurs are not as old as the carbon dating proves

Then you have no point because they don't carbon date dinosaur fossils. If you had bothered to do even the slightest research you would know that, but instead you go posting you're crackpot assertions and making a damned fool of yourself.

the have been some discoveries of human fossil that dated back to the dinosaur era

When did it happen, Where was is discovered, and who made the discovery? without any of that information your assertion is at best, hearsay, and at worst, just an out and out lie. Why has this amazing discovery not been published in any scientific journals? If it was a "cover up" then how is it you just happen to have this knowledge that no one else does?

they(evolutionist/scientist) have even discovered dinosaurs intestines, blood, tissue, and cells.

See above.

But evolutionist would never tell you that

Because it's not true.

because it debunks the theory of evolution

Then why hasn't evolutionary theory be debunked yet? If all this evidence was so easy to find then you think that someone would have done it in the last 150 years.

because it would trigger other questions

Like what? Why is it that you feel the need to break one of your own religion's commandments and lie to promote your creationist agenda? The majority of christian around the world have no problem accepting evolutionary theory, but creationist such as yourself have to twist your own scipture, outright lie, and bear false witness about those who disagree with you to promote your completely non scientific agenda.

see why evolution is a religion

One of the creationist complaints about science is that it's always changing, if evolutionary theory were a religion then it would be dogmatic and unchanging, exactly what you accuse it of not being. At least pick a single lie and go with that one, this flip floping back and forth between contradictory lies is not helping you case at all.

Jackdonekings #fundie city-data.com

54 comments

Confused?