Surely you know that radiological dating is not accurate. You do different radiological dating methods on the same rock and you will get two very different "ages."
This is also based on a lot of assumptions that the chemical makeup of that rock has always been the same as well as other assumptions.
We also know that we have shown live dinosaur tissue. If they were millions of years old, as claimed, then there is no possible way for this to occur.
10 comments
Er ...no. No, you have never ever "shown live dinosaur tissue". Yes, geologists can tell when a rock is likely to have changed its chemical makeup. And before you ask it, no, the earth and the rock and the dinosaur are not 6000 years old. You need a good basic science course, and I don't mean "Let me take a class so I can rebut it".
Radiological dating? Never heard of; it's probably not accurate, whatever it is, no.
Radiometric dating, on the other hand, is evidence-based and very much accurate.
What live dinosaur tissue have YOU been showing. And if you have been showing it, of course you'd know it, dolt.
Are you perhaps talking about birds? Some of the dinosaurs evolved into birds, and we have lots and lots of live bird tissue.
"This is also based on a lot of assumptions that the chemical makeup of that rock has always been the same as well as other assumptions. "
This is based on the assumption that we can't detect disturbances in the rock chemistry. We can. If the chemistry is disturbed the rock isn't dated because we know it will be wrong.
" You do different radiological dating methods on the same rock and you will get two very different "ages." "
What if you get the same age?
"We also know that we have shown live dinosaur tissue."
You have just shown you are full of shit.
“Surely you know that radiological dating is not accurate.”
Aside from the fact that you can’t even identify the science, your accusation of inaccuracy is simply that you don’t like the answers it gives.
“You do different radiological dating methods on the same rock and you will get two very different "ages."”
Big claim. Got a cite?
And radiometric dating is not the only way we date things.
This is part of how we know science is trustworthy, if we can date a find by two or more methods and they tend to agree with each other.
“This is also based on a lot of assumptions that the chemical makeup of that rock has always been the same as well as other assumptions.”
Are you sure about that? Really? how many geology courses have you had?
“We also know that we have shown live dinosaur tissue.”
Live dinosaur tissue would require a live dinosaur. But you don’t think that chickens count. So what the fuck are you talking about?
“If they were millions of years old, as claimed, then there is no possible way for this to occur.”
OH! You think the soft-tissue fossils they found were still flesh. Yeah, that’s not what happened.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.