62 million year old bird fossil with bony teeth found.

Polymath257 · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
Yes, a link is powerful evidence..

Well, it is sort of difficult to present the physical evidence on a discussion site. What are you wanting?

We can, if you want, go into the details of radioactivity, how it is and is not affected by external events, the physical basis for it, etc. We can also discuss the *relative* dating methods based on the strata and compare them to the *absolute* dating methods based on radioactive decay.

So, precisely where do you think the dates are based on circular reasoning?

shunyadragon · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
..so you believe.. but in reality, these dating methods are as reliable as dating sites, for discovering facts.

Don't believe me? 'Show me the dating methods for determining the '62 million years!', in the OP. What is it based on, except circular reasoning and belief?

..so you believe. But you have no facts to support this belief.

Yes, dismissal and reassertion is better than supporting a claim with facts.

I don't see any evidence for this belief. Similarity of design does not indicate descendancy. That is merely a religious belief, not science.

You do not believe the science, and refuse to educate yourself, and study the science involved. Show me disparaging acts, cannot be responded to, because you refuse the science.

Yes, belittling me, personally is a powerful argument for common ancestry..

Yes, how dare i try to argue science, in a progressive echo chamber..

Your anti-science agenda needs to be belittled and disparaged.

1. The implication is always for "Evolution!', and the thread is placed in a "evolution vs creation' subforum.
2. I make no claims of dates, just dispute the asserted ones in this article. Those who make the claim are tasked with supporting it. It is not the skeptic's job to disprove every wild claim out there.

This simply the category suitable for the thread, and you reject the science, and support the literal Biblical Creation.

Yes you do support Biblical dating and reject scientific dating. If you had a basic education in science you would understand how the fossils are date, but you lack the basic education, remain voluntarily ignorant as to the science involved.

Still waiting . . .

What are your qualifications in science to make such outrageous claims?

Your religious agenda is up front and obvious including your intentional ignorance of science.

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
..so you believe.. but in reality, these dating methods are as reliable as dating sites, for discovering facts.

Don't believe me? Show me the dating methods for determining the '62 million years!', in the OP. What is it based on, except circular reasoning and belief?

..so you believe. But you have no facts to support this belief.

Yes, dismissal and reassertion is better than supporting a claim with facts.

I don't see any evidence for this belief. Similarity of design does not indicate descendancy. That is merely a religious belief, not science.

Yes, belittling me, personally is a powerful argument for common ancestry..

Yes, how dare i try to argue science, in a progressive echo chamber..

1. The implication is always for "Evolution!', and the thread is placed in a "evolution vs creation' subforum.
2. I make no claims of dates, just dispute the asserted ones in this article. Those who make the claim are tasked with supporting it. It is not the skeptic's job to disprove every wild claim out there.

When you don't understand the science you should try to learn. I can help you with radiometric dating. Others can help with other questions. It is clear to everyone that your science education appears to have ended in elementary school, but you can still learn.

And you are not a skeptic. Skeptics follow the evidence. You currently do not even understand the concept of evidence. But once again, you can learn.

Can you at least tell us why you refuse to even try to learn?

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
Yes, how dare i try to argue science, in a progressive echo chamber.

Again, others do it with little to no problems. What's different about you?

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
I dispute the dates as being circular, without scientific evidence. There is no valid way to assert these dates, and they are assumed and believed, only.

How can you say that if you've not read the paper?

Bob the Unbeliever · Sep 21, 2019

Jose Fly said:
How can you say that if you've not read the paper?

Telepathy? Prognostication? Fervent prayers to Mother Teresa?

Or just plain old magic?

Who can say? Certainly not the poster in question... what with not having read the link or *anything* remotely science related for that matter....

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

Bob the Unbeliever said:
Telepathy? Prognostication? Fervent prayers to Mother Teresa?

Or just plain old magic?

Who can say? Certainly not the poster in question... what with not having read the link or *anything* remotely science related for that matter....

Well whatever it is, it most certainly isn't reflexive denial of anything that contradicts his religious beliefs! Nope, not at all....

usfan · Sep 21, 2019

Valjean said:
These dating methods have been tested and found to be accurate. Use three completely different methods to date an artifact and they'll all agree with each other.

How? You merely assert and believe this, from constant indoctrination.

The FACT is, there is no verifiable way to calculate theses dates, and no reliable measurement that is not fraught with assumptions and speculation.

usfan · Sep 21, 2019

ratiocinator said:
Too afraid to read it and learn something? How exactly do you expect to get evidence? You claimed that dating methods where based on belief and circular reasoning - the link explains why you are wrong. You asked to be shown dating methods and the link explains them. Nobody can actually show you a method on a forum - you need to read and understand.

No, it is clear to me. I have studied dating methods extensively, and see the flaws, assumptions, and speculations. Reasserting that as a belief is not a scientific argument, even with a nice link.

Do you understand the dating methods, or do you just trust the 'really smart people!', that have taught you to believe them?

I'm the skeptic, here, and will not be persuaded by bullying nor assertions.

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
How? You merely assert and believe this, from constant indoctrination.

And then you proceed to do the exact same thing....

The FACT is, there is no verifiable way to calculate theses dates, and no reliable measurement that is not fraught with assumptions and speculation.

See?

usfan · Sep 21, 2019

Jose Fly said:
And then you proceed to do the exact same thing....
See?

So, you admit your opinions about origins are just asserted religious beliefs, with no scientific basis?

Jose Fly · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
So, you admit your opinions about origins are just asserted religious beliefs, with no scientific basis?

I have no idea how you got that from my post.

So tell me, how can you say anything about the dating methods used in the work described in the OP, if you've never read the paper?

ratiocinator · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
No, it is clear to me. I have studied dating methods extensively...

I don't believe you. If you had, you'd have something more concrete to say, rather than the simplistic denials and baseless assertions of circularity.

You are questioning established science here - it is up to you to provide some reason to think that it's wrong.

usfan said:
I'm the skeptic, here, and will not be persuaded by bullying nor assertions.

But you're obviously not a skeptic - you're just repeating trite creationist dogma. What do you think is happening here? Why would almost all the world's experts accept something that is so obviously flawed that even you (who obviously isn't an expert) can see it? Who would be doing the indoctrination? For what purpose?

The biblical literalists have an obvious vested interest, what would the vested interest be for the scientists who just study these things (who are from many cultures, and religions)?

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
How? You merely assert and believe this, from constant indoctrination.

The FACT is, there is no verifiable way to calculate theses dates, and no reliable measurement that is not fraught with assumptions and speculation.

No, you are projecting again. You have no education in the sciences so you would have to act this way. Many of us have an education and can test and confirm our concepts.

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
No, it is clear to me. I have studied dating methods extensively, and see the flaws, assumptions, and speculations. Reasserting that as a belief is not a scientific argument, even with a nice link.

Do you understand the dating methods, or do you just trust the 'really smart people!', that have taught you to believe them?

I'm the skeptic, here, and will not be persuaded by bullying nor assertions.

That is a clearly a falsehood. I am betting that you have no clue when it comes to the various dating methods.

Tell us, what are the flaws of the various methods? What are the assumption of the various methods? What are the speculations? If you cannot answer this then it looks as if you are breaking the Ninth Commandment again.

usfan · Sep 21, 2019

..not interested in bickering about my education, understanding, motives, or sexual preference.

I expressed my position, and everyone can obviously believe whatever they want. If there was a genuine interest in examining scientific dating methods, I'd be glad to participate. But hordes of True Believers, belittling me for my objections is boring and immature.

I'll be glad to bow out, so the echo chamber of homogeneous belief can continue uninterrupted..

Yes, your beliefs about ancient dating methods are established fact, and everyone knows them to be indisputable. Don't be disturbed by those who question the decrees of the elite, but rest assured that your beliefs are superior and have the official approval of the State, and all other institutions of man.

..that is what modern science is all about, anyway.. :shrug:

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
..not interested in bickering about my education, understanding, motives, or sexual preference.

I expressed my position, and everyone can obviously believe whatever they want. If there was a genuine interest in examining scientific dating methods, I'd be glad to participate. But hordes of True Believers, belittling me for my objections is boring and immature.

I'll be glad to bow out, so the echo chamber of homogeneous belief can continue uninterrupted..

Yes, your beliefs about ancient dating methods are established fact, and everyone knows them to be indisputable. Don't be disturbed by those who question the decrees of the elite, but rest assured that your beliefs are superior and have the official approval of the State, and all other institutions of man.

..that is what modern science is all about, anyway..

People have offered to help you to learn so that you will not keep making gross errors. You also made claims that you need to support if you want to be taken at all seriously.

Let's start with a simple one. You said that there were assumptions in radiometric dating. What are theses supposed assumptions and why are they not valid? If you only make claims and then run away you only appear to be fibbing at best.

usfan · Sep 21, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
When you don't understand the science you should try to learn.

Subduction Zone said:
It is clear to everyone that your science education appears to have ended in elementary school,

Subduction Zone said:
You currently do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Subduction Zone said:
Can you at least tell us why you refuse to even try to learn?

Subduction Zone said:
You have no education in the science

Subduction Zone said:
That is a clearly a falsehood. I am betting that you have no clue

Subduction Zone said:
People have offered to help you to learn so that you will not keep making gross errors

Your patronizing, demeaning, belittling comments make intelligent debate with you impossible.

..believe whatever you want.. but insulting, ad hominem laced discussion with hostiles is of no interest to me.

..i should just put you back on ignore.. or, just abandon the forum to you and your cronies.. my perspective is obviously not wanted, so why should i offer it?

shunyadragon · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
..not interested in bickering about my education, understanding, motives, or sexual preference.

Education is indeed an issuee since nothing you have presented reflect any scientific references nor knowledge of dating methods.

I expressed my position, and everyone can obviously believe whatever they want. If there was a genuine interest in examining scientific dating methods, I'd be glad to participate. But hordes of True Believers, belittling me for my objections is boring and immature.

Yes you responses are boring and immature, and you have never offered any scientific references to support your assertions concerning dating methods, nor have provided your view of dating the earth and our universe.

I'll be glad to bow out, so the echo chamber of homogeneous belief can continue uninterrupted..

Yes, your beliefs about ancient dating methods are established fact, and everyone knows them to be indisputable. Don't be disturbed by those who question the decrees of the elite, but rest assured that your beliefs are superior and have the official approval of the State, and all other institutions of man.

..that is what modern science is all about, anyway..

Yes, you are clueless about scientific dating methods. What are you referring to as 'ancient dating methods?'

shunyadragon · Sep 21, 2019

usfan said:
Your patronizing, demeaning, belittling comments make intelligent debate with you impossible.

..believe whatever you want.. but insulting, ad hominem laced discussion with hostiles is of no interest to me.

..i should just put you back on ignore.. or, just abandon the forum to you and your cronies.. my perspective is obviously not wanted, so why should i offer it?

Your lack of knowledge, and anti-science religious agenda make it impossible for any dialogue.

Still waiting . . . for scientific references to support your view, and still missing is a clear and concise statement of what you consider the age of the earth and universe and how this is determined.

62 million year old bird fossil with bony teeth found.

Think & Care

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Fisker of men

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

shunyadragon