Those crazy secularists (and Pat Robertson) are at it again. While creationists (including many of our elected officials) insist that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old because the Bible says it is, paleontologists continue to put their radioisotopic data before biblical passages in estimating the age of fossils. The scientists claim to have found the world’s oldest dinosaur, which they claim walked the Earth 235 million years ago.
The species, Nyasasaurus parringtoni, has been linked to fossils 10-15 million years before the previous earliest dinosaur specimens. It seems remarkably similar to Fred Flintstone’s pet, Dino. (Yes, this is my only contribution to this scientific breakthrough). Nyasasaurus parringtoni walked on two legs, measured 2-3m in length with a large tail and weighed between 20 and 60kg.
What is interesting is that the fossils were actually found over 80 years ago but only recently analyzed.
Of course, they will be exposed as soulless secularists as was Bill Nye “The Science Guy” in attempting to portray the Earth as more than 6,000 years old. In our current political-religious environment, it is Palinotologists who control key congressional committees and school boards.
Palinotologists long ago discovered and actually captured Nyasasaurus parringtoni on film in its natural habitat:
Source: BBC
Very interesting points you have observed , thankyou for posting . “Lefty Wise guy dont carry wallets, they carry their money in a roll….beaner on the outs” by Donnie Brasco.
“…Plymouth Horizon was buried was 253 million years old, and the religious nuts will win the whole argument. ALL BECAUSE LITTLE BOYS DON’T LISTEN!”
I guess those scientists that still implement the old tried and true methods of science and still question the outcome happen to come out right more than those nutjobs that call people of faith “religious nuts”. Maybe that’s why they are called all those pet names and attacked with so many strawman arguments.
“As I said before, the tests are based on science, not faith. In any sample of almost anything, it is possible to find outliers. When those are fully…”
Otteray, one thing that is interesting is when you have something dated, they will first ask several different questions – where did you get the sample, what layer of the strata was it found in, has it been contaminated, do you have multiple samples in order to rule out contamination. So before they even start, they will try to form a “best guess” – READ FAITH (you guys talk like faith is a bad thing, but it is impossible for anyone to live without faith). Then they will go through the procedure to come up with a date (one that also would try to fit the disclaimers). In other words, they will shoe-horn the data to fit preconceived notions.
“Radioisotopes decay at known rates. That is an immutable law of physics. Radioactive decay is not subject to temperature fluctuations, pressure variations or gravitational pull…”
Again, you might want to look that up. There are several factors that can “screw up” our best of the best dating methods. Aside from contamination (which seems to be a favorite “EXCUSE”) one explanation can be found on a quick wikipedia search (since it seems to be a popular source) that the rock must not have undergone any metasomatism, or AHEM… disturbed with HEAT or chemically.
” Or because a bearded shepherd misinterpreted some natural phenomenon and wrote his misinterpretation in a book two or three thousand years ago.”
Amusing – bearded shepherd. I see what you did there. That was a good one! Misinterpretation in a book two or three thousand years. Funny you should poke fun at those bearded guys, because they seemed to have beat our “modern scientific discovery” of things like the mid oceanic currents (search Matthew Maury), freshwater springs at the bottom of the ocean (discovered in the early 70’s I believe, or should I say REDISCOVERED), or the extremely slow orbit of the sun where just recently scientists thought the sun was at a fixed point in space.
Wonder how all those bearded shepherds manage to figure all that out so long ago. Must have been divine inspiration!
At least you didn’t call them illiterate. I had to ask someone that said that once – if they were illiterate, how did they write their letters? I didn’t get a response.
“There are no instances where radiographic dating has been shown to be accurate. It works precisely because radioactive decay happens at a known measurable rate. That’s science fact.”
One GLEAMING example was one found in the video, and I’d recommend watching his other videos. The lava flows were dating anywhere from 10,000 years old to 2,600,000,000 years old. The most accurate dating method that we use today, the rubidium-strontium isochron aged the rock as 1.34 billion years old. The PROBLEM was that in that sedimentary layer, there was remains of an Indian village that dated the layer to only 800 – 1,000 years old. The first thing a scientist would say is that the dating method isn’t accurate for dates very recent such as 800-1,000 years. (!) So that is admittance that IF the earth is relatively young, all our dating methods (the best of the best even) are not accurate. Hmmm. Interesting. And of course, someone would say the sample was contaminated. (but they ran several different tests – all came up wrong).
When my kid was little I took him to a museum and got him a souvenir, a trilobite which was apparently 250 million years old (give or take). He insisted on unwrapping it in the car where I asked him not to, and he dropped the little thing, and it got lost, and now it’s gonna be another two, three million years before it gets found again. Then some scientists are gonna say that the car dump where that Plymouth Horizon was buried was 253 million years old, and the religious nuts will win the whole argument. ALL BECAUSE LITTLE BOYS DON’T LISTEN!
OS,
You are correct, sir. My fingers on the fly got the better of me.
Gene,
Typo. I think you meant inaccurate.
As I said before, the tests are based on science, not faith. In any sample of almost anything, it is possible to find outliers. When those are fully investigated, the bad data can always be traced to a contaminated sample, instruments not properly calibrated, or just outright screwups in the lab.
Radioisotopes decay at known rates. That is an immutable law of physics. Radioactive decay is not subject to temperature fluctuations, pressure variations or gravitational pull. Or because a bearded shepherd misinterpreted some natural phenomenon and wrote his misinterpretation in a book two or three thousand years ago.
There are no instances where radiographic dating has been shown to be accurate. It works precisely because radioactive decay happens at a known measurable rate. That’s science fact.
“If you’re so convinced physics is wrong” – never said physics was wrong
“Because in denying radiometric dating, you are denying physics as surely as if you said “I don’t believe in gravity.”
I’m denying the accuracy of the dating and I’m suggesting that people shouldn’t blindly accept it as fact when there have been countless examples where it’s shown to be inaccurate. Furthermore, it looks extremely foolish for those chiding people’s references to the Bible about the age of the earth, when they have no idea how old the earth actually is.
Never denied physics, or gravity.
Your misguided responses remind me of this analogy…
Guy #1 – Vegetables are good for you
Guy #2 – you are so stupid, if you eat a whole truckload of vegetables, you would die
Guy #1 – I didn’t say to eat a whole truckload
Guy #2 – See, you hate pepperoni pizza!
Guy #1 – *&#@^*???
1. Exaggerate your opponent’s statement into an absurd absolute.
2. Make an inappropriate analogy.
3. Change the topic to something easier to defend.
4. Claim victory