Radiometric Dating

rossum said:
AiG prefer their idiotic, woodenly literal human interpretation of Genesis over the scientific evidence. Hence they lie about the evidence, often by omission, because it contradicts their ludicrous 6,000 year timescale.
Click to expand...
Biomaterial in Dino bones....contradicts your ludicrous concept of deep time.
 
CrowCross said:
Biomaterial in Dino bones....contradicts your ludicrous concept of deep time.
Click to expand...
Where is your scientific evidence that biomaterial cannot survive 65 million years in rare cases?

Where is your explanation of the failure of a lot more dinosaur biomaterial to survive 4,500 years on your timescale?
 
CrowCross said:
How did your Mammuthus subplanifrons die?
Click to expand...
I do not know. Why? Are you unable to support your claim "Mammoth didn't die the way the dinosaurs did" and are looking for a distraction?

If you really believe "Mammoth didn't die the way the dinosaurs did" just tell us what the difference was.
 
The Pixie said:
I do not know. Why? Are you unable to support your claim "Mammoth didn't die the way the dinosaurs did" and are looking for a distraction?

If you really believe "Mammoth didn't die the way the dinosaurs did" just tell us what the difference was.
Click to expand...
We've been discussing the frozen mammoths. Why did you choose to go with this distraction?
 
rossum said:
Where is your scientific evidence that biomaterial cannot survive 65 million years in rare cases?

Where is your explanation of the failure of a lot more dinosaur biomaterial to survive 4,500 years on your timescale?
Click to expand...
Are you saying it's not there?
 
CrowCross said:
Are you saying it's not there?
Click to expand...
I am saying that if the last dinosaurs died out about 4,500 years ago then biomaterial should be relatively common in dinosaur fossils. It is not. What is your scientific explanation for the extreme rarity of such biomaterial.
 
rossum said:
I am saying that if the last dinosaurs died out about 4,500 years ago then biomaterial should be relatively common in dinosaur fossils. It is not. What is your scientific explanation for the extreme rarity of such biomaterial.
Click to expand...
Biomaterial in dino fossils seems to be more prevalent than you thought. Here.
 
CrowCross said:
How rare is it in mammoths?
Click to expand...
So you have no explanation of the difference in the survival of biomaterial between dinosaurs and mammoths. Colour me unsurprised.

Is this something else that your favourite YEC websites don't explain, so you have to dodge the question?
 
rossum said:
So you have no explanation of the difference in the survival of biomaterial between dinosaurs and mammoths. Colour me unsurprised.

Is this something else that your favourite YEC websites don't explain, so you have to dodge the question?
Click to expand...
I presented you animals that died and were captured in the permanent frost....compared to animals that died in a flood....I fail to see your point.
 
CrowCross said:
I presented you animals that died and were captured in the permanent frost....compared to animals that died in a flood....I fail to see your point.
Click to expand...
Flood? fine, where is your scientific evidence of a simultaneous genetic bottleneck in kangaroos and armadillos about 4,500 years ago?
 
CrowCross said:
My answer has already been provided for you in previous post.
Click to expand...
No it has not. You have never provided any scientific evidence showing a recent universal bottleneck. You have blathered about irrelevancies to do with homozygosity and heterozygosity.

Two animals have at most four alleles per locus. You have to explain why some contemporary species have hundreds of alleles per locus. How did those additional alleles arise? You, and your YEC sources, have conspicuously failed to provide any explanation.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Radiometric dating is faith based.
Click to expand...
But faith based on evidence.

Authentic Nouveau said:
Starts with believers accepting assumptions
Click to expand...
Sure, it assumes the laws of nature were the same back then. Is that reasonable? I think it is; if we look at what stars were like billions of years ago, we can see the same emission spectra, telling us that they are subject to the same laws. To me, that is good evidence to support the assumptions.

If not, then you lose the fine-tuning argument. If the laws were quite different 6000 years ago, clearly we do not need a finely-tuned universe.
 
rossum said:
Where is your scientific evidence that biomaterial cannot survive 65 million years in rare cases?
Click to expand...
Where is YOUR scientific evidence for -

ros claims - Random mutations produce DNA​

rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.​

She did it again - ross claims "Random mutations generate new information"​

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top