Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs

Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,788
Not "theoretical" but an approximate. Its still more accurate than "bible said so".


Thats not what i said at all I meant that the people who are allergic to science because of religion would also be wrong either way because neither religion and nor science agrees with them.
It's a theoretical estimation that is prone to various mistakes. It isn't correct to say the least hence it being as correct as Ancestry genetic testing. It's entertainment rather than science and truth.
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
It's a theoretical estimation that is prone to various mistakes. It isn't correct to say the least hence it being as correct as Ancestry genetic testing. It's entertainment rather than science and truth.
Yes because half life is totaaaaaally a theory and not an actual thing. This discussion isn't even worth it.
 

Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,788
Yes because half life is totaaaaaally a theory and not an actual thing. This discussion isn't even worth it.
Then can you tell me the actual age of the earth? Can you provide me solid numbers or just estimations? I never said half life was a theory rather the final assumption is a theory and an estimation that only serve as entertainment
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
Then can you tell me the actual age of the earth? Can you provide me solid numbers or just estimations? I never said half life was a theory rather the final assumption is a theory and an estimation that only serve as entertainment
Whats your point? It is still a scientific theory and not a hypothesis and it is still more accurate than "bible said so".
 

Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,788
Whats your point? It is still a scientific theory and not a hypothesis and it is still more accurate than "bible said so".
My point is that it is not correct and and only serves the purpose of entertainment than providing fact. I'm not saying the bible said one thing or another but since you keep mentioning it, the assuming the bible is wrong is fine because radiometric dating is an assumption as well so it's accuracy can be questioned which is what I'm doing. I never mentioned the bible, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it as it's not my basis for denying the accuracy of radiometric dating.

A theory, a hypothesis, and an assumption don't equate to truth.
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
My point is that it is not correct and and only serves the purpose of entertainment than providing fact. I'm not saying the bible said one thing or another but since you keep mentioning it, the assuming the bible is wrong is fine because radiometric dating is an assumption as well so it's accuracy can be questioned which is what I'm doing. I never mentioned the bible, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it as it's not my basis for denying the accuracy of radiometric dating.

A theory, a hypothesis, and an assumption don't equate to truth.
Did you even read the article? Its full of "bible said so" and its mainly denying the concept of half life and radiocarbon dating because of that. And THAT is what I responded to. And an approximate is still more accurate than "5000 years old because my beliefs : ("

Who cares how old the earth is. I freaking don't. I'm just pointing out how retarded the article is.
 

Damien50

Star
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
1,788
Did you even read the article? Its full of "bible said so" and its mainly denying the concept of half life and radiocarbon dating because of that. And THAT is what I responded to. And an approximate is still more accurate than "5000 years old because my beliefs : ("

Who cares how old the earth is. I freaking don't. I'm just pointing out how retarded the article is.
I'm pointing out that radiometric dating isn't accurate so it's hypocrisy to deny the validity of one when the other isn't right either.

And an approximate is still more accurate than "5000 years old because my beliefs : (


It's essentially the same thing because one belief relies on science and the other in the belief in God. Either way the accuracy is debatable and neither can be concretely proved only shrouded in inference, speculation, assumption, theory and whatever other words that hide the fact that they don't know.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
I'm pointing out that radiometric dating isn't accurate so it's hypocrisy to deny the validity of one when the other isn't right either.

And an approximate is still more accurate than "5000 years old because my beliefs : (

It's essentially the same thing because one belief relies on science and the other in the belief in God. Either way the accuracy is debatable and neither can be concretely proved only shrouded in inference, speculation, assumption, theory and whatever other words that hide the fact that they don't know.
https://creation.com/topics/radiometric-dating
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
I'm pointing out that radiometric dating isn't accurate so it's hypocrisy to deny the validity of one when the other isn't right either.

And an approximate is still more accurate than "5000 years old because my beliefs : (

It's essentially the same thing because one belief relies on science and the other in the belief in God. Either way the accuracy is debatable and neither can be concretely proved only shrouded in inference, speculation, assumption, theory and whatever other words that hide the fact that they don't know.
What the actual fuck tho
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
There are assumptions that are made by both materialists and creationist. One assumes no God and looks for natural processes and deep time to account for the world we see. The other takes the possibility of God creating as foundational and works our conclusions based on this.

Were were we in the beginning? Certainly not here to measure anything. People make assumptions about those initial conditions but they may or may not be correct.

The debate is the science of one metaphysical world view set against another.
 

Vytas

Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,904
Did you even read the article? Its full of "bible said so" and its mainly denying the concept of half life and radiocarbon dating because of that. And THAT is what I responded to. And an approximate is still more accurate than "5000 years old because my beliefs : ("

Who cares how old the earth is. I freaking don't. I'm just pointing out how retarded the article is.
It's obvious you didn't read article yourself...Didn't even looked....
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
View attachment 20782

The scientist who has been dubbed the “Father of Intelligent Design” and author of the groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box contends that recent scientific discoveries further disprove Darwinism and strengthen the case for an intelligent creator.

In his controversial bestseller Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, arguing that science itself has proven that intelligent design is a better explanation for the origin of life. In Darwin Devolves, Behe advances his argument, presenting new research that offers a startling reconsideration of how Darwin’s mechanism works, weakening the theory’s validity even more.

A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently. But evolution never creates something organically. Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.

In addition to disputing the methodology of Darwinism and how it conflicts with the concept of creation, Behe reveals that what makes Intelligent Design unique—and right—is that it acknowledges causation. Evolution proposes that organisms living today are descended with modification from organisms that lived in the distant past. But Intelligent Design goes a step further asking, what caused such astounding changes to take place? What is the reason or mechanism for evolution? For Behe, this is what makes Intelligent Design so important.

Review

"Behe's latest masterpiece takes the evidence marshaled in defense of the unbounded power of blind evolution and deftly brings it to the opposite conclusion: evolution is self-limiting by design. Time for the Behe-bashers to retire."--Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute and author of Undeniable

"I highly recommend this book to both proponents and skeptics of Darwinian evolution as it will open new avenues of thought and creativity regarding this important subject."--Russell Carlson, professor emeritus of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia

"Behe introduces new molecular-level facts that sink the Darwinian view of life once and for all: Darwinian mechanism sometimes helps survival of an organism but always by damaging or breaking genes. The conclusion is clear: life is the product of a mind."--Matti Leisola, DSc, professor emeritus of bioprocess engineering at Aalto University, Finland

"Darwin Devolves is a must read. Behe presents comprehensive and convincing arguments that genomic reduction is responsible for numerous classic examples of species adaptive radiation, challenging Darwin's 'mutation and selection' mechanism as the source of life's diversity."--Scott A. Minnich, Professor and Program Coordinator NIH Idaho INBRE

"Michael Behe has been keeping committed Darwinists awake nights for years. Built on solid science, it's going to be harder than ever for critics to spit it out just because they don't like its taste. Darwin Devolves is going to cause a lot more sleepless nights."--The Stream

View attachment 20782

The scientist who has been dubbed the “Father of Intelligent Design” and author of the groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box contends that recent scientific discoveries further disprove Darwinism and strengthen the case for an intelligent creator.

In his controversial bestseller Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, arguing that science itself has proven that intelligent design is a better explanation for the origin of life. In Darwin Devolves, Behe advances his argument, presenting new research that offers a startling reconsideration of how Darwin’s mechanism works, weakening the theory’s validity even more.

A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently. But evolution never creates something organically. Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.

In addition to disputing the methodology of Darwinism and how it conflicts with the concept of creation, Behe reveals that what makes Intelligent Design unique—and right—is that it acknowledges causation. Evolution proposes that organisms living today are descended with modification from organisms that lived in the distant past. But Intelligent Design goes a step further asking, what caused such astounding changes to take place? What is the reason or mechanism for evolution? For Behe, this is what makes Intelligent Design so important.

Review

"Behe's latest masterpiece takes the evidence marshaled in defense of the unbounded power of blind evolution and deftly brings it to the opposite conclusion: evolution is self-limiting by design. Time for the Behe-bashers to retire."--Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute and author of Undeniable

"I highly recommend this book to both proponents and skeptics of Darwinian evolution as it will open new avenues of thought and creativity regarding this important subject."--Russell Carlson, professor emeritus of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia

"Behe introduces new molecular-level facts that sink the Darwinian view of life once and for all: Darwinian mechanism sometimes helps survival of an organism but always by damaging or breaking genes. The conclusion is clear: life is the product of a mind."--Matti Leisola, DSc, professor emeritus of bioprocess engineering at Aalto University, Finland

"Darwin Devolves is a must read. Behe presents comprehensive and convincing arguments that genomic reduction is responsible for numerous classic examples of species adaptive radiation, challenging Darwin's 'mutation and selection' mechanism as the source of life's diversity."--Scott A. Minnich, Professor and Program Coordinator NIH Idaho INBRE

"Michael Behe has been keeping committed Darwinists awake nights for years. Built on solid science, it's going to be harder than ever for critics to spit it out just because they don't like its taste. Darwin Devolves is going to cause a lot more sleepless nights."--The Stream

Red.. that video doesn't show / link here. What is the channel or title, so I can look it up? Many thanks-!
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
3,259
[
You have to ask how the Evolutionists account for the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur remains...

soft tissue remains is a bit of a misnomer
https://www.newsweek.com/preserved-dinosaur-skin-100-million-years-korea-1393230

It's more skin impressions to give us an idea of what their skin may have looked like, as opposed to viable tissue that you could extract DNA from. Interestingly enough its why the plot to Jurassic Park is just fantasy. DNA that could theoretically be used for cloning won't really go back farther than 700,000 years.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
3,259
Great post.



. The Deluge qualifies as a worldwide cataclysmic event-- it's chronicled by Christians, Jews and Muslims, alike... and really, every culture has a flood 'myth.' Funny that it's overlooked-- but certainly not surprising.
No not all cultures have a flood myth, though many do they are all societies that were in flood zones. Of course a devastating natural disaster gets incorporated into folklore. Besides some of those flood stories pre-date the Bible, so if anything they just copied Gilgamesh.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
3,259
Great post.



The only explanation that permits the existence of dinosaurs (dragons, anyone?) is a biblical one. .
Dragon myths don't prove anything. Humans ( mammals ) evolved side-by-side reptiles and were natural competitors, while no humans lived with dinosaurs our ancestors did live with some now-extinct reptile species that were much bigger than the biggest remaining, the komodo dragon. Its natural that a version of them became mythologized.

Anywhere here is an interesting fossil cache that may shed some light on a mass extinction.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/288704-we-may-have-found-fossils-from-the-dinosaurs-last-moments-on-earth



P.S Maybe you can donate to another creationist expedition to the congo to find https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
Red.. that video doesn't show / link here. What is the channel or title, so I can look it up? Many thanks-!
Looks like the channel owner re-uploaded it under another file name...

Here you go @elsbet


P.s. There is a time to share from the things you know and a sadly a time to leave those who don’t want to know to their own imaginations.

One day, there will be no more time.
 
Top