Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[Jorge]

.
.
... or is it?

Nah, of course not! When any such evidence is found the Evo-Faithful merely re-interpret it to support their faith-based conclusions. That way, "Heads, Evos win; tails, biblical Creationists lose."

In the latest round, here's their re-interpretation:

"Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years..." [emphasis mine]

Source: Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil
https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/


You see boys and girls, before these things were discovered any scientist even suggesting that blood vessels and soft tissue could last for tens of millions of years would have been laughed out of his/her position, probably had their tenure and/or their degree revoked and probably have been tar-and-feathered in public for even suggesting such outright imbecility that opposes not just common sense but basic physics and chemistry.

But, (drum roll please) ... after the evidence is found, and given that Evolution MUST be upheld at ALL costs, they simply move the goalposts back into the next county and continue with their mantra as if nothing had happened.

HEAVEN FORBID that any of them should entertain - let alone suggest - the notion that, "Hey, perhaps these finding are NOT tens of millions of years old ... maybe there's truth to the biblical time frame."

Never happen! Paychecks, job security and professional recognition are far too important to step out on a limb like that. They'll propose anything, even advanced alien civilizations or blood vessels lasting for 80 million years, before accepting the biblical time history.

Oh well ... dumbos will be dumbos will be dumbos!

Jorge

REMINDER OF THE 'MEAT' IN THIS THREAD.

TE's and Atheists are quick to derail threads rather than openly
acknowledge the weakness or falsity of their position.

Hey, that's standard M.O. for these people. Any different and
a Congressional Hearing would be required.

Jorge

[Mikeenders]

Never let it be said that Materialistic Atheists don't
come to each others rescue at the first sign of distress.

Aint that the truth!! Thats about all they have going for them here at theologyweb and this normally relatively dead board and why they love the internet so much. Here they can pretend they are more than the vast minority they are in the general public and back up each others failed points and Roy's flunking basic math.

[HMS_Beagle]

YOU FAILED BASIC MATHS.

LOL! Says the guy who just claimed that 22.0 hours/day - 21.4 hours/day = 0.6 days.

Epic Dunning Kruger!

[Roy]

(ii) HMS_Beagle's source is calculating the number of days/year 280 million years ago while NASA is calculating it for 290 million years ago, so most people would expect the answer to be a few percent different and the fact that the results are a few percent different is exactly what is expected.

Yawn....NO nitwit when you are off so called few percentage points you lose your begged for consilience. The ten million difference doesn't cover the discrepancy.

Chew toy thinks consilience requires that different input data produce identical results

Your point on the table being devised for kids is of no issue whatsoever unless you are making the silly charge that because it is prepared for school Nasa is making the numbers up

That's one point. Data in school exercises isn't always real, y'know. Or in your case apparently don't.

The main point, though, is that your source for scientific data is a high school maths exercise

Like I said I cohose it becuse I kow my audience is slow and dimwitted - needed a table or it would have gone right over your heads

It certainly went right over yours - you couldn't even get the units right!

"Chew toy" seems to think that something he's just noticed after two days would never have occurred to anyone else whose known about this for years.

Is just your vast blithering ignorance ....ROFL. The fact that you now CLAIM to have thought of that days ago...

There it is again, chew toy's inability to distinguish time periods.

Finally, this:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....talk about noobs. You are all are right where you claim the YECS are. SO silly you think begging you knew an issue that affects the reliability of your so called clock goes away simply because errr derr duh we knew that before ( but can't adequately address) and err deerr uhhh it s a assumption is an answer for its failure to meet the standards of being anindependent clock?

is such illiterate gibberish I'm not even going to try to understand it.

[HMS_Beagle]

REMINDER OF THE 'MEAT' IN THIS THREAD.

TE's and Atheists are quick to derail threads rather than openly
acknowledge the weakness or falsity of their position.

Hey, that's standard M.O. for these people. Any different and
a Congressional Hearing would be required.

Jorge

It wasn't derailed Jorge. Your idiot OP claim that this finding casts doubt or radiometric measurements was beaten into the proverbial fine pink mist. You cowardly ran away but your protege Mike "I'm not a YEC" did an admirable job filling in as a mouthy ignorant creationism defender. Sadly though MikeyEC is just as cowardly and won't deal with all the consilient evidence for radiometric dating veracity either. Don't you guys have anyone in your club who's not a brainless ?

[Mikeenders]

REMINDER OF THE 'MEAT' IN THIS THREAD.

TE's and Atheists are quick to derail threads rather than openly

Jorge

Actually Jorge answering them on this is on point. Their whole tired claim is that the weight of evidence backs considering radiometric dating as being totally unfalsifiable and unworthy of questioning when soft tissue ages get older and older (I'm going to bet we top 100 million yeas soon). they trot out these half baked stuff they haven't even looked closely at and say SEE!. Its past any rational question that Radioactive dating could ever ever be falsified or need big adjusting.

Now one of them is claiming a difference of 10 million years older covers .5 discrepancy which shows being off by nearly TENS of millions of years.

But umm err its consilient because well we say its still consilient....... rofl

[Jorge]

YOU FAILED BASIC MATHS.
Epic Fail!

He also barely got a B-minus in a science test for young teenagers.

Also, if I recall, he works at the Houston Space Center (?)

Is that true, Beagle Boy?

Anyway, do you remember the $600 million mission to Mars that
crashed because they used 'feet' instead of 'meters' (or was it
the other way around?). No matter, Beagle Boy was probably
involved in those calculations too.

When asked, Beagle Boy said,
"Feet, meters, who cares? The distance to Mars is the same either way, right?"



Jorge

[Roy]

The ten million difference doesn't cover the discrepancy of .5. YOU FAILED BASIC MATHS.

No, YOU failed basic maths. A 3% difference in input is most definitely sufficient to account for a 2% difference in output.

Also I'm not the one who failed to understand 6th grade exercise material.

[Mikeenders]

LOL! Says the guy who just claimed that 22.0 hours/day - 21.4 hours/day = 0.6 days.

Epic Dunning Kruger!

A difference of .6 hours [edit typed days meant hours] you nit wit and it does

DING! DING! DING!


HAHHAHHAHAAHAAHAA it only gets better - none of them passed basic Maths!!

[HMS_Beagle]

Their whole tired claim is that the weight of evidence backs considering radiometric dating as being totally unfalsifiable and unworthy of questioning

Right on cue the chew toy repeats his false and dishonest strawman. He can't deal with the real data so making up stuff is all he has to save face. He gets more pathetic with each post.

[Roy]

LOL! Says the guy who just claimed that 22.0 hours/day - 21.4 hours/day = 0.6 days.

Epic Dunning Kruger!

A difference of .6 days you nit wit and it does

DING! DING! DING!


HAHHAHHAHAAHAAHAA it only gets better - none of them passed basic Maths!!

Post saved for posterity. Pity it's not sigworthy.

Roy

[HMS_Beagle]

A difference of .6 days you nit wit and it does

DING! DING! DING!

HAHHAHHAHAAHAAHAA it only gets better - none of them passed basic Maths!!

22 hours - 21.4 hours = 0.6 hours = 36 minutes.

0.6 days = 14.4 hours.

Sad part is you're probably one of the brightest the Creationists have to offer.

[Mikeenders]

No, YOU failed basic maths. A 3% difference in input is most definitely sufficient to account for a 2% difference in output.

Also I'm not the one who failed to understand 6th grade exercise material.

Youa re only showing yourself to be a total nitwit in maths......LOL

a .5 difference is 30 minutes . If you could even do basic maths and see how slowly a day changes over a million years you wouldn't be so stupid (or maybe you can't see because you a re stupid). if you think pushing back ten million years saves your rear end you are moronic.

[HMS_Beagle]

Post saved for posterity. Pity it's not sigworthy.

Roy

It's post like that which make me think we've got a Loki troll. No one could be that stupid in real life, could they?

[Mikeenders]

22 hours - 21.4 hours = 0.6 hours = 36 minutes.

0.6 days = 14.4 hours.

Sad part is you're probably one of the brightest the Creationists have to offer.

Just finish typing the same thing dude so you got nothing but a slip of words. Thats your big come back and all you got - a slip in words. Wasn't even paying attention to words . the point was obvious.