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

[Mikeenders]

If you wanted a meaningful, in depth discussion of the actual issues, it was there for the taking. All you had to do was step up and participate.

Jim

Empty rhetoric and quite the bit of hypocrisy from you the guy that ended any chance of engaging in rational discussion when you claimed to be able to read minds and intent. Then compounded it by earning no respect whatsoever by failing to live up to the standard of the faith you profess to believe in.

[Duragizer]

Empty rhetoric and quite the bit of hypocrisy from you the guy that ended any chance of engaging in rational discussion when you claimed to be able to read minds and intent. Then compounded it by earning no respect whatsoever by failing to live up to the standard of the faith you profess to believe in.

If the flavour of iron was any stronger in your words, I'd call you a piece of liver.

[HMS_Beagle]

Like I said Roy thats all ya got - a slip up that was shown to be slip up by me putting minutes in the next post not days.

LOL! Mikey tries to rewrite history

Screw up #1 where he mistakes days for hours in two calculations

Their source for the Devonian - 21.8
Nasa - 21.4 - 22 ( a span of 30 million years depending on which Deovonian

(they could still say they are within a range but 30 million is a lot of leeway)

Even worse and more problematic for the poor pups

Their source for Pennsylvania 22.4
Nasa - 22.9

Now ahem - The young pups will then come back and say its only off by a little but anyone who again looks at the chart will see that such small changes on the chart RESULTS IN DIFFERENCES of ten MILLION to A HUNDRED MILLION YEARS in differences depending what geological period you are looking at and as we have already seen in their own source the smallest differences move the date millions of years.

a difference of .6 days takes us from lower Devonian to Mississipian - 70 million year according to Nasa

a difference of .2 days takes us from the Triassic to the Cretaceous - 150 million years according to Nasa

Roy corrects the blunder

Actually it's a difference of .6 hours/day, not .6 days.

Mikey doubles down, repeats the same error while blustering

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

The error gets pointed out again

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

Mikey still doesn't get it

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!!

Has the error pointed out yet again

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

0.6 days = 14.4 hours.

FINALLY the dolt gets a clue, goes back and edits his posts to try and hide the error, claims it was just a single slip.

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!!

Last edited by Mikeenders; Today at 12:54 PM.

Creationist mendacity, thy name is Mikeenders.

[Mikeenders]

No, the difference between you and me is that if some-one says I made an error, I check, whereas when some-one says

You are just shooting yourself int he foot over and over again. If that was the truth and not a fabrication of how you operate you wouldn't be in this thread making conspiracy theories of NASA making up fae numbers for kids and pretending your maths works when it doesn't.

[HMS_Beagle]

You are just shooting yourself int he foot over and over again. If that was the truth and not a fabrication of how you operate you wouldn't be in this thread making conspiracy theories of NASA making up fae numbers for kids and pretending your maths works when it doesn't.

BWAAAAK! BWAAAAK! BWAAAAK!

Here Mikey Mikey Mikey chick chick chick

1. Milankovitch cycles. These known cycles involving the planet's precession rate leave distinct geologic signatures every 26,000 years. These markers can be used to date events back over 20 million years that also closely match the radiometric dates.

Milankovitch cycles

2. Plate tectonics / continental drift. Using GPS we can measure plate drift rate very accurately. Extrapolating back in time gives us a date for the separation of the continents, say Africa and South America, which closely matches radiometric dates for the split approx. 140 MYA

Pangaea breakup

3. Age of the solar system: The sun's age can be estimated based on the modeling of helioseismic measurements - solar earth quakes. Extrapolating for measured results gives a solar age of approx 4.57 billion years which is in close agreement with the radiometric dating of the oldest meteorites.

The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS

BWAAAAAAK!

[Roy]

Like I said Roy thats all ya got - a slip up that was shown to be slip up by me putting minutes in the next post not days.

"minutes"? Now you can't tell the difference between minutes, hours or days? You really are incompetent.

claiming 10 million years covers 30 minutes when the rate of change is so low per million means maths is not your thing and you should try the arts when you get into college.

Nothing saves you

What is "saving me" at the moment, and will no doubt continue to do so, is that you haven't actually produced any maths to demonstrate a problem. Based on your total inability so far, I don't think you can.

Yes of course the old I Roy, am so desperate and can;t find anyway to refute Mikes post blowing up my garbage clock I have to go to the NASA lied to the kiddies conspiracy theory

So you have nothing to show that the data in your "reference" is actually real data and not something easy for high school students to practice on. Unless you can show it's real data, you've got nothing.

Kabam! just shot yourself in the foot again! IF the range of dates you can work with is so wide that it can throw off the time so dramatically then you have to cherry pick within range that works and your consilience is still a mirage. so saying that NASA is an ahem outlier

Ok, so you don't know what an outlier is either. I'm not surprised. Nor can you read for comprehension.

You have to say NASA dates are entirely wrong bogus and made up

THEY ARE FROM A HIGH SCHOOL EXERCISE! THERE IS NO LINK TO ACTUAL DATA! DO YOU NOT GET IT?

The rest of your nonsense I already debunked

More likely you deleted it because you can't refute it.

[Roy]

LOL! Mikey tries to rewrite history

Screw up #1 where he mistakes days for hours in two calculations

Did you miss the earlier one?

[Mikeenders]

FINALLY the dolt gets a clue, goes back and edits his posts to try and hide the error, claims it was just a single slip :

You calling me a liar Beagle? careful careful ;) ..... Already said I posted "minutes" without even knowing what you were going on about so thats exactly what you are trying

Lies about me lying are all you got young pup . I posted another post saying minutes without even thinking about any of your claims (you jump up and down with rhetoric for everything so didn't even know what you were going on about) . Whats more this idea of FINALLY as if some long time passed in correcting my post is contradicted by the obvious point - you poor ignorant soul - that you can't edit your post here after few minutes. Still like I said and you have proven - you got to go with this - its all ya got. Only one problem young pup

Doesn't save Roy's own maths. In any discussion with science you can't claim your blunder makes your blown sunk and can;t recover theory valid when your own blundering error in maths and logic is still sitting right there untouched. One slip doesn't make your own error go away. and whats more i have admitted it was an error and a slip. You and your comrade Roy are STILL trying to claim your 10 million years older date makes up for the 30 or so minutes difference when the rate is too small a change per million years to make it work. So you persist in that error

Try again. you are just flopping all over the place

[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 ?

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttt ttttttttt!!!

Pay the lady a buck and try again.

Here's the 'meat' of the OP ... try harder to stay on point:
Ummm ... want me to underline, bold and color the crux of the matter?
Want me to use more monosyllable words?
Want me to spell it out so that a even you can understand it?

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.

Jorge

[Mikeenders]

"minutes"? Now you can't tell the difference between minutes, hours or days? You really are incompetent.

no you are a nit .5 hours is roughly 30 minutes. .6 hours are minutes (not 30) .4 hours is minutes and so on.

Back to showing you can't do basic maths AGAIN.. tell the teacher to go over decimals with you again. Decimals are in almost all the sources. Any time you are dealing with decimals of an hour you are going to be talking about minutes and seconds. Buy a clue!!

THEY ARE FROM A HIGH SCHOOL EXERCISE! THERE IS NO LINK TO ACTUAL DATA! DO YOU NOT GET IT?"

Srcoll down young nit. the data is presented in the answer sheet. lol

[Jorge]

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

I also heard that they've been garnishing part of Beagle Boy's
paycheck to begin recovering the $600 million that were lost.

Poor Beagle Boy ... so sad!

jorge

[Mikeenders]

I also heard that they've been garnishing part of Beagle Boy's
paycheck to begin recovering the $600 million that were lost.

Poor Beagle Boy ... so sad!

jorge

I think that may be Roy. He is now back with another VAST maths blunder that a fraction of an hour is incompetent to be expressed in minutes totally oblivious that .5 hours is 30 minutes and .6 hours is approximately 36 minutes

He's become the REAL chew toy of the thread..............rofl

[HMS_Beagle]

I think that may be Roy. He is now back with another VAST maths blunder that a fraction of an hour is incompetent to be expressed in minutes totally oblivious that .5 hours is 30 minutes and .6 hours is approximately 36 minutes

He's become the REAL chew toy of the thread..............rofl

Wow! Same blithering ignorance, same lame insults, same resort to clowning when can't deal with the scientific data, same lack of basic math and logic skills, same cowardly evasions.

I think Jorge has finally found his soul mate.

[Mikeenders]

Wow! Same blithering ignorance, same lame insults, same resort to clowning when can't deal with the scientific data, same lack of basic math and logic skills, same cowardly evasions.

So I take it you have finally looked at yourself in the mirror - theres is hope for you yet seeing as how EVERYTHING you just wrote is what you are doing in regard to my refutation of your coral clock claim.

and its laughable you trying desperately to save your atheist comrade from his second BIG math blunder. Apparently you too were incompetent to classify .6 hours as minutes yourself when you wrote

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

SO you have PROVEN what every Christian knows about atheists - when atheist babble about incompetent, fool, ignorant to creationists (and many do to both YEC AND OEC) it is simply nothing more than empty rhetoric because here you have one atheist claiming its incompetent for me to express minutes while you did the same yourself AND it happens to be entirely correct.

P.S. You are a complete and utter joke of a human being. You have used chew toy multiple times and I think were one of the first but now you are objecting to me referring to the term for the first time as the same old lame insults. IF its lame insults you indicted yourself at least 10-20 times you have used it. Save us all the vastly hypocritical false indignation.

[HMS_Beagle]

So I take it you have finally looked at yourself in the mirror - theres is hope for you yet seeing as how EVERYTHING you just wrote is what you are doing in regard to my refutation of your coral clock claim.

and its laughable you trying desperately to save your atheist comrade from his second BIG math blunder. Apparently you too were incompetent to classify .6 hours as minutes yourself when you wrote

SO you have PROVEN what every Christian knows about atheists - when atheist babble about incompetent, fool, ignorant to creationists (and many do to both YEC AND OEC) it is simply nothing more than empty rhetoric because here you have one atheist claiming its incompetent for me to express minutes while you did the same yourself AND it happens to be entirely correct.

BIG LOL! Mikey pulls a Jorge! Caught in his ignorance and attempts to rewrite history to cover his blunders, just SCREAM LOUDER WITH MORE MORE SPITTLE FLYING the same stupid mistakes you made before. You guys were definitely separated at birth.

BTW those other three independent ways to corroborate radiometric dates are still there, waiting for you to regain some bowel control.

ETA: "chew toy" is an industry standard term for referring to mouthy ignorant Creationists who come in with guns blazing - that's you - then end up getting chewed up and spit out by scientifically literate folks - that's us. Too bad, you have to wear it.