Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Blitzking

"110 MYO" DINOSAUR'S LAST MEAL IS KNOWN!!

Recommended Posts

A 110 million-year-old armored dinosaur fossil reveals its last meal!

A dinosaur with impressive armored plates across its back became mummified around 110 million years ago after enjoying one last meal before dying!!

 
                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-110-million-year-old-armored-dinosaur-fossil-reveals-its-last-meal/ar-BB14Wgfj?ocid=spartanntp

BB14Woqa.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=
 

BB14Worg.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was NOT one likely to be grazing along the coastline of an ancient sea! So how does he die and get buried in the middle of a sea so quickly that he and his stomach contents are perfectly preserved? And I noted that part of what was in his stomach was charcoal and this would be one of the best items to be tested for radiocarbon. But will they do it? Of course not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I passed this on to Bob Enyart and he was appreciative of it. He keeps a list of soft dinosaur tissue reports and this was one he had not heard of. I will probably be discussing this one with Hugh Miller who does work with carbon dating.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 7:10 AM, indydave said:

He was NOT one likely to be grazing along the coastline of an ancient sea! So how does he die and get buried in the middle of a sea so quickly that he and his stomach contents are perfectly preserved? And I noted that part of what was in his stomach was charcoal and this would be one of the best items to be tested for radiocarbon. But will they do it? Of course not!

Not quite in the middle of a sea, Indy.

Quote

This fossil-rich unit was deposited in the lower shoreface to offshore transition zone, between the fair- and storm-weather wave base

I don't know the particulars of how it was buried quickly. Maybe there was a storm that shifted a lot of sediment, or a slump on a shelf. I know you guys like to make a big noise about the exceedingly rare finds such as this but really you should be wondering why this sort of thing isn't two a penny and rammed with C14 (special pleading aside) since you believe everything was suddenly buried just 4000 odd years ago.

And of course there would be no point in dating the charcoal aside from creationist propaganda purposes if it happened to come up with a "date". There's plenty of charcoal material in certain horizons of sedimentary layers, I've seen lots of it locally where I live. Creationist researchers should try sending these to radiocarbon labs to see if they get consistent dates. What would happen of course is that contamination of 1 or 2% may give a result in some cases but, just like the dinos that Blitz trumpets in every other post as "concordant hard data", the dates would vary wildly within a range of 20,000 years or so, thereby proving that contamination is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wibble said:

I don't know the particulars of how it was buried quickly. Maybe there was a storm that shifted a lot of sediment, or a slump on a shelf. I know you guys like to make a big noise about the exceedingly rare finds such as this but really you should be wondering why this sort of thing isn't two a penny and rammed with C14

Then let's focus on the most salient points in regards to evolution, because the rarity would be to find transitionals, just like this example shows many types of conifer, apparently already, "diverse", meaning conifers have remained conifers AND they were already specialised back then like they are now, which is always the story when we look at the fossil record, because your transitionals are much more rare. 

It can be easy to focus on dating for evolutionists because they BELIEVE that is where their victory lies, but let's face it we never find any evolution and that my friend is the logical checkmate, not your side-salad to do with datings, because even if it was all old I am afraid all this would support is old earth creation because it is a very plain to see, "no evolution here", scenario. :gotcha: 

Quote

Link: This discovery sheds light on definitive evidence of what a large herbivorous dinosaur ate — in this case, a lot of chewed-up fern leaves, some stems and twigs. The details of the plants were so well preserved in the stomach that they could be compared to samples taken from modern plants today

Quote

Link: 26 club mosses and ferns, two flowering plants and 13 conifers

Geez what propaganda we are spreading Wibble, by showing ferns, conifers and flowering plants have remained ferns, conifers and flowering plants. Gee, we would never expect that with creation, with a special creation we would expect to see the macro evolution of these things obviously!:rotfl3:

:rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

Then let's focus on the most salient points in regards to evolution, because the rarity would be to find transitionals, just like this example shows many types of conifer, apparently already, "diverse", meaning conifers have remained conifers AND they were already specialised back then like they are now, which is always the story when we look at the fossil record, because your transitionals are much more rare. 

It can be easy to focus on dating for evolutionists because they BELIEVE that is where their victory lies, but let's face it we never find any evolution and that my friend is the logical checkmate, not your side-salad to do with datings, because even if it was all old I am afraid all this would support is old earth creation because it is a very plain to see, "no evolution here", scenario. :gotcha: 

Geez what propaganda we are spreading Wibble, by showing ferns, conifers and flowering plants have remained ferns, conifers and flowering plants. Gee, we would never expect that with creation, with a special creation we would expect to see the macro evolution of these things obviously!:rotfl3:

:rolleyes:

 

How's this for more so-called 'Spooge' Indydave??

:acigar::acigar::acigar::acigar::acigar:

Dead on Mike The Wiz..

The MAIN point dear Wobbled Wibble, IS that "Look NOTHING Has Changed"!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:
5 hours ago, wibble said:

I don't know the particulars of how it was buried quickly. Maybe there was a storm that shifted a lot of sediment, or a slump on a shelf. I know you guys like to make a big noise about the exceedingly rare finds such as this but really you should be wondering why this sort of thing isn't two a penny and rammed with C14

Then let's focus on the most salient points in regards to evolution, because the rarity would be to find transitionals, just like this example shows many types of conifer, apparently already, "diverse", meaning conifers have remained conifers AND they were already specialised back then like they are now, which is always the story when we look at the fossil record, because your transitionals are much more rare. 

It can be easy to focus on dating for evolutionists because they BELIEVE that is where their victory lies, but let's face it we never find any evolution and that my friend is the logical checkmate, not your side-salad to do with datings, because even if it was all old I am afraid all this would support is old earth creation because it is a very plain to see, "no evolution here", scenario.

I was talking about age because Indy brought it up, so its hardly my side salad.

What do you mean by conifers being "already" diverse ? This dinosaur was from the Cretaceous. Conifers first appear 200 million years before that, in the Carboniferous and subsequently diversified. And of course, bizarrely (for you) flowering plants are completely absent from the record until the early Cretaceous and diversify later.

3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:
Quote

Link: This discovery sheds light on definitive evidence of what a large herbivorous dinosaur ate — in this case, a lot of chewed-up fern leaves, some stems and twigs. The details of the plants were so well preserved in the stomach that they could be compared to samples taken from modern plants today

Quote

Link: 26 club mosses and ferns, two flowering plants and 13 conifers

Geez what propaganda we are spreading Wibble, by showing ferns, conifers and flowering plants have remained ferns, conifers and flowering plants. Gee, we would never expect that with creation, with a special creation we would expect to see the macro evolution of these things obviously!

Ferns, conifers and flowering plants relate to higher level groupings such as Class or higher. So its hardly surprising that we have species belonging to these higher groupings today. But they are not the same species. Its just the same as saying there were mammals in the Cretaceous and there are mammals today but to argue they are the same species would indeed be misleading propaganda. Most of your list you have on a different thread of organisms showing "zero evolution" can be dismissed for the same reason. Jeez, you even had Eukaryotes on there.

If you think of a transitional as a node, and a diversification spreading from this point then logically the transitional will be hard to find but if the subsequent clade  becomes diverse both taxonomically and geographically, then clearly representatives of these will be the dominant find in the fossil record.

3 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

Dead on Mike The Wiz..

The MAIN point dear Wobbled Wibble, IS that "Look NOTHING Has Changed"!!!

Trouble is KB, in my opinion, you only praise the words of your fellow creationists on a superficial basis of what sounds reassuring to you, because you have very little scientific knowledge, whether its evolution or cosmology. To say nothing has changed demonstrates a profound ignorance of the record of life in the rocks, and the successional patterns we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wibble said:

 

Trouble is KB, in my opinion, you only praise the words of your fellow creationists on a superficial basis of what sounds reassuring to you, because you have very little scientific knowledge, whether its evolution or cosmology. To say nothing has changed demonstrates a profound ignorance of the record of life in the rocks, and the successional patterns we see.

Then you have not seen many of my post...

I do not praise anyone here btw..

What i do do is agree or disagree...

You merely are NOT you of the ones i think i have ever agreed with....

Take it on the chin, and handle it, my Wobbled Wibbler....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wibble said:

And of course there would be no point in dating the charcoal aside from creationist propaganda purposes if it happened to come up with a "date".

pardon me for being dense, but on what scientific evidence do you base the above?

what scientific evidence is there that says "there is no god"?

sorry, but ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous, and nonsense isn't evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I went back to read the rules of this list and I was mistaken. There is no rule here against naked amening... so go right ahead with that I guess. I may feel the same sometime and want to say nothing else except I agree. BUT I would hope you would all think carefully about whether it is useful and fair to others to quote an entire long post just to say Amen. You will use your posting more effectively if you give some specific part of the post that you appreciate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Wibble... You have claimed that the reason that you reject radiocarbon dates for dinosaurs is that the amount of collagen is not sufficient. You insist on something like, I forget, perhaps 3% or so. I showed you the calculation I made of 13% for the mosasaur was INDEED following exactly the same steps that are described in a paper on how to calculate the amount of collagen in a fossil sample. And you just blew that off. (I forget the name of the thread.)

So what about THIS example? I am going to do my best to convince the ones curating the fossil to allow the charcoal in the stomach to be radiocarbon dated. It is possible that there might be a source of funds to offer a reward similar to what was offered to Mary Schweitzer. In the case of charcoal there is very little basis to object to the validity of a date. Charcoal is virtually 100% what is the intended target of the dating. So let's suppose that happens and there is a date in the range of 30000 years. Are you going to accept that or are you going to do your normal Wibble wobbling?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, indydave said:

And you just blew that off. (I forget the name of the thread.)

It was "Trackways..." Pg. 16 

"The ‘cleaned’ tubes
were then filled with the gelatinized collagen and centrifuged at
2500 rpm for varying lengths of time, depending on the quality of
the sample (well preserved collagen requires longer centrifugation
times). After each centrifugation the <30 kDa fractions were
removed and retained for isotopic measurement if required (i.e. if
any of the samples failed to yield enough of the >30 kDa fraction).
Eventually only the >30 kDa chains remained, along with any
remaining insoluble residue. Care was taken to pipette out only the
gelatinized collagen, which was placed in a clean test tube. Tubes
containing the >30 kDa fractions were covered with parafilm and
frozen at -
28 C overnight, then freeze dried for 48 h. Upon removal
from the freeze drier the samples were immediately weighed,
transferred to a 1.5 mL micro-tube and collagen yields calculated."

This is exactly the process that was used by Lindgren to arrive at the weight of collagen at the end of their process of measuring the amount of collagen in the mosasaur. It is unfair for you to just disappear for three months and come back, jump into a new thread, and PRETEND that you have given good answers to the points that you were struggling with previously in other threads.

And let's remember that you have CONCEDED that they were indeed measuring the mosasaur because bone boring photosynthetic bacteria do indeed (CONTRARY to your previous STRONG assertions) absorb virtually all of their carbon from the substrate not from the air or water)

SO... Please tell us whether you would ACCEPT a  c14 date that is obtained from the charcoal in the stomach of this Ankylosaur. (Assume that they prepared the sample with the standard of care for elimination of any extraneous sources of carbon.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wibble said:

Not quite in the middle of a sea, Indy.

I don't know the particulars of how it was buried quickly. Maybe there was a storm that shifted a lot of sediment, or a slump on a shelf. I know you guys like to make a big noise about the exceedingly rare finds such as this but really you should be wondering why this sort of thing isn't two a penny and rammed with C14 (special pleading aside) since you believe everything was suddenly buried just 4000 odd years ago.

And of course there would be no point in dating the charcoal aside from creationist propaganda purposes if it happened to come up with a "date". There's plenty of charcoal material in certain horizons of sedimentary layers, I've seen lots of it locally where I live. Creationist researchers should try sending these to radiocarbon labs to see if they get consistent dates. What would happen of course is that contamination of 1 or 2% may give a result in some cases but, just like the dinos that Blitz trumpets in every other post as "concordant hard data", the dates would vary wildly within a range of 20,000 years or so, thereby proving that contamination is involved.

" don't know the particulars of how it was buried quickly"

Well, far and away the most PARSIMONIOUS explanation would be that it was buried quickly in the worldwide flood of Noah that is written about in Genesis and confirmed by overwhelming scientific evidence.. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wibble said:

Not quite in the middle of a sea, Indy.

I don't know the particulars of how it was buried quickly. Maybe there was a storm that shifted a lot of sediment, or a slump on a shelf. I know you guys like to make a big noise about the exceedingly rare finds such as this but really you should be wondering why this sort of thing isn't two a penny and rammed with C14 (special pleading aside) since you believe everything was suddenly buried just 4000 odd years ago.

And of course there would be no point in dating the charcoal aside from creationist propaganda purposes if it happened to come up with a "date". There's plenty of charcoal material in certain horizons of sedimentary layers, I've seen lots of it locally where I live. Creationist researchers should try sending these to radiocarbon labs to see if they get consistent dates. What would happen of course is that contamination of 1 or 2% may give a result in some cases but, just like the dinos that Blitz trumpets in every other post as "concordant hard data", the dates would vary wildly within a range of 20,000 years or so, thereby proving that contamination is involved.

"just like the dinos that Blitz trumpets in every other post as "concordant hard data", the dates would vary wildly within a range of 20,000 years or so, thereby proving that contamination is involved."

NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BUT..

Just for the record, I NEVER say "concordant" Hard Data and ALWAYS say CORROBORATING Hard Data which of course they HAPPEN TO BE.... 

The amount of mental and emotional contortions that Atheists force upon themselves just to try to avoid the obvious truth and try to convince themselves that they are nothing more than a worthless accidental ape that descended from sea sponges for no reason and are related to cockroaches, bananas, jellyfish and elephants is truly staggering... 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

https://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wibble said:

I was talking about age because Indy brought it up, so its hardly my side salad.

What do you mean by conifers being "already" diverse ? This dinosaur was from the Cretaceous. Conifers first appear 200 million years before that, in the Carboniferous and subsequently diversified. And of course, bizarrely (for you) flowering plants are completely absent from the record until the early Cretaceous and diversify later.

Ferns, conifers and flowering plants relate to higher level groupings such as Class or higher. So its hardly surprising that we have species belonging to these higher groupings today. But they are not the same species. Its just the same as saying there were mammals in the Cretaceous and there are mammals today but to argue they are the same species would indeed be misleading propaganda. Most of your list you have on a different thread of organisms showing "zero evolution" can be dismissed for the same reason. Jeez, you even had Eukaryotes on there.

If you think of a transitional as a node, and a diversification spreading from this point then logically the transitional will be hard to find but if the subsequent clade  becomes diverse both taxonomically and geographically, then clearly representatives of these will be the dominant find in the fossil record.

Trouble is KB, in my opinion, you only praise the words of your fellow creationists on a superficial basis of what sounds reassuring to you, because you have very little scientific knowledge, whether its evolution or cosmology. To say nothing has changed demonstrates a profound ignorance of the record of life in the rocks, and the successional patterns we see.

"This dinosaur was from the Cretaceous. Conifers first appear 200 million years before that, in the Carboniferous and subsequently diversified."

This is purely Religious Propaganda derived from many years of indoctrination... There is exactly ZERO scientific evidence to support ANY of this fantasy.... NONE..

Why do you continue to make these wanton and baseless assertions as if educated, intelligent and wise people are just going to nod their head in approval?? Wake Up!!

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wibble said:

And of course there would be no point in dating the charcoal aside from creationist propaganda purposes if it happened to come up with a "date". 

Yeah, step along nothing to see here (if a young or ANY carbon date is obtained)...just some of that "creationist propaganda." Wouldn't want to confuse anybody with FACTS such as these (if a carbon date were obtained). It's much better to sweep facts like this under the rug than to have to actually attempt to explain them.

14 hours ago, wibble said:
On 6/13/2020 at 2:10 AM, indydave said:

 

Not quite in the middle of a sea, Indy.

And on what basis can you say that? My source says 200 km from shore! Not quite SHORELINE, Wibble.

Wiki

Plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs were large marine reptiles, but the anklyosaur was an armoured dinosaur and represents a terrestrial animal that became entombed in the sea floor approximately 200 kilometres (120 mi) from the nearest known paleo-shoreline. Its bloated carcass probably washed out to sea and floated for several days before sinking to the sea floor.[4]

The wiki source (4) is

https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/may/13/dinosaurs-fossils

The rocks producing the fossils were originally deposited as sands and muds on the bottom of a shallow inland sea between 110 and 114 million years ago in a time period formally known as the Early Cretaceous. Based on the known geology and ancient geography of northwestern Canada, the nearest shoreline is estimated to have been about 200km to the west in what is now British Columbia. 

One might think if it was bloated and floating many days, the stomach contents would have become indistinguishable. BTW, from the same location they extracted several plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs. It is as marine as marine gets.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, indydave said:

Yeah, step along nothing to see here (if a young or ANY carbon date is obtained)...just some of that "creationist propaganda." Wouldn't want to confuse anybody with FACTS such as these (if a carbon date were obtained). It's much better to sweep facts like this under the rug than to have to actually attempt to explain them.

And on what basis can you say that? My source says 200 km from shore! Not quite SHORELINE, Wibble.

Wiki

Plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs were large marine reptiles, but the anklyosaur was an armoured dinosaur and represents a terrestrial animal that became entombed in the sea floor approximately 200 kilometres (120 mi) from the nearest known paleo-shoreline. Its bloated carcass probably washed out to sea and floated for several days before sinking to the sea floor.[4]

The wiki source (4) is

https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/may/13/dinosaurs-fossils

The rocks producing the fossils were originally deposited as sands and muds on the bottom of a shallow inland sea between 110 and 114 million years ago in a time period formally known as the Early Cretaceous. Based on the known geology and ancient geography of northwestern Canada, the nearest shoreline is estimated to have been about 200km to the west in what is now British Columbia. 

One might think if it was bloated and floating many days, the stomach contents would have become indistinguishable. BTW, from the same location they extracted several plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs. It is as marine as marine gets.

 

 

OUCH.....  

Speaking of Bob Emyart.. Next time the Wibble's of the world start their "special pleading" about why measurable carbon 14 is found in every single Dinosaur remains ever dated.. Show them this little 8 min gem with "Lil" Bob Horner "explaining" why he must refuse $20,000 just to perform radiometric dating on 5 different Dinosaur Samples checking to see if any of them contain C14..  LOL.. Listen to ol Jacky boy spurt and spew, wriggle and squirm.. It's a CLASSIC!!

 It SHOULD be required listening for every single high school biology student in the land.. But it is too embarrassing to the wannabe Apes so they just ignore it...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

Speaking of Bob Emyart

Yep...already started discussing if Bob may want to try the reward again.  The other possibility is to try to not reveal exactly what kind of testing would be done on the charcoal and see if they will play along.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if if bloats and floats 200 km and then gently sinks to the bottom, why would it NOT get eaten up by marine predators and critters? I guess we're going to have to be given the fairytale that it sank to the bottom and then immediately there was an underwater landslide. Yeah right.

We have marine creatures like a plesiosaur and an ichthyosaur being buried right alongside of terrestrial creatures like a nodosaur. How does that possibly fit with the evolutionary scenario? They should be nowhere near each other!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, indydave said:

Ok, I went back to read the rules of this list and I was mistaken. There is no rule here against naked amening... so go right ahead with that I guess. I may feel the same sometime and want to say nothing else except I agree. BUT I would hope you would all think carefully about whether it is useful and fair to others to quote an entire long post just to say Amen. You will use your posting more effectively if you give some specific part of the post that you appreciate.

Amen.    :)

BTW, with respect to "spooge" and posting links-only, there is Guideline #3:

"Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page. Various snippets from articles are fine, provided it is in the context of the argument you are developing. This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

You merely are NOT you of the ones i think i have ever agreed with....

So you think nothing has changed on life on Earth according to the fossil record ? Good luck with finding a recognizably modern assemblage of fauna and flora throughout then....

I'm sure you don't agree with me with hardly anything on here. But you don't know why from a scientific standpoint, just emotional reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, indydave said:

The rocks producing the fossils were originally deposited as sands and muds on the bottom of a shallow inland sea between 110 and 114 million years ago in a time period formally known as the Early Cretaceous. Based on the known geology and ancient geography of northwestern Canada, the nearest shoreline is estimated to have been about 200km to the west in what is now British Columbia. 

One might think if it was bloated and floating many days, the stomach contents would have become indistinguishable. BTW, from the same location they extracted several plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs. It is as marine as marine gets.

Fair enough, its further out than I interpreted from the geological setting described in the paper. I never said it wasn't fully marine though.

It probably floated out on a river, then currents took it offshore before it sank. I would need to check the description again but from the images I saw when I scanned the paper, just like every other dinosaur ever found, it is not a complete skeleton.

What I'm not getting from you is a response as to why finds such as this are such an extreme rarity (therefore becoming big news) rather than commonplace due to a flood instantaneously burying everything. A flood that is violent (scouring the entire planet to bedrock) or gentle (allowing animals to escape to higher ground or leave nicely preserved tracks in fine mud sediment) according to what scenario the creationist is trying to make sound plausible...

Will get back to you about the charcoal.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, wibble said:

So you think nothing has changed on life on Earth according to the fossil record ? Good luck with finding a recognizably modern assemblage of fauna and flora throughout then....

I'm sure you don't agree with me with hardly anything on here. But you don't know why from a scientific standpoint, just emotional reasons.

:rotfl3:Thanks Wobbled Wibbler, i should have narrowed down my reply for you to grasp... 

I was specifically addressing "THE STOMACH CONTENTS" (JUST AS Mike The Wiz HAD ALREADY MENTIONED AND IT WAS EXACTLY WHAT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WAS ABOUT!!!) when saying "Look NOTHING HAS CHANGED"!!!

 

 

As YOU should well know by NOW my Wobbled Wibbler, is that I do NOT believe MOST ANYTHING that Modern Scientist have to say on MOST EVERYTHING!!

If you have somehow failed to 'Notice' this newly found 'Stunning Detail' in regards, then i simply can not help you anymore..

 

Further more, when EVER you have tried to enter in the discussion regarding Cosmology (Which IS In My Wheelhouse) you were found utterly devoid.....

Same as piasan, both of YOU and anyone else can GO BACK and read that thread to get an actually GRASP of the reality that you and others were left trying to hold up your 'Britches' when even trying to 'Get Into The Convo'...

As i CLEARLY showed that what Einstein proposed and piasan and others have swallowed 'Hook Line And Sinker' was NON SCIENCE!!!

(Most All Cosmological Science) It tis but a purposeful convoluted mind warp GAME brought about by MERE NEVER ENDING EQUATION AFTER NEVER ENDING EQUATION!!!

And AGAIN just for YOUR INFO, Maths do NOT = PROOF!!!

Maths do NOT EQUAL Scientific FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You 'People' should REALLY TRY AND GRASP THIS REALITY!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Pi says, all Bluff, no killur....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"just like the dinos that Blitz trumpets in every other post as "concordant hard data", the dates would vary wildly within a range of 20,000 years or so, thereby proving that contamination is involved."

NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BUT..

Just for the record, I NEVER say "concordant" Hard Data and ALWAYS say CORROBORATING Hard Data which of course they HAPPEN TO BE.... 

Correction accepted on the adjective you use.

Perhaps you can explain for once why the radiocarbon dates on your little list of dino bones vary so much, for example up to 9000 yrs for the same bone. Do you think a possible cause could be differing levels of contamination ? Or not possible ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms