Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum

Reuters ^ | 1 hour, 39 minutes ago | Andrea Hopkins

[UpAllNight]

--they are oft repeated coyote becaUSE they are facts which dispute the reliability of carbon dating- --

You have been asked several times to provide support for your claim but fail to do so.

[Generic_Login_1787]

The sloth survived because the tree floated.

IT'S A MIRACLE!

[Psycho_Bunny]

Deities don't guide or set in motion naturalistic processes. You can't have it both ways. Pick a worldview.

You think too small.

Way too small.

 

[Central Scrutiniser]

Well then, you win first prize!

[RebelBanker]

Thanks! I found the same article on a different site doing a Google search on the name. Some of it is a bit beyond me - my Masters is in Business Administration, not Geology or the like - but a lot of it was in terms I can understand from my undergraduate days.

[UpAllNight]

You give them too much credit. It is more like:

Hypothesis: Darwin was wrong.

Experiment: We don't need no stink'n experiment. We researched the internet.

[Coyoteman]

Did the RATE project just consist of reading Genesis?

The RATE project did standard creation "science" in their examination of radiometric dating--in other words, apologetics. They are not high on the waiting list for a Nobel prize.

You can google their work pretty easily. I have read it and find it short on science and long on apologetics.

I could do a rebuttal, but its a waste of time: nobody in science takes their work seriously, and those who do take it seriously don't care what scientists think.

I'm gonna go to bed and read a good book instead.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Show me your research on why carbon dating is wrong.

Real research, not just you saying it, and not some non accredited bible thumper saying it. Real data, from real scientists, using real provable, testable methods.

Come on, it should be simple, otherwise, you wouldn't have said it...

[Central Scrutiniser]

If it were up to the creationist luddites science wouldn't have gotten beyond the 1800's. And boy, Little House on the Prairie sure was a great way of life...

[UpAllNight]

--not some non accredited bible thumper saying it.--

One non accredited bible thumper trumps all of science.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Well, yeah....if you are ignorant.

[fabian]

if you really look into the evolution theory you will see how completely false it is. It was only proposed as a false scientific theory to try and create doubt about God. But it is easily put to shame. How is that prideful to see that? Seems like that is God given insight supported by much scientific facts.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Proof?

Or just ignorant rant?

[Coyoteman]

they are oft repeated coyote becaUSE they are facts which dispute the reliability of carbon dating- if you have a calculator that adds 2 and 2 and gets five- then you can show the error with a fact- same with the radio carbon dating- They throw out readings that don't correspond with their preconceived notions of how old the earth should be- I used to have all this info in notes on my hard-drive- but if you're set on believing selected numbers then you're going to ignore just how prevelent the case is that uncorresponding numbers are thrown out.

I do a lot of radiocarbon dating and I find your comments to be uninformed. You better go find the notes on your hard drive and get back to me.

Unless it is just standard creation "science" from AnswersinGenesis.org or any of those other creationists sites. If so, don't bother. I have checked out their writings and from a scientific viewpoint they are nonsense.

So far I have posted some good links to comprehensive articles on radiocarbon and radiometric dating, and you have just posted your personal disbelief.

If you can bring up any specific problems with radiocarbon dating let me know and perhaps I can help you understand them. But please avoid those creationist websites; they are simply not telling you the truth.

[art_rocks]

Whats your definition of a fact?

[UpAllNight]

--if you really look into the evolution theory you will see how completely false it is.--

Please cite your research.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Do you DARE doubt such creationist leaders as Dr. Dino Kent Hovind? He got his degree from a real school.

[UpAllNight]

--please avoid those creationist websites; they are simply not telling you the truth.--

Aren't they the word of God?

[fabian]

you should really look deeper into the facts of creationism and the holes in toe with an open mind. I think you would enjoy true science alot more than bad science. It is so much more fascinating to look at the complex dna code which is responsible for more involved actions than a computer code and see that it must have been created by a super intelligence than to just write it off as a natural process. It's just the darkside of people that causes them to think that.

[UpAllNight]

You are mixed up. If science proclaimed that something was the result of the supernatural, it would not be science, it would be RELIGION.