Your characterization of the dino fossil is baloney. Ignorant spew. There is no dino meat. There has never been an assertion of dino meat or any problem with traditional dating of dino fossils. You can't read and can't think.
In case you missed it that was your boy Stevie J. Gould debunking Lyellian uniformitarianism in the example.
More ignorant spew. The grand canyon has no feature that supports or is consistent with a global flood. Geologists have known since long before Darwin that the evidence is not consistent with a global flood.
Your dating example is a setup. The material was sent to a laboratory that explicitly states it is not equipped to provide the service requested (specifically because it produces the kind of nonsense results that happened.)
The moderators have forbidden me to characterize your post, so, I'll leave it at that.
Did I say "dino meat"? I said intact soft tissue. That was the discovery wasn't it, or do you simply just want to wish it otherwise?
Indeed, it was the intact soft tissue that caught the world by such a surprise, because your side can't explain its presence. Why, in a 70 MM year old dinosaur intact soft tissue simply shouldn't be there!
Insist on 70 MM years and behave like the ostrich with his head in the sand, but insisting a T.Rex fossil is 70 MM years old -- just because you have always wanted to believe it -- doesn't make it so when the evidence points in completely the opposite direction of your belief system. It's your belief system that must change. The evidence is evidence and the facts are the facts -- and whether you want to believe them or not, they are not going away. Facts can be stubborn things. Such irrational paths as your evolutionary faith leads you down only continues to destroy your credibility.
I said: In case you missed it that was your boy Stevie J. Gould debunking Lyellian uniformitarianism in the example.
You said: More ignorant spew. The grand canyon has no feature that supports or is consistent with a global flood. Geologists have known since long before Darwin that the evidence is not consistent with a global flood.
Why don't you have a good hard look at the Grand Canyon's Kaibab up-warp sometime, and get back to us. spew boy. Or how about the the Tapeats Sandstone layers which are uplifted by a mile, and in one place whose layers bend upward at a 90 degree angle? That's evidence of rapid, catastrophic sedimentation of multiple soft layers, not evidence of lengthy, uniformitarian layering eroded over supposed eons by the Colorado river. As in the Scablands the USGS descriptive narrative signs continue to change: presumed time frames once thought to be unassailable keep being replaced by younger time frames as study of the geologic evidence points in this direction.
Can you name one "geologist" who lived as you assert "long before" Darwin, and specifically as you also carelessly assert, had a studied, geologic opinion either expressed or published about the Grand Canyon before Darwin's time?
Clue to you -- the science of what is commonly known as, Geology, does not pre-date Darwin. In fact, as a field of formal scientific study it is barely 200 years old. Hence, your silly assertion about what "geologists" who predate Darwin had to say about rock formations simply reveals that you don't know your history, or your subject matter, and as one who as much as admits his notion of "science" is divorced from any sense of truth, all you are left with in this discussion is your own willful ignorance.
Your dating example is a setup. The material was sent to a laboratory that explicitly states it is not equipped to provide the service requested (specifically because it produces the kind of nonsense results that happened.)
Yeah right, junior. That's why they are equipped with K-Ar decay detection instrumentation designed to measure just this kind of decay, and why they accepted the assignment in the first place. The blind test put the lie to your stupid dating techniques, and we called you on it. You guys manipulate your data to get the answer you want to have, not an objective answer. Your dating methodology and flawed techniques you use are simply incapable of giving a true, objective, credible measure of anything. Where the study of objectively testable science is concerned your side only invites more intellectual embarrassment to your premise.
The moderators have forbidden me to characterize your post, so, I'll leave it at that.
Oh they did, did they? Why does this also sound about as specious a claim as anything else you've written in this dialog? Readers by now have long since figured out that truthful writing is not likely to be expected from a writer whose scientific sensibilities have been cultivated in an environment devoid of truth, but as you said, you'll just "leave it at that."
I graciously rest my case and accept your surrender.