1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    13 Jan '14 01:421 edit
    YouTube

    So far, the oldest monuments on Earth, Some folk thinks it tells the story of a major flood and the dating would put it thousands of years before the biblical flood which makes sense since this time was at the end of the last major ice age and floods happened all around Earth, like the making of the Great Lakes in the US and Canada and the floods that caused the Oglala aquifer in the midwest of the US, there were lakes back 12,000 years ago up north in Canada from the ice age floods that were far larger than the Great Lakes but they basically dried up and the water went underground to the midwest of the US.

    This kind of flooding was real but not world wide like the bible tale.
  2. Joined
    28 Dec '11
    Moves
    16268
    13 Jan '14 02:071 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0ViMVxKZA

    So far, the oldest monuments on Earth, Some folk thinks it tells the story of a major flood and the dating would put it thousands of years before the biblical flood which makes sense since this time was at the end of the last major ice age and floods happened all around Earth, like the making of the Great Lakes ...[text shortened]... the midwest of the US.

    This kind of flooding was real but not world wide like the bible tale.
    did you hear about the blood found in the 60 million year old dinosaur? "Oh but wait if its sixty million years old finding blood would be impossible. so why should i trust your 12000yo calculations?
  3. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    13 Jan '14 03:35
    Originally posted by tim88
    did you hear about the blood found in the 60 million year old dinosaur? "Oh but wait if its sixty million years old finding blood would be impossible. so why should i trust your 12000yo calculations?
    There were no dinosaurs 60 million years ago.
    And I didn't hear.
  4. Joined
    28 Dec '11
    Moves
    16268
    13 Jan '14 03:49
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    There were no dinosaurs 60 million years ago.
    And I didn't hear.
    YouTube
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    13 Jan '14 04:001 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0ViMVxKZA

    So far, the oldest monuments on Earth, Some folk thinks it tells the story of a major flood and the dating would put it thousands of years before the biblical flood which makes sense since this time was at the end of the last major ice age and floods happened all around Earth, like the making of the Great Lakes ...[text shortened]... the midwest of the US.

    This kind of flooding was real but not world wide like the bible tale.
    Apparently they don't know that carbon dating does not work on stone. For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. However, I did notice it did have some carvings that looked like they could have been dinosaurs, but there is still a controversy about when the dinosaurs lived. It cetainly can't be the exaggerated date of 12,000 years old. These people are always trying to claim they found something older than the next guy. However, I am not that gullible to fall for every claim and you shouldn't be either.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    13 Jan '14 04:27
    Originally posted by tim88
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji2cvuJ1mYg
    Perhaps the Holy spirit had something to do with this accident to uncover tissue and DNA of the supposed 65 million year old T-Rex.

    For it is written:

    Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

    (Romans 1:22 Revised Standard Version RSV)
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    13 Jan '14 14:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Apparently they don't know that carbon dating does not work on stone. For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. However, I did notice it did have some carvings that looked like they could have been dinosaurs, but there is still a controversy about when the dinosaurs lived. It cetainly can't be the ex ...[text shortened]... next guy. However, I am not that gullible to fall for every claim and you shouldn't be either.
    If your statement was based on true scientific curiosity that would be one thing. Your real MO is just your belief in creationism and the 6000 year old Earth. So don't try to pull the science card with me, your MO is clear.

    Carbon dating is not the only way to date material and you know it but you have to keep up your creationist front because your cognitive dissonance refuses to accept any real scientific evidence otherwise.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    13 Jan '14 16:24
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    If your statement was based on true scientific curiosity that would be one thing. Your real MO is just your belief in creationism and the 6000 year old Earth. So don't try to pull the science card with me, your MO is clear.

    Carbon dating is not the only way to date material and you know it but you have to keep up your creationist front because your cognitive dissonance refuses to accept any real scientific evidence otherwise.
    But the woman on the video said they used carbon dating.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    14 Jan '14 11:19
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    But the woman on the video said they used carbon dating.
    YouTube

    This is a National Geographic video, more detailed and one of the things they showed was there were animal bones in there. The German scientist is Klaus Schmidt and I emailed him with that question.

    I know there is another technique that compliments carbon dating, called
    photoluminescent dating, which can show when a rock was buried.

    So there were probably several techniques used.

    Also, this video shows ground penetrating radar of the surrounding area shows buried monuments even older than the ones shown by the digs, perhaps 15,000 years old, way before agriculture or clay pots.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    14 Jan '14 23:511 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JfbV21weQE

    This is a National Geographic video, more detailed and one of the things they showed was there were animal bones in there. The German scientist is Klaus Schmidt and I emailed him with that question.

    I know there is another technique that compliments carbon dating, called
    photoluminescent dating, which can sh ...[text shortened]... than the ones shown by the digs, perhaps 15,000 years old, way before agriculture or clay pots.
    The declaration of the age is not science. It is science so-called.

    Why radiometric dating doesn't work. It is theory, not fact.

    YouTube

    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Jan '14 00:10
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The declaration of the age is not science. It is science so-called.

    Why radiometric dating doesn't work. It is theory, not fact.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo

    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
    And of course you base your judgement on solid scientific research. Show me the refutation, o maven of time.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    15 Jan '14 00:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And of course you base your judgement on solid scientific research. Show me the refutation, o maven of time.
    There is no science on age guessing for millions and billions of years. It is only a carnival trick.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Jan '14 00:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is no science on age guessing for millions and billions of years. It is only a carnival trick.
    Er, did you perhaps notice the title to this op? 12,000 years not 12 billion years. Photoluminescence and carbon dating are for the same time frame, less than 100,000 years.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    15 Jan '14 01:01
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Er, did you perhaps notice the title to this op? 12,000 years not 12 billion years. Photoluminescence and carbon dating are for the same time frame, less than 100,000 years.
    Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable

    YouTube

    Carbon Dating...100% accurate right?...NOT!

    YouTube

    Carbon Dating Flaws

    YouTube
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Jan '14 01:261 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzvrkNspcj0

    Carbon Dating...100% accurate right?...NOT!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmjzE9wHBUU

    Carbon Dating Flaws

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig
    Opinion pieces. Show me the peer reviewed papers. Otherwise you get no street cred putting up this street crud.

    I actually have the original paper that shows the work to date the artifacts at Gobekli. I have to figure out how to get it from PDF to word so I can post it here.
Back to Top