[Wow. Just wow. Lie for Jesus Award?]
34 comments
There are human footprints and dinosaur footprints visible near each other on the surface. However, those footprints are on different stratas of rock, which have millions of years of difference between the two. Of course, you would need a Geologist to tell you this, and Fundies don't believe in those - do they.
The half-life of C-14 is 5,730 (give or take 40) years. So C-14 can only be measured accurately up to 60,000 years. You can't radiocarbon date dinosaur bones because the C-14 has degraded so much that it's undetectable. So you have to date dinosaur bones through radioactive isotopes which have a longer half-life. And this is because dinosaur bones are (say it together, kids), millions of years old.
...duh.
Fun fact, human shaped footprtints were found near some dino tracks in the 60s in Glen rose Texashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Valley_State_Park
Not long after other paleontologists found fossils of dinosaurs that would leave humanlike tracks. Someone please tell me why fundies still think this is a real creationist argument?
Must be pretty obviously false if scientists dismiss it at only one glance. I've wondered how you can tell the age of something by how much C-14 is left, mostly by how do you know how much C-14 was in it to begin with. But you know what? I'll listen to the scientists who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do, because they've researched it and I haven't. Dinosaurs are documented in the babble? Likely as well as platypus and house cats are; and I don't recall seeing anything about those in it.
"They have made it clear that any evidence that may prove them wrong is not to be considered by anyone."
Don't judge scientists by your own standards, Believe It.
We don't use carbon, narutard. We use radiometric. Oh wait, you fundies reject that too as some devilish working, huh?
By the way, the dino bones they speak of were originally sent to a lab in Arizona by a creationist group to be carbon-dated. The creationists did not tell the lab what the bones were, but the scientists told them that the specimens were contaminated and contained no original carbon, so that dating them would be meaningless. The creationists told them to test the specimens anyway, and the lab's result was 16,000 years. Of course, this was due to more recent contamination as the scientists had told the creationists earlier, but the creationists reported the false date anyway.
It's not a lie. He's not telling the truth, which is not the same. He would be lying if he WILLINGLY said that, knowing that it's not true(see Robert T. Lee and the infamous and hilarious letter of a purported 13 years old atheist). He's just passing as true something that his pastor, a real ignorant man, has said and who has no clue of science(look at his thesis on C14)
I live just about an hour away from Glen Rose, TX, where the infamous "human tracks and dinosaur tracks beside each other" were found. I've been out there, I've checked it out.
And honestly...how anyone could have mistaken the second set of tracks for human is beyond me. While they do have a vaguely human shape, some, at least, are bisected in to very reptilian toes. Additionally, the "human" would have to have been huge, and although I'm sure some fundies leaped for joy crying out "giants in the earth!" it's really just not that great.
As far as the just totally batshit wrong-ness Believe It!'s post, the evidence was actually *accepted* at first glance, but after review, and the discovery of several different dinosaur species that made those particular types of tracks, have been abandoned by most creationists. That individuals keep referring to them is simply a case of bad information, or a person believing simply what they want to believe about a phenomena dismissed even by most major creationist groups.
More info .
Fundie science: If someone tests a bone and it comes back 6,000 years old, then testing works. If it comes back millions of years old, then testing is a fraud.
Fossilized human footprints beside fossilized dinosaur footprints have been rejected at first glance by scientists already.
Is he talking about the infamous Paluxy "Man Prints"? Even creationists admit they're not human and tell other creationists to stop making them look stupid by using this "evidence".
So to get them tested scientists had to lie and say they were chicken bones or something. When the bones were tested it showed that they dated back to only about 5,000 to 6,000 years.
Source or you're lying through your teeth.
I really hate to do this, since everyone was getting along so well making fun of the Fundies and whatnot, but...
@Jack Bauer: You sir, are a dumbass. You should pick up a Bible sometime, you're almost retarded enough to be on the front page.
OMFG!!! Could it be? A fundie who hasn't even read the bible??? LMAO! (Dinosaurs in the bible? Right... the bible was written by MEN, and MEN had no idea about Dinosaurs when the bible was written, WHICH was not 5-6k years ago... the new testament is under 2,000 years old, and the old testament, not TOO far back from that.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
