University of Georgia and others say dinosaurs THOUSANDS of years old, not millions

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Correction: I don't like it when people make uninformed criticisms of a topic/field they have no understanding of, particularly in the SciTech forum. It's just ignorant.

So, when you say things like:

any credible scientists are only ever looking for evidence according to their education instead of realizing the piece of paper(s) they earned are simply certifications of having gone through the gauntlet of ignorance.

You're being ignorant, and anyone who's on even passing terms with academic research knows this.

The motto of this site is: Deny Ignorance.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Correction: I don't like it when people make uninformed criticisms of a topic/field they have no understanding of, particularly in the SciTech forum. It's just ignorant.

So, when you say things like:

any credible scientists are only ever looking for evidence according to their education instead of realizing the piece of paper(s) they earned are simply certifications of having gone through the gauntlet of ignorance.

You're being ignorant, and anyone who's on even passing terms with academic research knows this.

The motto of this site is: Deny Ignorance.

Ignorance means that you're not looking past what you've been shown. You're working within the same paradigm.

Going from Commodore 64 to smart phone apps is not only not a leap, but Nintendo thought of it in the late 70s.

Ignorance is making people think we're taking leaps when all we are doing is increasing screen resolution.

a reply to: GetHyped

many people on this site do not believe in science, they think it's a government, financial, or an academic sham...I don't...I admire scientists who devote their entire career to one field of study. a friend of mine who happened to be an archeologist said of the "peer review process" as being a nice phrase for saying "you're a dumbass moron and here's why" (my crude interpretation) by others working in the same field. he said after initially getting "hammered" (my phrase, again) about a theory of his, he eventually licked his wounds, and got over it. don't let these ignorant bastards get you down, there are plenty of us out here that would love nothing better than to have a conversation with a scientist to better understand the world around us.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: GetHyped

many people on this site do not believe in science, they think it's a government, financial, or an academic sham...I don't...I admire scientists who devote their entire career to one field of study. a friend of mine who happened to be an archeologist said of the "peer review process" as being a nice phrase for saying "you're a dumbass moron and here's why" (my crude interpretation) by others working in the same field. he said after initially getting "hammered" (my phrase, again) about a theory of his, he eventually licked his wounds, and got over it. don't let these ignorant bastards get you down, there are plenty of us out here that would love nothing better than to have a conversation with a scientist to better understand the world around us.

There's nothing wrong with the peer review process. There's something wrong with some of the peers.

As well, laymen should understand that most scientists are literally the same bag of hammers as roofers.

Or should I say that roofers are just as smart.

Believe me. Scientists #, too.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

Did you buy the article or just read the preface?
This is a no brainer, C-14 is still present in the samples!
And please don't tell me the world is flat also.

So did you read the conclusion? Does it SPECIFICALLY say that it is moving the time frame up on when Dinosaurs existed? I'm guessing it doesn't.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

Did you buy the article or just read the preface?
This is a no brainer, C-14 is still present in the samples!
And please don't tell me the world is flat also.

So did you read the conclusion? Does it SPECIFICALLY say that it is moving the time frame up on when Dinosaurs existed? I'm guessing it doesn't.

They must have some really tough meat to last so long. Maybe I'll start a business preparing tapas out of the tissue since it's practically becoming a natural resource.

#A1aintgoodenoughforthis

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

Did you buy the article or just read the preface?
This is a no brainer, C-14 is still present in the samples!
And please don't tell me the world is flat also.

So did you read the conclusion? Does it SPECIFICALLY say that it is moving the time frame up on when Dinosaurs existed? I'm guessing it doesn't.

They must have some really tough meat to last so long. Maybe I'll start a business preparing tapas out of the tissue since it's practically becoming a natural resource.

#A1aintgoodenoughforthis

Stop making up excuses for what you cannot explain and tell me what the conclusion says.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

Did you buy the article or just read the preface?
This is a no brainer, C-14 is still present in the samples!
And please don't tell me the world is flat also.

So did you read the conclusion? Does it SPECIFICALLY say that it is moving the time frame up on when Dinosaurs existed? I'm guessing it doesn't.

They must have some really tough meat to last so long. Maybe I'll start a business preparing tapas out of the tissue since it's practically becoming a natural resource.

#A1aintgoodenoughforthis

Stop making up excuses for what you cannot explain and tell me what the conclusion says.

The conclusion is "We don't fracking know anything anymore; our mistake was thinking we did."

That'll be $12.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I doubt that is what the conclusion of that article said, but I can say this much. Drastically moving up the time frame that dinosaurs lived JUST because we find soft tissue is NOT scientific in the least. There is still quite a bit of other scientific evidence that points to dinosaurs living millions of years ago that have to be refuted as well.

I will admit that the OP is a better Creationist attempt than most since it is being scientific and even carried out experiments but it still makes some key logical fallacies in its work. The chief one being, assuming that creationism is true and trying to find evidence to fit that narrative.

You cant carbon date non organic material, There are no organic fossils since, by definition they would not be fossils.

Someone has misunderstood something. But its not real geologists


Edit: Oh, and finding fossiled soft material doesnt mean it is still soft or organic! Or any more recent than the rock strata it is found in.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I doubt that is what the conclusion of that article said, but I can say this much. Drastically moving up the time frame that dinosaurs lived JUST because we find soft tissue is NOT scientific in the least. There is still quite a bit of other scientific evidence that points to dinosaurs living millions of years ago that have to be refuted as well.

I will admit that the OP is a better Creationist attempt than most since it is being scientific and even carried out experiments but it still makes some key logical fallacies in its work. The chief one being, assuming that creationism is true and trying to find evidence to fit that narrative.

I was 5 years old when I figured out that Dinosaurs were around people. My dad was teaching me D&D and told me about the dragons and showed them to me. Since I was a dinosaur fanatic who could pronounce words better then than I can now, I knew every dino discovered (at the time). I figured out on my own that ancient civilizations coming up with Dragon myths was directly related to dinosaurs. When my dad told me that humans had only been around for 120,000 years (which is what he said, not necessarily reality), it was easy to put two and two together.

My parents are atheists. I wasn't any form of creationist until I left their bare-bone wings and I figured out life for itself. Even then, I don't ascribe to most creationist doctrine; but I know common sense when I see it.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

So? Nothing you said there was scientific in the least. You don't also believe in unicorns because horses exist do you?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

Did you buy the article or just read the preface?
This is a no brainer, C-14 is still present in the samples!
And please don't tell me the world is flat also.

So did you read the conclusion? Does it SPECIFICALLY say that it is moving the time frame up on when Dinosaurs existed? I'm guessing it doesn't.

They must have some really tough meat to last so long. Maybe I'll start a business preparing tapas out of the tissue since it's practically becoming a natural resource.

#A1aintgoodenoughforthis

Stop making up excuses for what you cannot explain and tell me what the conclusion says.

The conclusion is "We don't fracking know anything anymore; our mistake was thinking we did."

That'll be $12.

You nailed it. Scientists are slightly less ignorant than non scientists on these subjects, but ignorant nonetheless. Like 3 year old bragging about their life experience to 2 year olds. If adults even existed in this scenario, they'd be laughing or smirking at the cuteness of it all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TarzanBeta

So? Nothing you said there was scientific in the least. You don't also believe in unicorns because horses exist do you?

What's wrong with thinking a horse with a horn may have existed? Have you seen the platypus? Or have you seen the blue-assed monkey?

No one would be shocked if they did exist. I'll never understand why the people who flock towards fantasy use creatures of fantasy as an insult. So odd.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Where does that article come to the conclusion that the existence of that soft tissue means that the triceratops lived only 20,000 years ago instead of millions of years ago?

Did you buy the article or just read the preface?
This is a no brainer, C-14 is still present in the samples!
And please don't tell me the world is flat also.

So did you read the conclusion? Does it SPECIFICALLY say that it is moving the time frame up on when Dinosaurs existed? I'm guessing it doesn't.

They must have some really tough meat to last so long. Maybe I'll start a business preparing tapas out of the tissue since it's practically becoming a natural resource.

#A1aintgoodenoughforthis

Stop making up excuses for what you cannot explain and tell me what the conclusion says.

The conclusion is "We don't fracking know anything anymore; our mistake was thinking we did."

That'll be $12.

You nailed it. Scientists are slightly less ignorant than non scientists on these subjects, but ignorant nonetheless. Like 3 year old bragging about their life experience to 2 year olds. If adults even existed in this scenario, they'd be laughing or smirking at the cuteness of it all.

That's actually an excellent analogy. Good one.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

too many things here to address so I'll just address two.

One, your explanation for the dragon mythos origin requires that the mythos already existed. How does that then explain it then? rhetorical question btw.

Two, iron preserving the soft tissue does NOT explain the presence of C-14, unless you think they are also claiming that iron halts the radiologic decay of carbon-14?

Jaden

a reply to: jimmyx

I guess if you can believe that immeasurable change over billions of years can lead from a chemical soup to humans and the diverse life we have, I guess you can deny any evidence that doesn't fit the paradigm that you've been indoctrinated in and makes you feel good.

Jaden

a reply to: AndyMayhew

You obviously didn't read the articles posted. It WAS soft tissue, it was concluded to BE soft tissue, not fossilized soft tissue. There were proteins in the soft tissue, IOW, it was NOT rock.

Jaden

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: GetHyped

many people on this site do not believe in science, they think it's a government, financial, or an academic sham...I don't...I admire scientists who devote their entire career to one field of study. a friend of mine who happened to be an archeologist said of the "peer review process" as being a nice phrase for saying "you're a dumbass moron and here's why" (my crude interpretation) by others working in the same field. he said after initially getting "hammered" (my phrase, again) about a theory of his, he eventually licked his wounds, and got over it. don't let these ignorant bastards get you down, there are plenty of us out here that would love nothing better than to have a conversation with a scientist to better understand the world around us.

There's nothing wrong with the peer review process. There's something wrong with some of the peers.

As well, laymen should understand that most scientists are literally the same bag of hammers as roofers.

Or should I say that roofers are just as smart.

Believe me. Scientists #, too.

that is just what roofers tell themselves when they feel insecure about their work. dont get me wrong, every utensil has its place in the cutlery drawer... but dont send a hammer to do a microscopes job. and dont send a roofer to operate a hadron collider just because they feel insecure about their position in the labor force. or are you telling me that you know every page in the astronauts manual of maintaining an orbital craft? if you needed to engineer a vaccine for a newly discovered virus how would you do it? can you triangulate the position of missile in real time and detonate it midflight with your bag of hammers? what if that missile was in fact an airliner packed with panicked passengers and some very determined terrorists? any laymen who understands that most scientists are "literally the same bag of hammers" doesnt understand what scientists do. roofers are actually pretty decent folks and you should stop using them to illustrate your poorly founded opinions.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: GetHyped

many people on this site do not believe in science, they think it's a government, financial, or an academic sham...I don't...I admire scientists who devote their entire career to one field of study. a friend of mine who happened to be an archeologist said of the "peer review process" as being a nice phrase for saying "you're a dumbass moron and here's why" (my crude interpretation) by others working in the same field. he said after initially getting "hammered" (my phrase, again) about a theory of his, he eventually licked his wounds, and got over it. don't let these ignorant bastards get you down, there are plenty of us out here that would love nothing better than to have a conversation with a scientist to better understand the world around us.

There's nothing wrong with the peer review process. There's something wrong with some of the peers.

As well, laymen should understand that most scientists are literally the same bag of hammers as roofers.

Or should I say that roofers are just as smart.

Believe me. Scientists #, too.

that is just what roofers tell themselves when they feel insecure about their work. dont get me wrong, every utensil has its place in the cutlery drawer... but dont send a hammer to do a microscopes job. and dont send a roofer to operate a hadron collider just because they feel insecure about their position in the labor force. or are you telling me that you know every page in the astronauts manual of maintaining an orbital craft? if you needed to engineer a vaccine for a newly discovered virus how would you do it? can you triangulate the position of missile in real time and detonate it midflight with your bag of hammers? what if that missile was in fact an airliner packed with panicked passengers and some very determined terrorists? any laymen who understands that most scientists are "literally the same bag of hammers" doesnt understand what scientists do. roofers are actually pretty decent folks and you should stop using them to illustrate your poorly founded opinions.

I used to be a roofer. Grant, one of the foremen, was actually a genius. He could lay 10 square of architectural shingles perfectly in an hour on a 9" pitch roof, assuming the felt was tacked properly and assuming the valleys were symmetrical and the flashing was already cut and the boots were set.

My dad is the only scientist I have met that even has the capacity to understand that level of skill.

You, apparently, do not.