And.......Evolution is going to drowning fast again. Lol, science is becoming a joke

Well,

According to thousands of scientists they have confirmed proof of the following Era's:
Archeozoic Era (4500-1500 million years ago)
Proterozoic Era (2500 to 542 million years ago)
Paleozoic Era (542 to 151 million years ago)
Mesozoic Era (251 to 65.5 million years ago)
Cenozoic Era (65.5 million years ago to today)

Well, based on my own theory. Scientists made the whole timeline up and the only reason it has been continuing to go on and on through the many fossil research stations is because they were "Going with the flow". People laugh at my theory and take what scientists said as facts. Well, now yet again they are all drowning with their evolution timeline system.

The remains of a Tyrannosaurus was discovered a while back with not just bone marrow preservation.......no. It was discovered with non-decomposed soft tissue. Now every scientist in the world would agree that non-decomposed soft tissue would NEVER be able to preserve for more than 10,000yrs. Well.......they would have agreed to that before the Tyrannosaurus was discovered, but now that they know that it would screw their timeline and really break any credability they have they don't agree.

Hello scientists? Red blood cells do NOT preserve. lol

So this goes to show if you are into science you shouldn't just believe every word that is said by a guy in a white coat.

Dinosaurs extint at 63.2MYA or dinosaurs extinct 63 thousand years ago. Either way its a total guessing game. Funny how scientists added the million to make it seem more interesting all of these years.

Of course since this is true then that means that carbon dating which has been called "Easy Stable proof" is absolutely inacurate in all ways past 1000yrs and totally a waste of Gov't funding.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

And some wonder why I don't stand with science while they are running around just making crap up.

 

what are you suggesting? That we stagnant research and open the bible for answers? So there is room for study, now all of sudden science is a joke? Let me make a similar but fair analogy. I was punched by a black man in high school. Black people are violent. Doesn't make much sense now does it?

I'm interested in your "theory". What is your question? Hypothesis? Can you test it? What do you conclude? From what I draw out of your theory so far is your conclusion. "scientist made the timeline up."

 

It sounds like you're arguing the whole of science is crap based on your assumption. Whether your assumption is right or wrong, you still can't put all science into one category. Even if they have got carbon dating wrong, that has nothing to do with the science that put us on the moon.

 

Or the computer science that connects all of us. Unlike the bible, science is NOT written in stone. It is a self correcting system. Back when flat Earth was the gospel and sickness was explained by demons, science proved it was spherical, and diseases were explained with germ theory.

Science is not bias. If there is evidence to disprove or dismiss carbon dating, it will be considered and entered into peer review. For a long time, people knew of evolution as "survival of the fittest". Now, many scientists better explain evolution as "fitting a niche". That's somewhat related to why were are here(DP) right?

 

It's my understanding that there are very few "confirmed proofs" in science, at least when it comes to things of this nature. They look and report what is the most probable based on what evidence they have. Then they adjust based on new evidence if need be.

Here's an article on the t-rex thing :
http://www.answersincreation.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm

 

Science is unreliable, they have been researching for a very long time and there is no concensus on anything, just random guesses and theories made up to generate some cash.

 

Yeah, well you would say that I guess! If your heads were screwed on correctly you would see that science works on fact whereas religion is all guesswork and lies.

Evolution is the only thing that makes total sense to someone with a brain that thinks logically.

 

Yes, Crappy Koran is totally reliable. Who can after all argue against the fact that a pedophile split the moon in half by pointing a finger at it and then put it back together...

 

You're right--science is unreliable. Kindly walk off the end of a large cliff, since science's prediction that gravity will cause you to injure yourself is clearly unreliable.

 

No, I don't recall mentioning the bible once. Room for study? There are over 800 fossil dating facilities worldwide. There are millions of paleontologists. We are not talking about one persons theory of the timeline of the earth. We are talking about millions who have already "CONCLUDED" the timelines. If it was one person then obviously I would say, well they were wrong, but it was not. It was considered "common knowledge". What this discovery proves it that when it comes to common knowledge for science it does not really mean anything because they could all just be making crap up to keep it interesting.
And BTW, if you ever get punched in the skull by 99.5% of the Black population then it makes perfect sense to conclude that black people are violent. This is an example of what we are talking about.

Well science has been taking many hits. Its ok to look for answers, but when you and a million other people in science CONCLUDE something, then it better be concluded. Ozone layer, Global Warming,,,,,etc. Its all way too funny to take serious.
Landing on the Moon (HAHAHA)?
Another great example of science. I won't bother to get into details about that except this: NASA Destroyed many of the "Moon" rocks found as they were found to be the same as meteorites collected from a crew in Antarctica. Before they got a chance to date them together this happened. (That's science for you. You never know when rocks are going to be destroyed right before a major investigation)
One out of many questionable things about this moon landing business that makes me wonder why everyone just believes everything they stuff in the media.

Technology for products is a whole different situation. But since we're on the topic I did have a great laugh when a secret autopsy was done on a discovered alien and CNN brought a handful of bigshot white overcoat d00ds who all agreed that it "would be stupid to believe that this is a hoax because no one can fake internal organs like that". Then the following year Will Smith watched it happen in Independence day.

Damn, when I was in school they taught all of that common knowledge science stuff and now it doesn't really mean a thing. I was told that the earth is a "crust, outer mantle, inner mentle and a core that is made up of diff. stuff like nickel&Iron." I guess I shouldn't even have gone to school because I was getting information from a random guess by some rich guy

The T-rex was one of the last of the dinosaurs, living in the last five million years of dinosaur existence, from 70-65 million years ago.
You sure? Maybe they were randomly making stuff up. And BTW, not even CLOSE. There are over 200 species which are described and dated at 61MYA which throws a gap of close to 10MILLION YEARS. Nice try.
according to young earth theory, large dinosaurs from 200 million years ago died at the same time T-rex did, during the flood of Noah. Thus, you should expect all large dinosaur bones to be possible sources for soft tissue. However, this is not the case. With this fossil, we have one sample of soft tissue, out of millions of dinosaur bones that have been collected. Thus, this young earth "expectation" is completely unfounded.
I agree, the young earth theory is stupid but why do you call that a theory but as far as dating goes, you call that common knowledge. Does science just promote their theories to graduate them as common knowledge to look good? Onto the topic here. Umm, so basically you are saying that if they all died together than the largest dinosaur would obviously have blood cells in the largest fossil. Funny how you forgot to mention that the larger dinosaurs such as Argentinosaurus were from absolutely diff. regions.....didn't you know that things preserve better in diff. temperatures or have you not graduated into buying a freezer for your home?
The Hell Creek Formation is Late Cretaceous in age, and actually crosses the K/T boundary, the extinction point of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.
Dinosaurs were discovered and concluded to be as young as 61 to 65MYA. Your extinction point is off. Your science friends are wrong.......
The find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a young earth.
Tyrannosaurus. I'm sorry for picking apart the article but The writer & the person who discovered the Tyrannosaurus does not even understand Dinosaur classification. It was not a Tyrannosaurus Rex. There is Tyrannosaurus amplus, Tyrannosaurus bataar, Tyrannosaurus lanpingensis, Tyrannosaurus luanchuanensis, Tyrannosaurus rex, Tyrannosaurus turpanensis. Does the article writer know the difference between them. Obviously not because he's watched Jurassic Park and thinks that A Tyrannosaurus is actually called a T-rex..........

Hey, I don't go that far. They did invent cars, then 50yrs later invented fuel injection and we have been stuck with that for another 40 yrs now.

 

But they will never create something out of nothing, they always take a product and improve it, a bit overrated if you ask me.

 

You want Output without input??? Hmmm...

 

Where did the nuclear fission come from?

 

no idea what that is, but it definitely has not been created out of nothing.

Yes, otherwise your not very impressive at all.

Everyone knows that if you take time and effort to invent something new (by using material that already exists) you can easily do it, it does not mean your some kind of superman, and it certainly does not give you the license to be arrogant and disbelieve in God.

 

Ever wondered why you have a red reputation?

 

Even with this discovery, they cannot dismiss carbon dating until they can replace it with a better system. Assume carbon dating is completely false and unreliable, that still does not disprove evolution. We have witness many forms of macro and micro evolution to CONCLUDE that evolution is fact. For example, alchemy was precursor to chemistry. The main purpose of alchemy was to transmute base metals into gold and to obtain the "philosopher's stone". Gold was thought to be the perfect metal and this property could somehow be transfered to life. They goals of alchemy was abandoned and the study was shifted towards chemistry.


Explain how chemistry came into existence when alchemy was considered "common knowledge"? I'll do it for you. Science is able to adapt, EVOLVE, with new information and discoveries. Mary Schweitzer's discovery only helps science. You are assuming that science is written in stone. It is not.


"A black man". One black person. Not 99.5% of black people. You found one study that conflicts with carbon dating, yet you are concluding 100% of science is "a joke".


I agree that computer science (you conveniently worded it "technology") is different. I did that to make a point. One facet of carbon data is in question and now ALL of science is invalid? If "science is a joke", then all of science is a joke. You can't pick and choose. I mentioned the bible as an attempt to reveal your motive. Surely, you have better research. Again, let's hear your "theory". And yes, in science, there is ALWAYS room for study.

 

Probably because your atheist underground group ganged up to red rep him.

 

I think you have misunderstood the definition of "theory". A theory, in science, is not the same in common English. Theories can NEVER be promoted. Theories are "explanations".

For example, music theory, cell theory, atomic theory, even evolution theory can never be "promoted" because there is no promotion avaiable. They are all explanations.

However, sometimes, we can have theories and laws of the same name. For example, the theory of gravity explains how gravity works. This theory was developed with the evidence of the "law of gravity".

No theory has ever been proven. Not even atomic theory in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even our model of the atom is wrong and we know its wrong, but no other theory can better explain the atom, replacing atomic theory.

Some theories appear to be common knowledge because there is no other competing theories. One example is cell theory. Like all theories, cell theory is subject to the same rules. It can be replaced, changed, or dismissed but it hasn't.

The subject we are talking about, evolution had a competing theory and it was another form of evolution proposed by Gregor Mendel. So far, it has not been replaced.

Solar, the only theory I know of that talks about creating something from nothing is the creation theory which isn't even a real theory. Let me recap. God created the entire universe, ex nihilo.

"no idea what that is, but it definitely has NOT been created out of nothing." - solar

 

Anyone who seeks to understand or talk about science should first read Science as Falsification.

 

Your absolutely right, it's not a theory, its a fact.