My ancestors :)

They disclosed the type of material, just not it's location of origin or its date. If you have to have a presumed date in order to find out which test to use that will give you an answer close to your assumption, otherwise you end up with an answer far removed from the estimate, then that method is as scientific as a rain dance. In the case of the Mt. St. Helen's test, they were told the samples origins, and they still came up with a date of millions of years.

Potassium - Argon, it was tested at the Geocron laboratory in Cambridge.

I know, but it puts a kink in the method and raises cause for doubt. The fact any argon-40 had appeared in the sample at all shows that samples can be formed with the presence of argon gas, which means all samples previously examined needs to be re-examined in that context. And add to that the tests at Mt Ngauruhoe, and the Grand Canyon test. There was a volcano in the north rim whose flow spilled over and down into the canyon. And when they ran radiometric dating tests on the flow, it showed older dates than had occurred in the bottom sedimentary layers at the bottom.
It is an unreliable, and completely UNPROVEN method of dating that must rely and a large number of assumptions.

No, this was in the Grand Canyon. A lava flow spilling down into the canyon dated older than the sediments in the bottom.

Steven A. Austin, PH.D., "Excessively Old 'Ages' For Grand Canyon Lava Flows"

That claim is incorrect. It was made by Talk Origins in an attempt to discredit the findings, however it has been refuted by Austin and he has provided proof that the samples taken were homogenous. And sort of. It does make mention that some of the samples were dating much older than anticipated. Showing the methodology encounters enough hiccups to be worth mentioning.

The tests themselves. The agreement between the Rs-Br isochron show that the isochron is not a result of non-cogenetic samples, they're too similar. The results would've varied to a far greater degree if he had sourced the samples from different locations.

I know you shouldn't feed soijak posters but honestly this was so stupid you deserve your free (You).

Of course anon! Just like you should always believe a book made by two delirious morons lost in a desert 🙂

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/11/5/1305/132253/A-new-model-for-Quaternary-lava-dams-in-Grand
Here's another more recent report. Even here, they keep finding anomalies and inconsistency with the radiometric dates.

That's not the conclusion I came to with that report, no...

If scientist find a cluster of molecules which deteriorate to undetectability at about 100,000 years, then it is rational to conclude that the object is younger than that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html also at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
J. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” ch. 8 in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II, by L. Vardiman et al (Institute for Creation Research, 2005),
J. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, and S.A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young-Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 127-142. (Everything in [1] except the diamond data is contained in this earlier paper.)
>And bear in mind that discarding the evidence merely because of the source also allots me to be able to discard any source shown based on the authors beliefs and biases as well.

I'm not sure how you got that out of those links unless you didn't read the whole reports, but whatever. Have another.
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf

I'm aware. Hence why find carbon 14 in diamonds, as well as dinosaur fossils is so significant.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

>A gatrazillion! Those paintings are horses!

Yep very heavily altered photograph
Paper: https://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/index.html
Summary: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-the-dinosaurs-of-kachina-bridge-96018102/

Besides the logical invalidity (did we walk among dinosaurs because we have drawings of them?) they also fabricate evidence. If these wackos had a leg to stand on, the vatican, which is the only church on earth that has authority rooted in directly in its own scripture, would have been all over but they're interested in converting people so they can't tell too many lies. Especially not ones that are easily proven wrong.

The creationist like the flat earther can not survive if someone understands why their claims are wrong.

>no credible refutation
Paper: https://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/index.html
Summary: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-the-dinosaurs-of-kachina-bridge-96018102/
>source: random wackjob website, data misrepresentation and fabrication
>only appears on politically sympathetic pages
Holy replication crisis. In other news, god isn't real and you're half pig. Source: random wackjob website.
https://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

Why isn't the vatican, the only church given authority by god according the only religion to support young earth creationism, all over this dinosaur drawing thing?

And even if it were real, isn't this drawing proof we're hanging out with deinonychus right now? All we did was find some funny bones while digging around for building materials.

the moronic schizophrenic you call christ died begging for his mother and shit himself in front of a crowd following a roman spear doing a little pokey pokey just thought I’d put that out there
your entire religion since then has been in cope mode

so much for divinity

>please argue against my disinfo website
t. flat earther
Don’t talk to me you weird pig human hybrid

What is the average rate of evolution?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution
Read

>Radiometric dating has also been proven to be inaccurate.
It hasn't proven to be billions of years inaccurate lmfao

Sorry your specific middle eastern death cult is as invalid as its predecessors and successors all claim

Even your own church who claims might and right, the ONLY valid christian church, has rejected young earth creationism

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html also at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
J. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” ch. 8 in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II, by L. Vardiman et al (Institute for Creation Research, 2005),
J. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, and S.A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young-Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 127-142. (Everything in [1] except the diamond data is contained in this earlier paper.)
>And bear in mind that discarding the evidence merely because of the source also allots me to be able to discard any source shown based on the authors beliefs and biases as well.

>And bear in mind that discarding the evidence merely because of the source also allots me to be able to discard any source shown based on the authors beliefs and biases as well.
Actually your source is discarded due to the lack of reproduction

Samples of the Acasta Gneiss rock have been dated on the record multiple times using multiple methods. All confirmed it was at least 4 billion years old. The variation was within 0.5 billion years, impressive for something so old. All you have is one schizos pro-HERESY (yes, heresy, you refute a position your only actual church considers valid) .org website.

The only debate about the gneiss rock? Whether the rock itself is that old or if it's just composed from the remains of an even older rock.

Which techniques did they use? Different elements are used to establish an age range of the rocks tested. You'll get different results depending on how much the element has decayed over time. Carbon-14 is used to make more accurate measurements of more recent things while others such as potassium-argon is used to measure extremely old things.
Using carbon to measure something that's millions of years old is like trying to measure the empire state building with a 12-inch ruler while being locked in a cage. Using potassium to measure something recent is like using a meter stick to measure a microbe.

>If you're finding carbon 14 while dating rock samples pulled up in strata with dinosaurs in it, (which they do), then it means things are younger than assumed.
Do you have any examples of these? Carbon can be found in fossils due to contamination (or if it wasn't even a dinosaur bone in the first place). That was the case for some of the examples that I am familiar with, where the shellac used to cover fossils ended up contaminating them.
>But in the study I mentioned, they used nitrogen dating, uranium dating, and argon dating as well.
Can you post the study about this?

Do you have anything peer reviewed outside of a community of literal heretics who conflict with the only church that is valid according to its own scriptures

If you really want to find it, you can. I'm headed out though, so good luck.

Prove it.

*temperature fluctuation

Right. So I'm to believe that fish crawled out of the ocean, turned into land mammals, and then turned into marine mammals, and this beast lost it's hip bones before its feet? All the while things like coelocanths, army ants, dragonflies, nautilus, remain unchanged longer than the span it took for these animals to evolve? I just don't buy it.

>It's just a theory
Your entire religion is not just a theory, it is blatantly made up, by a church saying what is and isn't holy only to fit their agenda. Essentially "covid science" operated like christianity, for something you probably already understand. Therefore every single claim you have made regarding creationism rests on a foundation of dust and air and is invalid from the start because truth can not be sourced from lies except by elimination.

I'll take "just a theory" of a likely preservation mechanism over your caveman superstition bullshit. Dinosaurs had extremely iron rich blood and the interiors of their bones were bathed in it. A rapid burial would give their blood enough time to preserve a small amount of soft tissue. Later disruption would not reverse the preservation, because the proteins would already be "cooked". To reverse it would be to turn scrambled eggs back into runny whites.

If it were a handful of inconsistencies I'd be more willing to believe. But there's so many. Bear footprints found in strata dated to the Permian period. Ink sacks from squid dated to "150,000,000" years ago, where they were able to rehydrate the ink which is mostly made of amino acids. Flexible skin discovered from Ichthyosaurs which supposedly lived in the jurassic period. Too many preserved samples of things which should have been long decayed.

I was just summarizing, not sure why you believe adding more steps makes it more probable, but ok. I'm also not sure what your next point means either, does something have to fill that niche? Doesn't that mean roles are preprescribed? And it doesn't really add up that half formed appendages mid transition would be used in a necessary function for survival. That's like if the animals to first develop eyes would be disadvantaged if those half formed eyes were damaged. And yeah, these bastards are so fit and well adjusted that no change is needed. Lol. Lmao.

Oh buddy. As a biologist, if you think the evolution of the eye is well understood then you're the moron in this conversation.

You horrendously misunderstand life if you think half formed eyes would matter that much

If animals started being born with half formed eyes, but the new disabling feature was a protective layer and they were constantly being bashed around, they might frick more often because a fish doesn't need great visual acuity anyways

>All the while things like coelocanths, army ants, dragonflies, nautilus, remain unchanged longer than the span it took for these animals to evolve? I just don't buy it.
They aren’t unchanged, they just didn’t change as much. The coelacanths and dragonflies around today are not the same species as the ones that were present back then, they just have the same general body plan. That’s also ignoring how groups like coelacanths used to be far more diverse in niche, size and shape

its also the justification for the holy roman church existing and much of european christianity
>i killed everyone else who wanted to be chief so god is on my side and he is real ok
prior to that it was one of many judaism-based cults. it just so happened to be the one some fricko who drank wine out of a cup of lead had a delirious fantasy about.

I do believe that ideas are subject to natural selection, and as the population grows and humanity progresses, selective pressures change. As competitors make contact, pressures change. Different things will die, even those though strong, things formerly thought crippled will do better, it is the standard process.

Note that the most successful and powerful nation on earth is atheist by majority, vaguely spiritual at the most, and follows an entirely pragmatic form of morality. The least powerful and most impoverished nations on earth are strongly religious and only succeed when they strike gold with natural resources. Their wealth dwindles with their resource reserves. All they are good at is frantically fricking and then having 8 starving kids.

Unfortunately for them, the atheist nation has more resources, and there seems to be some universal ill will to the common natural resource of the religious nations (oil): using it destroys the planet. If there is a god on their side he must be the one below who they say deceives them. Or perhaps they are just moronic. The resources atheists have struck have a better prognosis.

>everyone has to be rich because...it looks better to me!
Having a massive underclass is useful because they function as cheap and obedient labor. Especially if you are a homogenous nation, because then the underclass isn't inherently different, just unlucky and uncultured, so they can be drawn on as a source of future members of the upper class, and their numbers make the odds of producing ultra high quality individuals higher.

This is, coincidentally, how evolution works. A massive population subject to some pressures if they leave their little valley will have a greater chance of producing some mutants that leave for the mountains and some other mutants that go to live in the caves. More individuals = more mutations, and more cause to leave the group to find new resources and environments that make a mutation beneficial or simply less bad.

There are whole lists of this stuff.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0

>Evolution should be able to be done by breeding.
It is to an extent. You have dogs that look like Guinea pigs now.
>Changing environments merely selects for genetic sequences which already exist dormant in the organism.
They don't have to be dormant at all. Overt traits are also selected for or against.
New genetic expressions are caused by mutations. This relies on changes at the molecular level. Forcing mutations can't be done with breeding alone and require something like CRISPR to do. Even then, an in depth knowledge of the genes are required to understand how they are expressed in relation to certain changes.
>when two people with down syndrome have healthy kids
They don't exclusively have healthy kids. There is a chance that they might. Down syndrome is a disorder that duplicates an entire chromosome. There are several genes involved with that and mutations can still affect them differently. For instance, the majority of male downies are infertile but a few are not. There are other sorts of variations like that as well. The return to mean among those with down syndrome involves selection against that sort of phenotype because of how it impedes the species' reproductive capabilities.

So, what exactly are you arguing for?

Which ones were ignored?

>it's hard to say if you're the same anon I was replying to five posts ago or not, so maybe you didn't if you only saw one post.
Well, there have been over 30 posters in this thread. That said, it is my mistake for not reading the older posts. I'll try to argue against the stuff you posted here.
>carbon-14 in diamonds and dinosaur fossils
I don't know about diamonds but carbon-14 in fossils is caused by contamination from other sources like the plasters they use to cover them. The fossils themselves are made of minerals that replaced the carbon and don't have carbon unless they are young fossils to begin with.
>soft dinosaur tissue and genetic material being found in fossil samples that were broken and exposed to the elements
That isn't actual soft tissue but rock that has taken the shape of it through fossilization. It's a rare occurrence but it happens sometimes. That's also how bugs can also preserve.
The genetic material isn't intact DNA but possibly chemical traces that managed to be preserved (which itself is divisive among scientists).
>issues with the dating methods
Many dating methods are used with several samples to refine the results. I don't think scientists stick to a specific type over all others. Mistakes are caused by not following procedures properly or contamination. Both of those happen so refining is important.
>fraudulent evidence being used to promote the theory despite it being exposed
Some fraudulent evidence does not refute the whole theory. At times you have someone claiming they found a "missing link" for fame or controversy. The scientists that study evolution still understand these are hoaxes. The conflict here isn't about evolution overall but how it affects certain groups of animals (eg. Did dinosaur family X come from dinosaur family Y or Z). Refuting a small hypothesis doesn't refute the theory as a whole.

>there's a fair amount of evidence against evolutionary theory, from carbon-14 in diamonds and dinosaur fossils, soft dinosaur tissue and genetic material being found in fossil samples that were broken and exposed to the elements, issues with the dating methods, fraudulent evidence being used to promote the theory despite it being exposed, etc. etc.
This has nothing to do with evolution. Creationists seem to be unable to distinguish between evolution, abiogenesis and old vs young earth

>dinosaurs = evolution
Uh huh
>unless you have hundreds of millions of years for it to be accomplished.
Your tests you cite that don’t line up with previous tests and are subject to human error don’t suddenly discount all the other evidence of an old earth. Ever heard of continental drift? How about the formation and erosion of islands? That takes more than a few thousand years