Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:21 pm  

whothefeckisalice wrote: These fossils cannot be dated accurately. The original living material, and the material that is used to produce its fossil, are often two different things, and thus the ages of both are different as well. Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil ? According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock." Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur." The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder, entropy. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil? Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, re-mineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of de-fleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." After a so-called dinosaur dies, I would conservatively estimate the chances of its bones becoming buried or underwater within 1 to 2 years of de-fleshing at much less than one in a thousand. "Hype-rsaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone re-mineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom. Fossilization is also discussed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)." More eye-rolling by Ph.D Margaret Helder. See fossilization dating is hopelessly flawed. Turning into rock can be achieved sooner than you think. Not my words Margaret Helder Ph.D. Whitby no thanks. Didn't Stan say that copy and paste answers weren't allowed: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09 ... saurs-scie Note who the publisher was of Margaret's book: Creation Science Association of Alberta. Of which she is/was vice-president. Basically you're quoting a creationist, who's area of expertise is botany. and an associate editor of a Christian magazine. Any quotes from anyone without a vested interest in the subject?

whothefeckisalice wrote: These fossils cannot be dated accurately. The original living material, and the material that is used to produce its fossil, are often two different things, and thus the ages of both are different as well. Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil ? According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock." Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur." The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder, entropy. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil? Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, re-mineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of de-fleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." After a so-called dinosaur dies, I would conservatively estimate the chances of its bones becoming buried or underwater within 1 to 2 years of de-fleshing at much less than one in a thousand. "Hype-rsaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone re-mineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom. Fossilization is also discussed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)." More eye-rolling by Ph.D Margaret Helder. See fossilization dating is hopelessly flawed. Turning into rock can be achieved sooner than you think. Not my words Margaret Helder Ph.D. Whitby no thanks. Didn't Stan say that copy and paste answers weren't allowed: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09 ... saurs-scie Note who the publisher was of Margaret's book: Creation Science Association of Alberta. Of which she is/was vice-president. Basically you're quoting a creationist, who's area of expertise is botany. and an associate editor of a Christian magazine. Any quotes from anyone without a vested interest in the subject?

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:33 pm  

Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:

. Any quotes from anyone without a vested interest in the subject?

Well Attenborough and the elite have got a vested interest haven't they.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:36 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Well Attenborough and the elite have got a vested interest haven't they.

Exactly. Their Darwinian Mythology evilution link.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:40 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Well Attenborough and the elite have got a vested interest haven't they.

A vested interest that creationists/conspiracy theorists have made up.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:59 pm  

Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:

A vested interest that creationists/conspiracy theorists have made up.

1. Fossilization is impossible, if each particle of a body would transform itself from flesh to stone, it would not be able to re-order itself with the other particles to re-form any definite shape
2. Sea shells on mountains are faked by religious freaks, tourist guides, fossil merchants
3. No one ever discovered a dino before the 19th century
4. They were all made with bones from zoos, circus and different kinds of whales, all mixed together
5. Only the museum people found them

Darwin was a writer of fiction, he did not travel himself on the boat called the beagle to get fossils from south American guides, he just wrote very credible fiction of beautiful discoveries that were in fact made by simple and unknown sailors and merchants of fossils that he had interviewed in the London harbours, he was a fossil collector himself and he was selling them all around with the complicity of the British museum in the tradition of the french revolution propagandist science of cuvier, who invented from pure imagination all kinds of monsters to teach evolutionism-humanism, where the human being is proposed as an ideal, a concept, a prototype [like platonism, humanism is trying to put every individual in a frame of unreality]

Darwin was a theologian graduate, he was against the old styled theology where legends are to be believed exactly, and as much as he could not deny the shells on the mountains to be real because he was selling them, he had to explain that Noah's Ark was a legend but nevertheless the big legendary flood did happen all the same

Twenty years after his supposed voyage, he was in the middle of the discussion about evolution, he finally took the good party, that proved to be the more credible, and evident. it was not his own private idea, but he was famous, and he was chosen to support this theory in the press, that he could explain pretty well being a good writer, then the controversy was all faked up by the press, to build up this mediatic creature [Darwin] to take all the space

At the same time in North America, marsh and cope, faked, named and produced the dinosaurs. Utter fabricated masonic garbage and the sheople lap up the Dino pooh. Unbelievable.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:12 pm  

whothefeckisalice wrote:

1. Fossilization is impossible, if each particle of a body would transform itself from flesh to stone, it would not be able to re-order itself with the other particles to re-form any definite shape
2. Sea shells on mountains are faked by religious freaks, tourist guides, fossil merchants
3. No one ever discovered a dino before the 19th century
4. They were all made with bones from zoos, circus and different kinds of whales, all mixed together
5. Only the museum people found them

You surely can't believe that, can you?

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:58 pm  

Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:

You surely can't believe that, can you?

It takes a special kind of 'special' to even type that.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:50 pm  

whothefeckisalice wrote:

1. Fossilization is impossible, if each particle of a body would transform itself from flesh to stone, it would not be able to re-order itself with the other particles to re-form any definite shape
2. Sea shells on mountains are faked by religious freaks, tourist guides, fossil merchants
3. No one ever discovered a dino before the 19th century
4. They were all made with bones from zoos, circus and different kinds of whales, all mixed together
5. Only the museum people found them

In 20 years that is THE most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on the internet. In fact it's so stark staring bonkers barking mad I'm going to print it out and pass it around.

Come on now, honest answer, you're on a wind up.

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:09 pm  

The Galapagos Landings were a hoax! Darwin never went!

Now come on folks, you simply couldn't get this level of comedy anywhere else!

I now realise there ARE no Galapagos islands! The many documentaries I've watched were all in fact filmed in a fake island built in the middle of a fake ocean hidden somewhere in Hollywood! The giant tortoises - some of which you can "see" in zoos around the world - are just animatronics!

How could we all have missed this?

Re: Under new ownership -delusionals corner : Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:14 pm  

The class “Dinosauria” was originally defined by “Sir” Richard Owen of the Royal Society, and Superintendent of the British Museum Natural History Department in 1842. In other words, the existence of dinosaurs was first speculatively hypothesized by a knighted museum-head “coincidentally” in the mid-19th century, during the heyday of evolutionism, before a single dinosaur fossil had ever been found. The Masonic media and mainstream press worldwide got to work hyping stories of these supposed long-lost animals, and then lo and behold, 12 years later in 1854, Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden during his exploration of the upper Missouri River, found “proof” of Owen’s theory! A few unidentified teeth he mailed to leading paleontologist Joseph Leidy, who several years later declared them to be from an ancient extinct “Trachodon,” dinosaur (which beyond ironically means “rough tooth”).

Firstly, it should be needless to say that it is impossible to reconstruct an entire hypothetical ancient animal based on a few teeth! But even more importantly, it is dubious that a myriad of ancient reptile/bird and reptile/mammal transitional forms necessary for the blossoming theory of evolution, would be hypothesized and then conveniently “discovered” by teams of evolutionist archeologists purposely out looking to find such fossils! And it is even more dubious that such fossils have supposedly existed for millions of years but were never found by or known to any civilization in the history of humanity until evolutionism’s Masonic renaissance in the mid-19th century! .

The evolution argument is the easiest of them all. Out of all of the hoaxes and scams that have come to light in wide release so-to-speak in the past ten years, evolution is the one that takes 5 minutes to knock the evolutionists out of the water.

Dinosaurs, unfortunately, are marketed directly to kids at age 1, and as kids most of us fell in love with the fantastic story and the movie-versions, LOL. So it takes a lot more slapping around to get people out of the trance they've been put in. See it's part of our internal wiring where Cognitive Dissonance clouds their reality once they've been programmed. God-zilla another masonic programming name for a reptilian deity. The quickest way to end the evolution conversation is to ask the evolution evangelist or faithful for any proof to support their beliefs. We know all the missing links were faked, so where is your proof that one animal transformed into another.... ? Just recite Occam's Razor, man, and life becomes a lot clearer.

No rush. No need to rush. You have nothing but faith in fantasy stories you've been told.