What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
55 Comments
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/16/2009, -5/+15Thank God.
- Beatmiser, on 07/16/2009, -1/+9Pic Related:
http://iansbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/je ... - ApokalypseNow, on 07/17/2009, -0/+7Um, no. There's no circular logic there. Radiometric dating is accurate to within a few percentage points of the applicable age ranges, and is independent of strata. Further, the geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.
Stop criticizing that which you don't understand. - inactive, on 07/17/2009, -3/+10Then they add some "jesus juice" to the bones to decay any radioactive isotopes faster so they seem older with carbon dating. Then, they somehow talk thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of scientists, hobbyists, professors, and students into falsifying claims and keeping their mouth shut.
The millions of independently verified experiments, proofs, and data, are just one big hoax persisted for hundreds of years by any and all Paleontologists, Archeologists, Geologists, Astronomers, etc that ever existed.
Yeah.....sounds about as plausible as an all knowing, all powerful being that created the universe in the blink of an eye, yet, consistency has money problems and likes to involve himself in politics here on earth. Cuz, I mean, after you've created an entire universe 38billion light years accross, you support Sarah Palin for Vice President. Woo hoo! - Eikon89, on 07/16/2009, -0/+6"Paleontologists have made the most important discovery to date ***AT*** the Arlington Archosaur Site."
I suppose the sentence could have been rephrased to avoid this kind of confusion. - Phelyx, on 07/17/2009, -5/+10God testing our faith?
I failed. I choose to believe in the ancient crocodile. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5That's what the radiometric dates say, and they agree with the geological dating and fossil pollen dating.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/16/2009, -4/+9Raises good doubts about those that claim the universe is only 6,000 years old. I suspect it has always existed.
- Mnementh2230, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5"Well, is there falsification of fossil evidence or not? You contradict yourself."
He does not. Piltdown Man was a hoax, yes, but it was peer reviewed and found to be fraudulent. He was never fully accepted by the scientific community. The scientific community thrives on peer review - that which does not live up to every bit of scrutiny is discarded. Piltdown Man not only failed this test - he failed it spectacularly.
"Yes, there is. And the only ones who seem to be falsifying fossil evidence are many of the scientists themselves."
Do you have any evidence of this? Any at all?
No, didn't think so. You're just angry because the physical evidence shatters your precious religion's claims.
" Allow me to critique their findings for myself."
Are you even qualified to do that? Have you had any training on the topic? No, didn't think so. - Disgod, on 07/17/2009, -2/+7.... David it is nice to see that you have no clue about dating techniques. First of all, if you read my post I never said anything about carbon-14 dating, which btw is accurate back ~60,000 years to within a few centuries, not 10,000 years. I said RADIOMETRIC dating which includes at least a dozen different, independent techniques.
"They might be able to tell within 50 million years plus or minus, but that's about it."
It is nice when you creationists show your ignorance out in the open. Radiometric dating techniques are much more precise than that. Most within 1-2% (Specifically, argon-argon dating), which means at 100 million years the error bars are +/- 2 million years at most, and often times even less than that when the samples get younger and younger. The oldest dating techniques of the Earth, the ones going back to the beginning of Earth, have error bars that are ~50,000,000 years, but they're also dating samples which are 4.5 BILLION years old.
"What I'm saying is that any analysis before 10,000 years ago becomes exponentially error-filled as you go back in time."
What you're saying is that you've never bothered to do any sort of research about radiometric dating techniques and are completely and utterly ignorant on the subject.
Oh, and btw, carbon-14 dating is never used on fossils... Why? You might ask, BECAUSE THERE'S NO ***** CARBON IN FOSSILS.
"Ironically, many Christians don't use circular reasoning in their analysis of the Bible and theology in spite of what you might believe."
Really? So Christians don't say that the bible is accurate because it is written by god, and that god is real because the bible says so? Please do explain how that isn't circular reasoning. - Moralogic, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5Where the ***** did all of these dumbasses come from. They invited all of their brainwashed friends onto Digg. It is about time to start a new Digg website where these ***** bags get permanently banned from the site from being too damn stupid.
- Disgod, on 07/17/2009, -2/+7Probably multiple different radiometric testing techniques. Unlike what David above said, scientists don't use circular reasoning (ironically that is exactly what they do with the validity of their bible). They base the age on many different techniques which cross confirm the age of the fossil.
- potatonet, on 07/16/2009, -2/+6I see what you did there... =-)
- Disgod, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4Yeah... you must not understand the young earth creationist mentality, because they really do think that fossils and science is a test of their faith.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/17/2009, -1/+5Another little-known dating technique that is used to help correlate the date ranges from which a fossil could originate - fossilized pollen. Certain plants only lived in certain areas, and only during certain time frames. These plants had pollen with unique shapes, and fossil pollen is abundant, though microscopic. Long story short, finding what mix of fossil pollens exist around a fossil skeleton can help determine not only what age range a fossil itself is from, but also what the climate in that area was like at the time.
- Linake, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4I get slightly disappointed when cool things are discovered but no pictures are provided for the articles. It's disassembled, though, so I suppose the picture wouldn't look like much. Let's hope they can piece it together well! Fossils are so damn cool.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/17/2009, -1/+5@DavidNiven
There you go, blindly criticizing that which you do not understand. There's no falsification of fossil evidence - when there is, such as with cases of Piltdown Man, other scientists call them out on it and denounce them.
Your belief about the age of the earth is about a billion years too young. I know this because of science, which has a track record of reliability, as opposed to mythology, which has a track record of failure. - nepidae, on 07/17/2009, -3/+7"Skull Of Crocodile 6000 Years Old Unearthed"
ftfy - Disgod, on 07/17/2009, -1/+4Yup, it is such an amusing line. I had to use it somewhere.
- Ceru, on 07/16/2009, -3/+6For what?
- Cartman86, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3Stop with the rational and supported evidence!!!!
- Metavised, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3You've never met my mother-in-law.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/17/2009, -1/+4@Disgod
Channeling potholer54 a little tonight? :-) - Cartman86, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3If you have a creationist as head of a school system why would you not question it? Yeah labels are stupid, but there are very specific things you can know about someone based on things they believe.
- Soup4Brains, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews ...
- Kaiern, on 07/16/2009, -4/+5God put that there to test our faith!
/s - Santaferra, on 07/16/2009, -7/+8Same Texas that has a Creationist as head of the School System? Same Texas that has people arguing the Earth is 6000 years old?
I wonder what their textbooks will say about this... - santiago1, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1 I vote for the one that states Jimbo found it!
- IAMRaven, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1OM NOM NOM.
- groo68, on 07/17/2009, -2/+2It's always existed as much as it's only 6000 year old. you forget the big bang and all that.
- denizen42, on 07/17/2009, -1/+1DAMSA DAMSA DAMSA DAMSA DAMSA DAMSA
- PathmarkPolice, on 07/17/2009, -1/+1Looks like an abandoned train yard. Those pics are *****.
- Munk3y, on 07/17/2009, -6/+6Digg needs to allow scripts, so I can auto-bury every Diggtard that argues about the age of the Earth and Fossils each and every possible article they can. Seriously, they're worse than the religious zealots because it's like they wait 24/7 on Digg to point it out to a crowd of people who just don't give a *****.
- bratwurster, on 07/17/2009, -1/+1Which GENIUS dugg this WITHOUT A PICTURE? A dinosaur without picture but just words? Buried.
- potatonet, on 07/16/2009, -3/+3dude... he is totally like, testing our faith man... whoaaaa.... FAR OUT!
- Tippmann5150, on 07/16/2009, -7/+6That's just God putting fossils in the earth to test us. Balls.
- dadavexx, on 07/17/2009, -4/+2There have been a number of interesting finds in the area over the years - BUT
this area (NE Texas-Oklahoma-Arkansas-Louisiana) is the land of Magic - An old Arab god rules the minds of the vast majority of the residents and it appears to get worse year by year. The earth has only been here for several thousand years - how can there be anything that is 100 million years old? Old Arab God knows !
The Idiot Governor of Texas keeps selecting Creationist to head the Department of Education in order to keep the kids from learning science - and reality. The entire area is ruled by these ignorant fools and they will keep getting elected as long as they can prevent education from really occurring.
That is really a big problem that Obama and his education team should be tackling. It will never happen at the state level. - 4AntiStupid, on 07/17/2009, -2/+0You got it exactly. The fossils look like basically nothing unless you know what you're looking at so don't work too well in articles written for general consumption.
- DavidNiven, on 07/17/2009, -6/+4I wonder what sociological and psychological textbooks say about people who assume certain things based on labels...
- Premier, on 07/16/2009, -5/+3Stupid sensationalized article.
" ... the most important discovery to date"
Care to mention why? Is it because crocs weren't known to be around that long ago? Is it because it has new body features we never knew about? Is it because some guy named Jim found it? - Agent08, on 07/16/2009, -5/+2This digg is worthless without pictures!!!
- joculator, on 07/17/2009, -4/+1Hear, hear!
Daily fodder for the anti-religion crowd; cuz you know there's a creationist hiding under every rock. - bengalbandwagon, on 07/17/2009, -4/+1that's just something the Jews buried in 1924
- DavidNiven, on 07/17/2009, -5/+1@AsusMobo
"There's no falsification of fossil evidence - when there is, such as with cases of Piltdown Man, other scientists call them out on it and denounce them."
Well, is there falsification of fossil evidence or not? You contradict yourself.
Yes, there is. And the only ones who seem to be falsifying fossil evidence are many of the scientists themselves. And we're supposed to simply take them at their word? Please. Allow me to critique their findings for myself. - jonvictorino, on 07/17/2009, -7/+3Buried. We all know the earth is only 6,000 years old.
- DavidNiven, on 07/17/2009, -7/+2@AsusMobo
Do you feel better after that diatribe which covered religion, science, politics, and sociology? Geez.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that God didn't deceive us. If anything, human pride and arrogance deceives people via falsification of fossil evidence as well as close-minded conclusions about the Bible.
Also, please don't think that all Christians believe that the planet is 6,000 years old. Because of science AND theology/religion, I believe the earth to be about 3.5 billion years old...BECAUSE of the Bible, not in spite of it. - DavidNiven, on 07/17/2009, -6/+1But, they don't ever have anything absolute on which to base their conclusions. Apart from dating within about 10,000 years ago (carbon-14 dating), there really aren't any accurate objective timelines. All they have is relative time lines (this before that). They might be able to tell within 50 million years plus or minus, but that's about it. What I'm saying is that any analysis before 10,000 years ago becomes exponentially error-filled as you go back in time.
Ironically, many Christians don't use circular reasoning in their analysis of the Bible and theology in spite of what you might believe. - HisDisciple, on 07/16/2009, -6/+0That's a bit of a long time ago, mate. Are you sure anything could have existed back then?
- audreysee, on 07/16/2009, -9/+3How'd they know it's 100 million years old?
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 