Things like this never comes from random places far from the source of evolution theory itself.

Science is another trinitarian religion.

God the Science
God the Chance
God the Evolution.

If Chance created life and could repeat itself in like forms at different places, separated by space and time, it fails to be a chance,.

To insist it's a chance is a religious dogma, and it's the doctrine of the evolutionists.

Pelecius:

Well, the reason I go with the relative dating is that it is easier and handy since the age assigned to geologic column is fixed instead of the expensive radiometric dating of the rock in which they are found. Now I don't mean that the rocks are not dated but it is a common experience among geologists that age according to local geology is mostly different to that gotten from radiometric dating. And this is because of the different issues which radiometric dating have, hence such dates are easily discarded.

Like I agreed, knowing decay rate and number of daughter atoms present, one can calculate the 'age' when a rock cooled but the reason why such ages are not taken serious by some (young earthers mostly) is that: different dating methods give different rates, the assumptions as stated before and the worst case is that rocks whose ages are known gave millions of years when dated. And as I stated before, there are other geochemical activities that shows decay rates may either be accelerated in the past or even point to lesser age but this is like challenging the ruling paradigm - such works don't eventually get published though other scientist write their form of rebuttals.
This is why I may not take the statement "radiometric dating is the closest thing to perfection" as 'perfect'.
For the last statement, the scientific community have a consensus and dissenters are persecuted severely (Galileo is a good example), so it may take a 'miracle' for them to accept a very good evidence that goes against the ruling paradigm as concrete. But what do I know sef

Don't be misinformed the church being in the affairs of government back then persecuted Galileo galililee , it years later when the power of the church reduced and people became more enlighten before sir Isaac newton was able to put to them fact not illusion

Macsjebs:


Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9063029/Worlds-earliest-python-identified-fossil-remains-unearthed-German-quarry.html

i knew na the perfume guy

...

Bahamas95:
Honestly I am confused.






How old is this earth sef?

Do you want the Bible approximation, or the geological approximation?

47 million years no too small?


Una fada!

I am still asking: WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE GUYS REALLY LOOKING FOR?

pegix:

Maybe ur village Christians bro .../jokin/
Im a christian i knw snake is snake
Hence today's pyton must look like yesterday's (provided evolution remains unchanged)

D serpent we talkd abt in d bible isnt LITERALLY "snake"
Serpent is d bible word to define satan or it's presence or some possessive demons. ..okay!

lmao, for ur mind u have made sense abi? you obviously don't know your bible, pls go back and read it well before u respond to me

etrange:


Were you an art student? No offense really but while some dating techniques might be questionable, the question "who did the maths?" suggests you don't even know about the existence of these techniques. To answer your question, modern science uses radiometric dating techniques and this involves measuring the decay of isotopes in the fossil. It's called absolute dating cause isotopes break down at a constant rate over time through radioactive decay. Since rate is constant, the ratio of the amount of original isotope (parent) to the amount of the new isotope (child) can be used to calculate the 'absolute' age of the fossil.

These fossils can also be dated using relative dating techniques (not sure anyone does that these days) and carbon dating (generally not suitable for dating fossils).

Even art student get sense small

Grandmeister:

Nawao! See how you made a false comment with so much assurance. Carbon dating isn’t even close to being accurate by a loooongg shot. Anything older than 15,000 years can’t be accurately dated by carbon dating.

I think that is the snake cause the fall of man in the garden of Eden.

tollyboy5:

Don't be misinformed the church being in the affairs of government back then persecuted Galileo galililee , it years later when the power of the church reduced and people became more enlighten before sir Isaac newton was able to put to them fact not illusion

You obviously don't know the whole affair. The church was following the best of science of that time - Ptolemic geocentricity and Galileo was like a dissenter. It's worse because his novel idea was not well established scientifically as that of the ruling model, so 'big brains' then got the backing of the church to silence him.

Anyway, it was Keppler who made the best case for Heliocentricity and not Newton (though both of them were great Christians not as the media would want many to know now)

KBdownloads:


lmao, for ur mind u have made sense abi? you obviously don't know your bible, pls go back and read it well before u respond to me

I wonder why anyone would think that the fossil found should have legs. He correctly address the point that the 'SERPENT' mentioned is the DEVIL. This was explained further in Revelation 12:9 which says "...that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world..."

Europeans with abracadabra, this time they tried using 47million and not 47billion years.

Grandmeister:

Nawao! See how you made a false comment with so much assurance. Carbon dating isn’t even close to being accurate by a loooongg shot. Anything older than 15,000 years can’t be accurately dated by carbon dating.

I tire o
I felt by now, folks won't be screaming carbon dating when hundreds of thousands of years are mentioned not to talk of millions. So many 'science guys' on NL who want to make fun of religious folks, yet they shoot themselves most time

You watch Sci-Fi movies a lot. Lols

vickydankal:
Mysteries abound in this world maybe just maybe we will have a technology to officially go to the past and find out hidden keys about this life we live.

They will just mention years like say Na pure water.

ehinmowo:


See just leave religion and science. because your own logic is even flawed. Is there anything you know in religion that you were not told?

That's my point, creationism was taught, same with the theories. I suppose you assume I'm defending religion which is not the case here. Cause I don't think towards the theories doesn't make me alt religious.

emeijeh:
Who calculated the maths?

Even, how was it calculate?

kingxsamz:


Lol...
This one makes more sense.
And is definitely not stupid.

I'm not a Christian, neither was I trying to defend Christianity. My point is atheist ain't any more smarter than the average person who believes in a god/God.

GidiCars:


I'm not a Christian, neither was I trying to defend Christianity. My point is atheist ain't any more smarter than the average person who believes in a god/God.

Point out the atheist who said, "I'm smart, and everyone else is dumb".
If you were even smart in the first place, you'd realize that this thread, topic, and claims you made in your previous post has nothing to do with Atheism. Linking science with atheism just proves you don't know what atheism is, because the research about fossils in this post could have been done by scientists who are theists. But go off lol.

kingxsamz:

Point out the atheist who said, "I'm smart, and everyone else is dumb".
If you were even smart in the first place, you'd realize that this thread, topic, and claims you made in your previous post has nothing to do with Atheism. Linking science with atheism just proves you don't know what atheism is, because the research about fossils in this post could have been done by scientists who are theists. But go off lol.

Let's start from this thread and see how your fellows are demeaning others who disagree with them, saying how they're backward, this and that, how they're stupid and stuff etc. Of course, most people who hold on to these thoughts are mostly atheist, creationist have a different idea of how the world came to be according to their teachings.

I've had these discussions on different online forums and it's still the same name calling, calling anyone who disagrees with them ignorant, "you don't understand the theories" bla bla bla. Bro, if you read it and can defend what you read, what makes you think another person can read it and can't disagree?

Like I said earlier, you ain't any better than the average black man in anyway just cause you think you know what happened millions/billions of years ago.

47 million years? And we so trust the technology used to calculate years as if there could never have been an imperfection somewhere?

GidiCars:


Let's start from this thread and see how your fellows are demeaning others who disagree with them, saying how they're backward, this and that, how they're stupid and stuff etc. Of course, most people who hold on to these thoughts are mostly atheist, creationist have a different idea of how the world came to be according to their teachings.

I've had these discussions on different online forums and it's still the same name calling, calling anyone who disagrees with them ignorant, "you don't understand the theories" bla bla bla. Bro, if you read it and can defend what you read, what makes you think another person can read it and can't disagree?

Like I said earlier, you ain't any better than the average black man in anyway just cause you think you know what happened millions/billions of years ago.

Theists demean atheist daily also. Even their bible call atheists and non-believers "fools". They even call you cursed and claim that you don't have sense for not believing in their god. But no, you don't have a problem with that.
You have a problem with an atheist calling a theist ignorant than a theist calling an atheist a fool. If you're a theist and you know about fossils and tools used in determining dates of an object, but you have a logical counter argument, I cannot call you "ignorant". But when as a theist, you see a post which says "4 million years", and since it contradicts your belief you automatically call it a lie without even trying to know how they arrived at that conclusion, then such theist deserves to be called ignorant, backward and whatsoever demeaning name that would fit. You get?
Even you jumped into the thread and called Atheists "stupid" even before any Atheist commented. And you're here complaining about them feeling like they're smart.
You're a funny.

GidiCars:


Let's start from this thread and see how your fellows are demeaning others who disagree with them, saying how they're backward, this and that, how they're stupid and stuff etc. Of course, most people who hold on to these thoughts are mostly atheist, creationist have a different idea of how the world came to be according to their teachings.

I've had these discussions on different online forums and it's still the same name calling, calling anyone who disagrees with them ignorant, "you don't understand the theories" bla bla bla. Bro, if you read it and can defend what you read, what makes you think another person can read it and can't disagree?

Like I said earlier, you ain't any better than the average black man in anyway just cause you think you know what happened millions/billions of years ago.

And lastly, Atheism is just the rejection of the belief of a God/gods because of lack of evidence. It is in no way what you described. So get your facts right.

emeijeh:
Who calculated the maths?

Radiography was used, carbon dating to be precised, it can tell the age of ancient fossils

Macsjebs

I can now conclude that you are one of the ancestors on this forum. Did you live before Abraham in your former exploit on Earth.

Thanks for causing more confusion about the time past.

Housing:
Macsjebs

I can now conclude that you are one of the ancestors on this forum. Did you live before Abraham in your former exploit on Earth.

Thanks for causing more confusion about the time past.

My Oga, no be me o

emeijeh:
Who calculated the maths?

I think they used the process of carbon dating which can give an approximate age of the discovered fossil.

demmie1:


Even art student get sense small

Lol... of course, art students aren't any less intelligent. I only asked that cause it would, at least, justify his question.

Grandmeister:

I like the fact that you agreed like many other followers of science that carbon dating is hugely flawed in dating fossils, unlike the pseudoscience carbon dating crooners here on nairaland that shout the word like some magic spell they learnt recently. It was found out that carbon dating beyond 15 to 20,000 years is completely unreliable. The measuring of isotopic decays for fossils also has its inherent argument but that’s for another topic.

Yeah. I think it's an open secret that all the dating methods have thier weaknesses.

IMAliyu:

Do you want the Bible approximation, or the geological approximation?

Please both if you got any idea.........Am really curious.