As far as invalidating dating techniques, the point is not that the technique is unscientifuc.
It isn't. It is application of prior work, sound, repeatable principles and corroboration of unrelated methods and information.
But that to say a fossil lived around such and such a time based on dating simply cannot be taken as absolute for several reasons.
Fossils are not alive and did not live anywhere. The animals and plants whose physical remains became fossilized did once live, but we have no proof of that. So, perhaps you should abandon this all-together.
No one is claiming that the findings of science are absolute. Well...except creationists of course. But that is not science. It is biased denial.
Different techniques corroborate each other. Other evidence corroborates the dating. And vice versa. No one has found any consistent means to refute the dating and demonstrate it all wrong.
The one I am concentrating on is not the dating process itself, although we know that estimates are made to determine the age along with the testing process, but rather the -- yes -- soil shifting and accumulation of the soil absorbed in the bones, literally changing the substance.
Is there any evidence for this? It just sounds like some desperate ploy to keep your side of the debate alive and a poor attempt to wedge doubt, no matter how meaningless, into the debate. Doubt is built into science, but acceptance requires evidence.
You need to establish the relationship between soil and fossils that you claim exists. Mineralized fossils are not the only form of fossil, but they are essentially rock in a matrix of rock. Where does the soil come into this and what does it matter if it shifts above the rocks?
You have to show us that soil enters the rock and causes some sort of change to the fossils and the matrix for that matter.
Then you have to demonstrate that this change impacts dating in some way that gives false results.
You've done none of this. In typical fashion, you just repeat it over and over regardless of the input of others.
You are clearly not a geologist, geochemist or paleontologist, yet you consider your poorly informed opinion to be expertise in those fields. You pose these things as if they are a "gotcha moment" that no scientist ever conceived or followed up or more likely dismissed, given no evidence or reason to consider.
Yes, no telling where the soil may have come from in that scenario.
And no telling what, if anything that would mean here. The only evidence to go on is that you keep repeating something about it.
Note please that I do NOT subscribe to the interpretation some have of each 'day' of creation being 24 hours long.
There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that the days of creation are not literally 24 hour days. You've just decided to view that part metaphorically and the rest literally by some arbitrary standard of your own.
That verse in Peter is pretty slim evidence to conclude that an actual 24 hour day was not meant or was meant.
It is obvious from soil shifting that millions of years may be involved.
No, it is not obvious. You have to have some evidence to demonstrate that soil is that old, shifted during that span and that the soil and the shifting mean something in the context of fossils and the dating of them.
I - am - speaking of - the lack of evidence of evolution per se.
You are speaking that claim in the context of 200 years of accumulated evidence that supports evolution. You just ignore that as if it were nothing and that your personal claims should be accepted by default without any evidence at all to share with the group.
Now we are in the realm of the obvious.
The process of evolution as contemplated by scientists regarding evolution of, for example, birds from dinosaurs via natural selection and survival of the fittest?
Survival of the fittest is an outdated and poor description of natural selection. To say both in the same sense is a false dichotomy of sorts. Though, I think more out of ignorance of the subject then intent.
No. Feather imprints found on dinosaur fossils?
You are starting to loose coherence here. You seem to be indicating that you accept that fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found and are known. If so, I agree.
So then, yes. I was correct that you accept that.
But birds stemming from dinosaurs due to evolution per the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest? No.
Again with the dichotomy. The evidence that you claim doesn't exist for evolution exists and the conclusion based on that evidence is that birds evolved from a dinosaur ancestry. You are just denying that in favor of your chosen ideology.
No evidence or proof, and by proof I mean the absolute evidence showing the burgeoning process.
This has been explained to you so often it hardly bears repeating and is why I do not feel any compelling need to respond to you further. You just want to deny it for personal reasons and cannot provide anything substantial to support that denial other than what you have chosen for personal, subjective reasons to believe.
None. And yes -- again -- fish are still fish, regardless of the theory that they eventually evolved to become humans.
Again, something that has been explained to you ad nauseum and something that you will repeat ad nauseum despite the explanations.
Given that you have chosen to accept no evidence that challenges the literal view of what you have chosen to believe, I see no reason to continue a discussion that is going to be largely made up of incoherent responses and the repetition of claims about proof and fish remaining fish.
I will speak no further with you on this.
In reality, I would only need to close my front door to end the visit. Here, apparently, I have to be more explicit.
-) ) also in reality the mechanics of evolution as they purportedly happened have never been uncovered.
