Race Card in Our Culture...Political Horse Crap

[JoeB131]

How about Arabics and owning, say, party stores? Yes, or no? Muslims and "towel heads? Yes? No? Those are just, you know, stereotypes, like Asian women and mail order brides.

Yeah, because it's not like Mail Order Brides don't come from Eastern Europe or anything... oh, wait, they do.

What are your thoughts on black Trump supporters?

Kind of pathetic. Then again, you had Jews who thought Hitler was nifty when he was throwing their families in Camps.

Jewish Ghetto Police - Wikipedia

In fact, the only thing more pathetic are the dumb white trash in the trailer parks who keep voting Republican and wondering why their benefits get slashed.

 

[SweetSue92]

How about Arabics and owning, say, party stores? Yes, or no? Muslims and "towel heads? Yes? No? Those are just, you know, stereotypes, like Asian women and mail order brides.

Yeah, because it's not like Mail Order Brides don't come from Eastern Europe or anything... oh, wait, they do.

What are your thoughts on black Trump supporters?

Kind of pathetic. Then again, you had Jews who thought Hitler was nifty when he was throwing their families in Camps.

Jewish Ghetto Police - Wikipedia

In fact, the only thing more pathetic are the dumb white trash in the trailer parks who keep voting Republican and wondering why their benefits get slashed.

Here he is again: in the same post that Joe is crying about Trump being racist toward blacks (with no evidence), Joe is being called out for calling a minority woman a "mail order bride" and telling her to go back to her home country.

You're a hypocrite. Joe.

Everyone else, in case you didn't know, never, ever listen to Joe when he cries about everyone else's "racism". Like most Leftists, he's one of the biggest offenders--but just thinks it's a funny joke when HE does it.

 

[JoeB131]

You cry about RACISM and call people RACIST all the livelong day

Yeah, and usually I'm spot on. I mean, did I really hurt your feelings with the Islamophobic **** thing because after I educated you on the history of FGM, your response was to drop right into an Islamophobic website and take a Hadith out of context?

Anyway, moving along to someone who might have a point on this page.

You have no idea what my stance is, and furthermore I know you're just fine and peachy with the people conning their way over our Southern border--illegally.

Yes, because they aren't the problem. The problem is the white employers who hire them. You could end the illegal problem in five minutes. All you need to do is go after every white person who owns a farm, runs a sweatshop, hires a Nanny for their Yuppie Spawn they can't be bothered to raise, or picks up a truckload of day-laborers outside the Home Depot when that DIY project turns out to not be as easy as Chip and Joana made it look.

Of course, we don't want to do that! That would cause white folks inconvenience, and this is America.

The thing was, the number of people "conning" their way over the Southern Border, as you say, is only 20% of what it was in 1999, when NAFTA devastated the Mexican Farm economy. But Trump tells you some scary brown people are going to get you, and you all fall into line.

 

[JoeB131]

Natural selection works rapidly. We even have artificial selection to show that in experiment. One doesn't need millions years. There is no evidence for millions of years.

You mean other than the fossil record that shows otherwise...

Guy, I usually don't go down the rabbit hole with people who deny science, because it's not worth the time...

 

[JoeB131]

Also you have no proof that the poster is "trying to be white".

Other than her posts where she rationalizes racism? I had a very long discussion with her were she denied that genocide against Native Americans was the policy of the US Government throughout the 19th Century.

The good news is that it has now reached its saturation point, for so long it has been their "get out of jail free" and "advance to go" card that they had no need to educate themselves, the PC crowd is witnessing a massive meltdown of its minions who continuously lose arguments even on subject matters they should own.

Hardly. In fact, it's probably the opposite, where HR Departments will fire you on the mere accusation of bad behavior.

 

[JoeB131]

She faced racism and you dismissed it. That's what happened. You didn't care because you don't like her posts, you don't like her politics, so you dismissed the racism she faced. We see this over and over and over and over.

You're a sellout and a total hypocrite.

No, she didn't face "Racism", she faced ridicule because she is a silly, self-important person.

That's why she is regularly ridiculed with her number pointed crazy.

 

[Lesh]

And based on her posts...she IS one of the most unabashed racist posters I have ever seen on this board

 

[james bond]

Natural selection works rapidly. We even have artificial selection to show that in experiment. One doesn't need millions years. There is no evidence for millions of years.

You mean other than the fossil record that shows otherwise...

Guy, I usually don't go down the rabbit hole with people who deny science, because it's not worth the time...

The fossil record doesn't show otherwise. We can do radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils. If they were 65 million years old, then there would be no C-14 left to measure.

You don't even understand your own fake science claims haha.

 

[rightwinger]

Is their nothing worse than being called “racist” in our society? ******* right there is! How the hell did the liberal media, education system,and Democrats put this bullshit on our culture? I can name a whole list of things worse than being called a racist. In fact it’s nothing more than a common political issue and Democratic Party has made it that way. They have played the race card so much that it’s as common and non-excitable as rain on a summer day. Here are worse things to be called:
1.) Communist/Socialist/ National Socialist (all the same thing)
2.) Democrat (see above)
3.) “You work for:” CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Al Jazerra, China Times, Soviet News Agency Pravda, Ministry of Truth, etc. (again...all the same)
4.) Liberal college professor
5.) Oregon Governor
6.) Angela Merkel
7.) Antifa member.
8.) Harvard student
9.) Welfare recipient
10.) Hollywood resident (outside the few brave conservatives there)
12.) Abortion supporter
13.) Abortion doctor
14.) Gay Rights Activist
15.) Gun control advocate
16.) I’m from: San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Madison, Pittsburgh, Washington DC suburbs, New York City, Hartford

Sometimes a racist is a racist

That is not playing the race card

 

[miketx]

The word has been so comically over-used for political advantage that it means pretty much nothing now. Or anything.

Just like "socialist".

That's a damn shame. It's a terribly serious topic.

Please point out a high profile case where someone was called a racist and it wasn't justified...

Thanks.

Begs for proof he knows he will not accept. Classic libtard move.

 

[Taz]

Natural selection works rapidly. We even have artificial selection to show that in experiment. One doesn't need millions years. There is no evidence for millions of years.

You mean other than the fossil record that shows otherwise...

Guy, I usually don't go down the rabbit hole with people who deny science, because it's not worth the time...

The fossil record doesn't show otherwise. We can do radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils. If they were 65 million years old, then there would be no C-14 left to measure.

You don't even understand your own fake science claims haha.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

 

[Lesh]

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

So the Luddite morons are trying to use isolated factoids AGAIN?

 

[IM2]

How about Arabics and owning, say, party stores? Yes, or no? Muslims and "towel heads? Yes? No? Those are just, you know, stereotypes, like Asian women and mail order brides.

Yeah, because it's not like Mail Order Brides don't come from Eastern Europe or anything... oh, wait, they do.

What are your thoughts on black Trump supporters?

Kind of pathetic. Then again, you had Jews who thought Hitler was nifty when he was throwing their families in Camps.

Jewish Ghetto Police - Wikipedia

In fact, the only thing more pathetic are the dumb white trash in the trailer parks who keep voting Republican and wondering why their benefits get slashed.

Here he is again: in the same post that Joe is crying about Trump being racist toward blacks (with no evidence), Joe is being called out for calling a minority woman a "mail order bride" and telling her to go back to her home country.

You're a hypocrite. Joe.

Everyone else, in case you didn't know, never, ever listen to Joe when he cries about everyone else's "racism". Like most Leftists, he's one of the biggest offenders--but just thinks it's a funny joke when HE does it.

Trump is a racist, there is plenty of evidence, and I am not arguing with anyone white about it.

 

[IM2]

And how is being called a mail order bride racist? I need that explained.

You like stereotypes then? Stereotypes are cool with you, and then to call anyone of that minority that particular stereotype?

Because you know. We can go with that. This is YOUR petard, IM2 and Joe. It's only up to you if you're going to be hoisted on it.

I asked for an explanation of how mail order bride is racist. I have not given any support or agreement for anyone being called that. But since you want to make assumptions let me free your mind so you understand.

All that ***** PC does is post up racist bullshit about black people. Her ass is Asian and the whites she's trying to impress by pretending to be white are the type to see her on the street and ask her Asian as, "You love me long time?" So **** her. And you defending this Asian wannabe only because she says what you believe too is your petard and you hoisted yourself on it quite successfully.

So when I see you address her racist bullshit, then you can come back to me saying that you dislike racism on both sides, even if there really is no both sides.

So coming back to this: the fact that you asked "How is this racism?" means you didn't see it as racism, and that is clear. What is clear from the rest of your post is that your back is against the wall on this but that you think it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to be racist against someone if they do not agree with your political opinion.

I reject your idea here. Utterly, wholly and completely. I think racism is wrong no matter the circumstances, even when people disagree with me politically.

Also you have no proof that the poster is "trying to be white".

Your opinions are loathsome

The term "Mail order bride" mentions no race. If he had said, you are an Asian male order bride then I could understand how that is racist. And I have plenty of evidence that PC is trying to be white. She's Asian and they face the same racism we do, but she attacks blacks in every post using the same stereotypes as whites. You are loathsome. You're a fake ass "colorblind" liar who says you attack all racism but you ignore white racism in it's entirety.

You think that just because your white ass hollers about something being racist it is. I know what racism is snd I know what forms it takes and dog whistles used. You don't. You've been race pimped by a conservative ideology that tells you how whites face reverse racism, that the word white is now equivalent to the n word and that any reference to the history and continuing racism by whites is racism.

Go study what averse racism is, then start thinking.

She faced racism and you dismissed it. That's what happened. You didn't care because you don't like her posts, you don't like her politics, so you dismissed the racism she faced. We see this over and over and over and over.

You're a sellout and a total hypocrite.

Lol! You don't even know what a sellout is. PC is a racist. You are defending her.

 

[miketx]

How about Arabics and owning, say, party stores? Yes, or no? Muslims and "towel heads? Yes? No? Those are just, you know, stereotypes, like Asian women and mail order brides.

Yeah, because it's not like Mail Order Brides don't come from Eastern Europe or anything... oh, wait, they do.

What are your thoughts on black Trump supporters?

Kind of pathetic. Then again, you had Jews who thought Hitler was nifty when he was throwing their families in Camps.

Jewish Ghetto Police - Wikipedia

In fact, the only thing more pathetic are the dumb white trash in the trailer parks who keep voting Republican and wondering why their benefits get slashed.

Here he is again: in the same post that Joe is crying about Trump being racist toward blacks (with no evidence), Joe is being called out for calling a minority woman a "mail order bride" and telling her to go back to her home country.

You're a hypocrite. Joe.

Everyone else, in case you didn't know, never, ever listen to Joe when he cries about everyone else's "racism". Like most Leftists, he's one of the biggest offenders--but just thinks it's a funny joke when HE does it.

Trump is a racist, there is plenty of evidence, and I am not arguing with anyone white about it.

Poor butt hurt racist punk. Cant stop crying over whites.

 

[james bond]

Natural selection works rapidly. We even have artificial selection to show that in experiment. One doesn't need millions years. There is no evidence for millions of years.

You mean other than the fossil record that shows otherwise...

Guy, I usually don't go down the rabbit hole with people who deny science, because it's not worth the time...

The fossil record doesn't show otherwise. We can do radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils. If they were 65 million years old, then there would be no C-14 left to measure.

You don't even understand your own fake science claims haha.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

It is interesting to me that you cannot explain what you are trying to say in your own words. Thus, I can freely explain my pov from the article you linked.

"The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old."

Yep, that's what I said when there would be no C-14 left to measure. C-14 decays rather quickly, so there would not be any remaining. However, one can still do C-14 dating on all the dino fossils. This is a direct measurement of the fossils and not the layer of rock it was found in. It means that the fossils are not millions of years old. We find they are less than 50,000 years old. This is also backed up by the soft tissue and blood cells found inside.

Then the article says to use radiometric dating instead. It is used to date the sedimentary rock layers. However, the sedimentary rock does not contain the radioactive isotopes, so one has to use the igneous rock layers to mark the layers that can be measure. They say the igneous layers mark off the sedimentary layers beautifully.

What they are basically saying is to date the rocks in order to date the fossils. We do not even date the actual rock that the fossils were found in. They are twice removed. Many people are flabbergasted when they find that fossils cannot be directly dated using radiometric dating.

"Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones."

That said, dating these igneous rock layers in order to date the fossils give a wide range of measurements. They can be off by millions of years due to contamination. Thus, in order to ensure that the measurement of the rock was correct, they use past samples taken of fossils found in these layers and say that is the correct measurement. In reality, none of the measurements could be correct. One should take all of the measurements as valid or none since we have a wide range of values.

Therefore, in order to verify the date the rocks, they say to date the fossils. This is circular reasoning and is a fallacy. They only take the range that fits their preconceived notions. These scientists even did the same with moon rocks. The moon rocks gave a wide variety of dates, so they only accepted the ones that fit the preconceived notion of the Earth rocks. They assumed the Earth and moon formed around the same time and only accepted measurements that fit their assumed range.

There is really no way to directly determine the age of the rock except for radiocarbon dating and one can do it because there is still C14 left in coal deposits and diamonds. It gives relatively consistent results. OTOH, radiometric dating has to fit in with preconceived results of else it is wrong.

The other assumption is the sedimentary layers took hundreds of millions of years to form because of ToE. One can't have evolution without long time. However, we notice the same sedimentary layers formed from the Mt. St. Helens volcano. We know they are only tens of years old. Doing radiometric dating on its layers using the above technique gave around 350,000 years old.

The bottom line to all this for radiometric dating is if you want credibility for the measurements, then take all of the measurements or take none. Don't just pick and choose those that fit your theory.

 

[Unkotare]

You like stereotypes then? Stereotypes are cool with you, and then to call anyone of that minority that particular stereotype?

Because you know. We can go with that. This is YOUR petard, IM2 and Joe. It's only up to you if you're going to be hoisted on it.

I asked for an explanation of how mail order bride is racist. I have not given any support or agreement for anyone being called that. But since you want to make assumptions let me free your mind so you understand.

All that ***** PC does is post up racist bullshit about black people. Her ass is Asian and the whites she's trying to impress by pretending to be white are the type to see her on the street and ask her Asian as, "You love me long time?" So **** her. And you defending this Asian wannabe only because she says what you believe too is your petard and you hoisted yourself on it quite successfully.

So when I see you address her racist bullshit, then you can come back to me saying that you dislike racism on both sides, even if there really is no both sides.

So coming back to this: the fact that you asked "How is this racism?" means you didn't see it as racism, and that is clear. What is clear from the rest of your post is that your back is against the wall on this but that you think it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to be racist against someone if they do not agree with your political opinion.

I reject your idea here. Utterly, wholly and completely. I think racism is wrong no matter the circumstances, even when people disagree with me politically.

Also you have no proof that the poster is "trying to be white".

Your opinions are loathsome

The term "Mail order bride" mentions no race. If he had said, you are an Asian male order bride then I could understand how that is racist. And I have plenty of evidence that PC is trying to be white. She's Asian and they face the same racism we do, but she attacks blacks in every post using the same stereotypes as whites. You are loathsome. You're a fake ass "colorblind" liar who says you attack all racism but you ignore white racism in it's entirety.

You think that just because your white ass hollers about something being racist it is. I know what racism is snd I know what forms it takes and dog whistles used. You don't. You've been race pimped by a conservative ideology that tells you how whites face reverse racism, that the word white is now equivalent to the n word and that any reference to the history and continuing racism by whites is racism.

Go study what averse racism is, then start thinking.

She faced racism and you dismissed it. That's what happened. You didn't care because you don't like her posts, you don't like her politics, so you dismissed the racism she faced. We see this over and over and over and over.

You're a sellout and a total hypocrite.

Lol! You don't even know what a sellout is. PC is a racist. You are defending her.

 

[Taz]

Natural selection works rapidly. We even have artificial selection to show that in experiment. One doesn't need millions years. There is no evidence for millions of years.

You mean other than the fossil record that shows otherwise...

Guy, I usually don't go down the rabbit hole with people who deny science, because it's not worth the time...

The fossil record doesn't show otherwise. We can do radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils. If they were 65 million years old, then there would be no C-14 left to measure.

You don't even understand your own fake science claims haha.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

It is interesting to me that you cannot explain what you are trying to say in your own words. Thus, I can freely explain my pov from the article you linked.

"The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old."

Yep, that's what I said when there would be no C-14 left to measure. C-14 decays rather quickly, so there would not be any remaining. However, one can still do C-14 dating on all the dino fossils. This is a direct measurement of the fossils and not the layer of rock it was found in. It means that the fossils are not millions of years old. We find they are less than 50,000 years old. This is also backed up by the soft tissue and blood cells found inside.

Then the article says to use radiometric dating instead. It is used to date the sedimentary rock layers. However, the sedimentary rock does not contain the radioactive isotopes, so one has to use the igneous rock layers to mark the layers that can be measure. They say the igneous layers mark off the sedimentary layers beautifully.

What they are basically saying is to date the rocks in order to date the fossils. We do not even date the actual rock that the fossils were found in. They are twice removed. Many people are flabbergasted when they find that fossils cannot be directly dated using radiometric dating.

"Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones."

That said, dating these igneous rock layers in order to date the fossils give a wide range of measurements. They can be off by millions of years due to contamination. Thus, in order to ensure that the measurement of the rock was correct, they use past samples taken of fossils found in these layers and say that is the correct measurement. In reality, none of the measurements could be correct. One should take all of the measurements as valid or none since we have a wide range of values.

Therefore, in order to verify the date the rocks, they say to date the fossils. This is circular reasoning and is a fallacy. They only take the range that fits their preconceived notions. These scientists even did the same with moon rocks. The moon rocks gave a wide variety of dates, so they only accepted the ones that fit the preconceived notion of the Earth rocks. They assumed the Earth and moon formed around the same time and only accepted measurements that fit their assumed range.

There is really no way to directly determine the age of the rock except for radiocarbon dating and one can do it because there is still C14 left in coal deposits and diamonds. It gives relatively consistent results. OTOH, radiometric dating has to fit in with preconceived results of else it is wrong.

The other assumption is the sedimentary layers took hundreds of millions of years to form because of ToE. One can't have evolution without long time. However, we notice the same sedimentary layers formed from the Mt. St. Helens volcano. We know they are only tens of years old. Doing radiometric dating on its layers using the above technique gave around 350,000 years old.

The bottom line to all this for radiometric dating is if you want credibility for the measurements, then take all of the measurements or take none. Don't just pick and choose those that fit your theory.

They measure the sediment it was found in. Sounds legit to me. You didn't get it, I see.

 

[james bond]

Natural selection works rapidly. We even have artificial selection to show that in experiment. One doesn't need millions years. There is no evidence for millions of years.

You mean other than the fossil record that shows otherwise...

Guy, I usually don't go down the rabbit hole with people who deny science, because it's not worth the time...

The fossil record doesn't show otherwise. We can do radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils. If they were 65 million years old, then there would be no C-14 left to measure.

You don't even understand your own fake science claims haha.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

It is interesting to me that you cannot explain what you are trying to say in your own words. Thus, I can freely explain my pov from the article you linked.

"The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old."

Yep, that's what I said when there would be no C-14 left to measure. C-14 decays rather quickly, so there would not be any remaining. However, one can still do C-14 dating on all the dino fossils. This is a direct measurement of the fossils and not the layer of rock it was found in. It means that the fossils are not millions of years old. We find they are less than 50,000 years old. This is also backed up by the soft tissue and blood cells found inside.

Then the article says to use radiometric dating instead. It is used to date the sedimentary rock layers. However, the sedimentary rock does not contain the radioactive isotopes, so one has to use the igneous rock layers to mark the layers that can be measure. They say the igneous layers mark off the sedimentary layers beautifully.

What they are basically saying is to date the rocks in order to date the fossils. We do not even date the actual rock that the fossils were found in. They are twice removed. Many people are flabbergasted when they find that fossils cannot be directly dated using radiometric dating.

"Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones."

That said, dating these igneous rock layers in order to date the fossils give a wide range of measurements. They can be off by millions of years due to contamination. Thus, in order to ensure that the measurement of the rock was correct, they use past samples taken of fossils found in these layers and say that is the correct measurement. In reality, none of the measurements could be correct. One should take all of the measurements as valid or none since we have a wide range of values.

Therefore, in order to verify the date the rocks, they say to date the fossils. This is circular reasoning and is a fallacy. They only take the range that fits their preconceived notions. These scientists even did the same with moon rocks. The moon rocks gave a wide variety of dates, so they only accepted the ones that fit the preconceived notion of the Earth rocks. They assumed the Earth and moon formed around the same time and only accepted measurements that fit their assumed range.

There is really no way to directly determine the age of the rock except for radiocarbon dating and one can do it because there is still C14 left in coal deposits and diamonds. It gives relatively consistent results. OTOH, radiometric dating has to fit in with preconceived results of else it is wrong.

The other assumption is the sedimentary layers took hundreds of millions of years to form because of ToE. One can't have evolution without long time. However, we notice the same sedimentary layers formed from the Mt. St. Helens volcano. We know they are only tens of years old. Doing radiometric dating on its layers using the above technique gave around 350,000 years old.

The bottom line to all this for radiometric dating is if you want credibility for the measurements, then take all of the measurements or take none. Don't just pick and choose those that fit your theory.

They measure the sediment it was found in. Sounds legit to me. You didn't get it, I see.

LMAO. They can't measure the sediment because it doesn't have any isotopes. I can see you do not understand real science. No wonder you'll miss Bill Nye when he's gone.

 

[Taz]

You mean other than the fossil record that shows otherwise...

Guy, I usually don't go down the rabbit hole with people who deny science, because it's not worth the time...

The fossil record doesn't show otherwise. We can do radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils. If they were 65 million years old, then there would be no C-14 left to measure.

You don't even understand your own fake science claims haha.

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

It is interesting to me that you cannot explain what you are trying to say in your own words. Thus, I can freely explain my pov from the article you linked.

"The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old."

Yep, that's what I said when there would be no C-14 left to measure. C-14 decays rather quickly, so there would not be any remaining. However, one can still do C-14 dating on all the dino fossils. This is a direct measurement of the fossils and not the layer of rock it was found in. It means that the fossils are not millions of years old. We find they are less than 50,000 years old. This is also backed up by the soft tissue and blood cells found inside.

Then the article says to use radiometric dating instead. It is used to date the sedimentary rock layers. However, the sedimentary rock does not contain the radioactive isotopes, so one has to use the igneous rock layers to mark the layers that can be measure. They say the igneous layers mark off the sedimentary layers beautifully.

What they are basically saying is to date the rocks in order to date the fossils. We do not even date the actual rock that the fossils were found in. They are twice removed. Many people are flabbergasted when they find that fossils cannot be directly dated using radiometric dating.

"Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones."

That said, dating these igneous rock layers in order to date the fossils give a wide range of measurements. They can be off by millions of years due to contamination. Thus, in order to ensure that the measurement of the rock was correct, they use past samples taken of fossils found in these layers and say that is the correct measurement. In reality, none of the measurements could be correct. One should take all of the measurements as valid or none since we have a wide range of values.

Therefore, in order to verify the date the rocks, they say to date the fossils. This is circular reasoning and is a fallacy. They only take the range that fits their preconceived notions. These scientists even did the same with moon rocks. The moon rocks gave a wide variety of dates, so they only accepted the ones that fit the preconceived notion of the Earth rocks. They assumed the Earth and moon formed around the same time and only accepted measurements that fit their assumed range.

There is really no way to directly determine the age of the rock except for radiocarbon dating and one can do it because there is still C14 left in coal deposits and diamonds. It gives relatively consistent results. OTOH, radiometric dating has to fit in with preconceived results of else it is wrong.

The other assumption is the sedimentary layers took hundreds of millions of years to form because of ToE. One can't have evolution without long time. However, we notice the same sedimentary layers formed from the Mt. St. Helens volcano. We know they are only tens of years old. Doing radiometric dating on its layers using the above technique gave around 350,000 years old.

The bottom line to all this for radiometric dating is if you want credibility for the measurements, then take all of the measurements or take none. Don't just pick and choose those that fit your theory.

They measure the sediment it was found in. Sounds legit to me. You didn't get it, I see.

LMAO. They can't measure the sediment because it doesn't have any isotopes. I can see you do not understand real science. No wonder you'll miss Bill Nye when he's gone.

They are real scientists, what’s your specialty in?