|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 101 evidences for a young age... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Well, then you have to note all of these correlating methods as well. Are you sure that "correlating" means what you would like it to mean? That page appears to be an extended whine about "here's a potential loophole in one method!!" I'll see you at the Age Correlations thread when you're ready. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm not sure of your point here? I would say that it would be very unlikely, which is why I say. I highly doubt that ancient people had an Archeology team that went out and dug up bones and reassembled them as we do. So how could they have drawings, statues and other artifacts that (in many cases) look just like dinosaurs if they never saw them? Sure. Before nineteenth century Europeans, no-one owned a shovel and everyone was a freakin' idiot. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Which of these are meant to be dinosaurs, and which ones?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Where are the bones?
Not fossils, bones! We have bones from humans worldwide, and we have bones from extinct fauna worldwide--mammoth and mastodon should be quite similar. Where are the dinosaur bones? Why have archaeologists never found them? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wirkkalaj Member (Idle past 5363 days) Posts: 22 From: Fernley Joined: |
If it's bones you want? I will dig up more bones (not fossils) than my dog can fetch. I didn't know it was such an issue, but they have been finding them for decades, and I will produce examples which I'm sure will get ridiculed. Oh well.
Here's a recent article about that T-Rex bone that they found back in '05 that still had "soft tissue" preserved!MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos That is much better than a bone. How are you going to tell me that it somehow got preserved for 65 million years?! I can't think of one feasible possibility in which soft-tissue (easily decayed) can be preserved for so long.Occam's razor (which Athiests like to quote alot) seems to apply here. The simplest explaination tends to be the right one: The animal simply hasn't been dead for that long! Maybe a few thousand years at best? Just give up on the dinosaurs guys? They have been with us throughout history! The evidence is overwhelming (once you start looking). Not to mention the thousands of eye-witness accounts about dinosaurs. Even if they have been with us throughout history, as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything to undermine the General Theory of Evolution at all? I mean, the theory doesn't stand or fall based on some dinosaurs does it? I'm out of time, but there are more bones to come!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If it's bones you want? I will dig up more bones (not fossils) than my dog can fetch. I didn't know it was such an issue, but they have been finding them for decades, and I will produce examples which I'm sure will get ridiculed. Oh well.
Lets have them. I've been doing archaeology for 40 years and have yet to see dinosaur bones. I find sardines, which are pretty tiny. Don't tell me I'd miss something the size of a dinosaur. You want to document dinosaurs, lets see the bones. (And these need to be in the last few tens of thousands of years to make your case, not millions of years old.)
Here's a recent article about that T-Rex bone that they found back in '05 that still had "soft tissue" preserved!
That's a fossil, with mineralized soft tissue. Look it up, and stay away from the creationist sites--they lie to you.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos That is much better than a bone. How are you going to tell me that it somehow got preserved for 65 million years?! I can't think of one feasible possibility in which soft-tissue (easily decayed) can be preserved for so long. Occam's razor (which Athiests like to quote alot) seems to apply here. The simplest explaination tends to be the right one: The animal simply hasn't been dead for that long! Maybe a few thousand years at best? Just give up on the dinosaurs guys? They have been with us throughout history! The evidence is overwhelming (once you start looking). Not to mention the thousands of eye-witness accounts about dinosaurs. Even if they have been with us throughout history, as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything to undermine the General Theory of Evolution at all? I mean, the theory doesn't stand or fall based on some dinosaurs does it?
Nonsense. Not even worth a reply. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Not to mention the thousands of eye-witness accounts about dinosaurs. Name and address of even one of your eyewitnesses, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi there wirkkalaj.
quote: You seem to have missed the distinction that Coyote was driving at; he was asking after bones, not fossilised bones. What he is asking you for is non-fossilised, non-minerised bone.
quote: *Ahem* From your cited article;
Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said. Note my emphasis. The bone was mineralised. The contents were not. Simple yes?
quote: In what way? Are you an expert on the preservation of organic materials? Or are you simply arguing from incredulity?
quote: Oh well, if you can't think of it, it must not exist, since you're such a big expert an' all. *Ahem*
Sweitzer et al writes: We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time. Source What I am proposing here is that the team of professionals who are doing this research have a rather better idea of what is possible in regards to collagen preservation than either you or I. Why not let them do their job before dismissing their efforts out of hand?
quote: As is usual with creationists who try applying the razor, you are misusing it. Your scenario is not the least complicated nor the most parsimonious. If your contention about the age of this specimen is correct then a great many things would need to be explained. Why was the radiometric dating wrong? Why are all forms of radiometric dating in such close agreement if they don't work? Why does the fossil record show no overlap between humans and dinosaurs? The problems go on and on. To accept a young age for this T-Rex would require that great swathes of geology, biology and physics be rewritten. If we accept the (correct) ancient date for the T-Rex, all that need be adjusted is your personal understanding of how long collagen lasts inside fossilised dinosaur bone, a minor enough adjustment I think. Occam's Razor suggests that it is more likely that you, with your limited expertise, have got something wrong than that countless expert scientists have so comprehensively failed to understand their own disciplines, don't you think?
quote: Then again, with exacting and meticulous evidence such as the above, maybe you are an expert after all...
quote: So you will have no trouble finding me a site where dino's and humans are fossilised together? I look forward to that. Until then, the fact that dinosaur and human remains occupy completely different strata screws your argument completely. Oh well.
quote: Actually, in this I agree with you somewhat. The ToE does not depend on any particular version of natural history. Nonetheless, your silly dinosaur fantasies are completely out of whack with the fossil record and would require rethinking the entire science of geology. Call me crazy, but I'm going to stick with the geologists on this one and no amount of ooh-it-looks-a-bit-like-a-dinosaur type pictures are going to be sufficient to convince me otherwise. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3029 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
wirkkalaj writes:
Wow! That's impressive. MSNBC as a source of scientific information. Here's a recent article about that T-Rex bone that they found back in '05 that still had "soft tissue" preserved!MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos And, it's just like a creationist to keep repeating debunked information over and over again. Is that because you don't understand what you were told? Way back in Post 20 of this thread I discussed this. It was in response to item #7 on the list of creationist "evidences." Some here were actually interested in this event and actually read more than an MSNBC blurb. I told you what I had understood from my reading on that subject. Perhaps Coyote can offer some corrections to my post (I'm willing to learn), but the dinosaur bone in question doesn't demonstrate a young age for the earth any more than the Grand Canyon does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again wirkkalaj, welcome back.
See messages 73 and 74 and tell me if I am misrinterpreting these depictions and let me know which ones are fraud. The ica stones are a known fraud. Known since 2002. CH710.1: Dinosaurs on Ica stones
quote: An admitted fraud, which in science would be sufficient evidence to discard them as evidence of anything, just as Piltdown man was discarded when scientists demonstrated that it was a fraud. Here's a test: take a known science fraud and find an article claiming that it is evidence of reality, and that is published one year or more after the fraud has been uncovered. Do the same for creationist frauds (like the Ica Stones, now going on 7 years as a known fraud). Note that any website that posts the "Ica Stones" as fact has actually posted a fraud, a hoax, and they should not be trusted for having ANY valid information: they are a fraud.
Regardless, a few examples of fraud do nothing to discredit my argument as a whole. Evolutionists have had their own cases of fraud. The infamous Piltdown controversy. It doesn't mean that all other primate fossils are hoaxed. See Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . The difference between scientists and creationists is that science discards frauds and hoaxes as soon as they are uncovered, they correct their view/s and move on. Creationists ignore the fact that it is a hoax and keep posting information about it, hoping that gullible people will continue to be flummoxed, too intellectually lethargic to investigate further, too willing to believe a fairy tale rather than look skeptically for reality - and (non-avian) dinosaurs co-existing with humans is a fairy tale. Curiously, the only ones who still refer to scientific hoaxes are creationists, as is evidenced by all the creationist websites on the Piltdown hoax, thus creating another hoax in the process - the hoax hoax that trys to fool gullible people into thinking that science relies on hoaxes, rather than on tested evidence that is validated by other evidence.
Perhaps just willfully or unknowingly misinterpreted. Amazingly, the scientific attitude is not complacent acceptance of only concepts one wants to believe, but an active skeptical deconstruction of concepts by testing them against the evidence: science tries to prove concepts wrong, and only when that cannot be done is a concept tentatively accepted as possible.
Given the fact that most culture's around the world have dragon legends or dinosaur depictions. And yet none of the dragons or other depictions really look like an actual dinosaur. Please look again - closely - at the depictions you have posted and see if they accurately portray known dinosaurs. Here's a hint of what to look for:
This one can be found in Angkor-wat is in northwest Cambodia.The construction of the temple took place in the first half of the 12th century
(image modified to thumbnail) vs
Not even close - the head is completely wrong, and the "horns" are shown on the wrong end - details that would be well known by any human with actual knowledge of a living stegosaurus. It would be impossible to misinterpret these details from a living specimen, but easy to misinterpret and mix up the details from a bed of fossils, where the small size of the actual stegosaurus skull could be overlooked in favor of one from another dinosaur that was nearby. There are details like this in all the other depictions.
It is not very common to find dinosaur bones just lying about on the ground. You usually have to dig for them. Except in some places, like the Gobi dessert, where they are, in fact, just lying around. It is also common that unusual things are collected in temples, whether in Greece or Ankor-wat or the Vatican.
I would consider it too unlikely that each independent culture interpreted them from fossils. Interestingly, whatever you consider "unlikely" has absolutely no effect on reality, opinion that is not supported by fact is only reflective of the mind with the opinion.
See 73 and 74. I can produce more examples if these aren't satisfactory. I've seen all of these and more -- they are not physical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, they are evidence that ancient people knew SOME aspects about SOME even more ancient animals, but that is the most that they are evidence of, and even this is of questionable validity.
Yeah, assuming the dates they give are accurate. I tend to agree with The Dating Game and I simply don't put much emphasis on most dating methods. The age of the Earth, the age of the Mass-Extinction and so many other things, which were taught as fact and as indiputable, have changed so many times from when I was a kid, I just don't consider them fact anymore. Fascinatingly, your opinion is still invalid as a measure of reality. What we have are much more than just opinions, but massive correlations between various dating methods of a degree that it is hard to conceive them resulting from chance combinations of errors all producing the same results.
Well, then you have to note all of these correlating methods as well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../topic/young-age-evidence You have linked to a page that is a list of different articles, some by known frauds, btw, rather than to an article about evidence for a young earth, and certainly nothing that provides any correlation from one piece of "evidence" to another.
We are talking about correlation2, just to be sure you are on the same page: different processes resulting in the same value. Please pick your best piece of evidence from your source/s, one you personally think you can defend, and present it. This would, after all, be in line with the topic of this thread eh? Not frauds, not hoaxes, and not fantasy depictions, but physical evidence of a young earth. Note that I have already done this for the evidence that the earth is indeed very old and I referred you to just this kind of evidence in Message 55, so I am not asking you to do anything I have not already done.
If you want to investigate the evidence of an old earth, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, and note that it is not just the evidence of an old earth, but the correlations between the different methods and systems, correlations that would not occur if the measurement systems were in error. Note, btw, that I expect you to fail, so let's see if you can prove my hypothesis wrong. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : smaller image by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3029 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
wirkkalaj writes:
Actually, it is thought to be a rattle snake, coiled to strike. You an see the diamond shaped head and the rattles on the tail. It's a bit weathered though.
This dinosaur petroglyph can be found at Natural Bridges, National Monument Utah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wirkkalaj Member (Idle past 5363 days) Posts: 22 From: Fernley Joined: |
I like your rebuttle: it makes me think even more about what I believe to be true. I will offer a full counter argument when I am not so tired (tomorrow).
Just one quick point tho. Those ancient civilizations were carving into solid stone, not paper. They did not have easily manipulated pieces of material to illustrated their surroundings. I still don't see how can say that the carvings do not at least resemble a Stegasaurus (spelling?). Even a 1st grader could see the resemblance!? You might consider that their interpretations of the beast are more accurate than our fossil re-constructions because they saw them first hand. Interestingly, whatever you consider "unlikely" has absolutely no effect on reality, opinion that is not supported by fact is only reflective of the mind with the opinion. All of life, death, Earth, history and all facts fall into the realm of interpretation. I do believe in truth, but you are mistaken if you think that something can be considered fact just because the "scientific circle" you run in considers it so. The creationist movement is on the rise and more and more continue to gain degrees and scientific recognition. You are doing science a huge disfavor if you simply dismiss us all as being frauds, dishonest, ignorant, stupid or any other condescending term just because you disagree.I am not a stupid man. I have a college education (I'm attending again this semester), but I admit that my beliefs about the world are always in need of refinement and I try my best to keep them open to other enlightenments. I have not come to my current opinions on a whim. I would even state that "I am not as well educated as some of you here", (your memory and knowledge about the details of the argument is very impressive: no sarcasm) but you cannot dismiss my arguments (as well as the millions of others) on that basis alone. Our deductive reasoning and logic are likely the same and therefore warrant a close and honest examination of the points from either side. This thought is incomplete and I'll add more later. Thanks for battle!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The creationist movement is on the rise and more and more continue to gain degrees and scientific recognition. You are doing science a huge disfavor if you simply dismiss us all as being frauds, dishonest, ignorant, stupid or any other condescending term just because you disagree.
The problem is that creationists are creationists first and scientists second. They abandon the scientific method and instead practice religious apologetics using their scientific backgrounds. But when they abandon the scientific method, they are no longer doing science, no matter what their scientific training may be. It is adherence to the scientific method that makes a person a scientist, not training and education. Likewise, it is adherence to religious belief that makes a person a creationist, and that belief can supplant any scientific training.
I am not a stupid man. I have a college education (I'm attending again this semester), but I admit that my beliefs about the world are always in need of refinement and I try my best to keep them open to other enlightenments. I have not come to my current opinions on a whim. I would even state that "I am not as well educated as some of you here", (your memory and knowledge about the details of the argument is very impressive: no sarcasm) but you cannot dismiss my arguments (as well as the millions of others) on that basis alone. Our deductive reasoning and logic are likely the same and therefore warrant a close and honest examination of the points from either side.
Keep in mind then the "code of belief" that is found in most creationist organizations. Examples: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith These are inherently anti-science. When one adheres to these beliefs, one ceases to do science. Although what creationists who believe this way write may be couched in scientific terms, they have adopted a different set of beliefs, and those are the direct opposite of the scientific method. It is not accurate to consider them scientists. The bottom line is that creation "science" is the antithesis of science, and all should recognize that fact. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, RAZD.
RAZD writes: And yet none of the dragons or other depictions really look like an actual dinosaur. Please look again - closely - at the depictions you have posted and see if they accurately portray known dinosaurs. Actually, I disagree with you on this. Here's an ancient Mesoamerican sculpture that's supposed to be a jaguar:
The sculptor had to know what a jaguar looks like, and had likely seen them before, but the statue still came out like this. Edited by Bluejay, : Replacing "carving" and "carver" with "sculpture" and "sculptor": it just sounds better that way. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
And a Tlingit eagle:
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024