Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,120 Year: 5,377/9,624 Month: 402/323 Week: 42/204 Day: 18/24 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 136 (613209)
04-22-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kenny Johnson
04-22-2011 11:36 AM


Re: C14
I like C14 too! I like the fact that with advanced mass spectrometry we have detected C14 in 300 million year old Pennsylvanian coal. Of course, with the half life of C14, that would make the coal no older than 10s of thousands years old. Yeah, radioactive dating, responsible for the 300 million year date is obviously accurate, NOT!
Could you perhaps say more explicitly what it is you're trying to be wrong about. Creationists have made lots of mistakes about radiocarbon dating, and it is hard to tell from your vague ramblings which particular blunder you're trying to refer to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kenny Johnson, posted 04-22-2011 11:36 AM Kenny Johnson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 04-23-2011 12:22 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 136 (619692)
06-11-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:51 AM


Schweitzer
Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.
As has been pointed out to you, the soft tissue was mineralized. As Schweitzer et al wrote:
Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. (Schweitzer et al, Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex)
What no-one has yet mentioned is that the scientist who discovered this, Mary Schweitzer, is a former YEC who left the young-Earth cult as a result of her scientific studies. As she explains:
Like many hard-core young-earth creationists I didn't understand the evidence. When I understood the strength of the data, the evidence, I had to rethink things. (Schweitzer, quoted by Horner, Horner and Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur)
If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:51 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 4:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 130 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 136 (619759)
06-12-2011 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 4:52 AM


Re: Schweitzer
Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?
She describes herself as having been a "hard-core young-earth creationist", so I guess that that is what she was.
Without having read up on her whole story yet maybe she just had a change of opinion on the age of the earth? So is she a OEC now? But still a Creationist?
She's not a creationist any more, but she remains a Christian (per the link I've already supplied).
Im assuming that if this story checks out like you say, then she obviously was a mole working on the side of Evolution the WHOLE time.
I trust that you're being facetious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 4:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 136 (620370)
06-15-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Mazzy
06-15-2011 5:41 PM


Edmontosaurus
The matter at hand is that evolutionists discard evidence that is uncomfortable.
A dino was most certainly found with tissue and bones in tact.
Back in the real world, it was evolutionists who discovered the fossil, evolutionists who dug it up, evolutionists who freed it from the matrix, evolutionists who made a TV program about it, and evolutionists who published the National Geographic article which brought its existence to your attention in the first place.
Meanwhile it is you who is ignoring the evidence, namely that the skin was mineralized.
So in reply to your nasty attitude I say that many evolutionists are liars when it suits them.
And your saying that would be more convincing if you could point to any actual lie. Or even something that you thought was a lie. Instead you have cited an evolutionist article which you apparently think is true.
All this talk on dinos being around 65mya appears to be debunked nonsense that evolutionists will clutch to with their dying breath.
No it doesn't, for two reasons: first, it is not nonsense; and second it has not been debunked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Mazzy, posted 06-15-2011 5:41 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ooh-child, posted 06-17-2011 4:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024