Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,164 Year: 5,421/9,624 Month: 446/323 Week: 86/204 Day: 2/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 136 (618753)
06-06-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ?????
03-06-2003 10:05 AM


Genesis...
You can't use Carbon dating to date in the thousands. Creationists claim the age of the Dino's due to the Genesis account of Creation. If you follow the geneologies and the literal six day creation it says Dino's are only 6000 years old. The word dino is "new" and wasn't used in Bible days. The beasts of the field were the dinos. And the average size of Dino's is about that of a sheep which isnt all that crazy to think man lived at the same time as them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ?????, posted 03-06-2003 10:05 AM ????? has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 06-06-2011 6:46 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 06-06-2011 9:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 42 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2011 2:52 PM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 136 (618901)
06-07-2011 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by dwise1
06-06-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Genesis...
Huh??? Im not sure they EVER carbon dated any dino bones because that would prove they existed recently. they wont do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2011 2:52 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2011 10:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 5:31 PM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 136 (618902)
06-07-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by purpledawn
06-06-2011 6:46 AM


Re: Genesis...
Im sorry prurpledawn, I meant Millions....NOT thousands.
Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 06-06-2011 6:46 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 06-07-2011 6:51 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 49 by frako, posted 06-07-2011 7:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2011 9:12 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 136 (619205)
06-09-2011 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
06-07-2011 6:51 AM


Re: Genesis...
From purpledawn "Where have they unearthed dinosaurs with soft tissue?"
From frako "I would very much like to see some referances to that or at least some pictures of that soft tissue."
Here you go:
T. Rex Soft Tissue Found PreservedHillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
March 24, 2005
A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.
Most fossils preserve an organism's hard tissues, such as shell or bone. Finding preserved soft tissue is unheard of in a dinosaur-age specimen.
"To my knowledge, preservation to this extentwhere you still have original flexibility and transparencyhas not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.
"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.
Uncovering T. Rex
For three years scientists from the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana, excavated the T. rex from sandstone at the base of the nearby Hell Creek formation. The dinosaur was relatively small and around 18 years old when it died.
"The dinosaur was under an incredible amount of rock," said Jack Horner, a curator of paleontology at the museum. "When it was collected, the specimen was very far away from a road, and everything had to be done by helicopter.
"The team made a plaster jacket to get part of the fossil out, and it was too big for the helicopter to lift. And so we had to take the fossil apart.
"In so doing, we had to break a thighbone in two pieces. When we did that, it allowed [Schweitzer] to get samples out of the middle of the specimen. You don't see that in most excavations, because every effort is made to keep the fossil intact," said Horner, a co-author of the study.
A certain amount of serendipity lead to the discovery.
Because the leg bone was deliberately broken in the field, no preservatives were added. As a result, the soft tissues were not contaminated.
The museum, which is a part of Montana State University, has a laboratory that specializes in cellular and molecular paleontology (the study of prehistoric life through fossil remains).
The study authors also looked at several other dinosaur fossils to see whether there was something unique about this particular T. rex fossil.
"There's nothing unique about the specimen other than the fact that it's the first that's been examined really well," Horner concluded. Other dinosaurs, in other words, are probably similarly preserved.
Soft Tissues
Schweitzer's background is in biology, and she performed a number of tests on the fossils that are common medical practices today.
The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.
The vessels resemble blood vessels, cells, and the protein matrix that bodies generate when bones are being formed.
"Bone is living tissue, is very active tissue, and has its own metabolism and has to have a very good blood supply," Schweitzer said.
"So bone is infiltrated with lots and lots of blood vessels in its basic structure. When bone is formed, it's formed by cells that are specific for bone, that secrete proteins like collagen and form a matrix."
Further chemical analysis might enable the scientists to answer long-standing questions about the physiology of dinosaurs. For instance, were they warm-blooded, cold-blooded, or somewhere in between?
If protein sequences can be identified, they can be compared to those of living animals. This might allow a better understanding of how different groups of animals are related.
The find may potentially change field practices, perhaps by encouraging more scientists to reserve parts of fossils for cellular and molecular testing.
-This proves that Dino's are not "millions" of years old no matter what spin they want to put on it. Oh, and there wasn't a lot of fan fare about it as you can guess as to why...nor is it even talked about. Hmmmmmmm
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : Mispell and forgor something

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 06-07-2011 6:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 53 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 6:19 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 6:59 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 136 (619206)
06-09-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:28 AM


Re: Genesis...
There are a lot of articles on this. Simply search them for yourselves. I picked only one of them. Search T-Rex soft tissue. Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:28 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by caffeine, posted 06-09-2011 8:11 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 136 (619214)
06-09-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by purpledawn
06-09-2011 6:59 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
puprledawn, I have no clue how to put the pretty little quote in the nice blue box or I would have. Also, I was simply suggesting for anyone curious what to search for if they wanted to about the soft unfossilized Dino tissue. Lastly I wasnt sure I could just post the link here, I've been here a week.
Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 6:59 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 8:14 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 06-09-2011 8:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2011 11:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 136 (619492)
06-10-2011 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by purpledawn
06-09-2011 6:59 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Im sorry purpledawn (again). I'll just take my lumps. Im not a clue really about dating techniques. I shouldn't have brought it up. All i know is you can;t use carbon dating to date in the millions. Im not sure what method they use to date dino bones honestly. I admit it's not a area im familiar with.
As for the other question about how we would know the date of dino's other than the Bible I say let some Creationists date them and see what they come up with. I'll check to see if this has ever happened. Thanks for being patient with me. For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's. Particularly Laurence Tisdall. Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them. I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 6:59 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2011 4:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 70 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 5:43 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 74 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 8:20 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 11:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 136 (619676)
06-11-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
06-11-2011 7:02 AM


From Woodmorappe's paper:
quote:
B. Radiometric Violations of Superpositional and Cross-Cutting Relationships
Radiometric dates routinely violate common-sense relationships of field geology. It is almost self-evident that in a depositional situation the topmost beds must be at least slightly younger than those below them, and in an intrusive relationship it is the intruding body which must be younger than the body it cuts.
In writing about tuffs (obvious depositional accumulation), Curtis et. aLzs6 write: These beds may appear to be pure . . . yet gave different ages from top to bottom; the younger age being on the bottom. The rationalization invoked for this absurd situation was that the first-deposited were uncontaminated while the upper beds were subject to influx of contaminating detrital minerals.\
A tuff yielding a K-Ar date of 40-41 m.y. was found intruded by a dike and sill yielding K-Ar dates of 49-50 m.y.28’ A diorite whose biotite yielded a 157 m.y. K-Ar date is intruded by a quartz diorite yielding a 204 m.y. K-Ar biotite date.87 Violations of cross-cutting relationships are not exceptional. HopsonZs8 states: This curious relationship, in which the pegmatites give mineral ages older than those from the host rocks, is now known to be common . . . . These gross anomalies are explained away by claiming that the pegmatite gives older K-r ages than the intruded country rock because the country rock is composed of fine-grained minerals that are more vulnerable to thermally-induced argon loss. This is ccommodating, because many coarse-grained pegmatites properly give younger K-Ar and Rb-Sr mineral dates than the fine-grained country rock. Furthermore, Leach et. a1.288 found coarse grained schists giving ages near 72 m.y. whereas fine grained varieties gave dates near 123 m.y., and they appealed to . . some other process to explain this.
A different set of violations involves Rb-Sr whole-rock isochrons. The Stony Creek Granite of 610* 50 m.y. Rb-Sr isochron age cuts the Monson Gneiss of 444* 15 m.y. Rb-Sr isochron age. *g0 Remobilization of Sr isotopes during metamorphism was the supposed cause of this.
285Dietrich et. al. 1969. Op. cit. p. 3 12.
286Curtis et. al. 1961. Op. cit. p. 344.
287’Yates, R. G., and J. C. Engels. 1968. Potassium-Argon Age of Some Igneous Rocks in Northern Stevens County, Washington. UG 600-D246.
288Hopson, C. A. 1964. The Crystalline Rocks of Howard and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. Maryland Geological Suruey. 1964, p. 201.
289Leech et. al. 1963. Op. cit. p. 36.
290Hills, F. A. and E. J. Dasch. 1968. Rb-Sr Evidence for Metamorphic Remobilization of the Stony Creek Granite, Southeastern Connecticut. GA-1968, p. 137.
Well, I really just glanced at it but it does seem interesting. Pretty long read. He also gets into "Precambrian" rocks just after where I left off on the above comment. Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever? Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?
Edited by Chuck77, : spelling
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Took out extra line feeds and added blank lines (paragraph breaks were a bit of a guess). Put in quote boxes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 06-11-2011 7:02 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 06-11-2011 7:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 89 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 6:39 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 90 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 8:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 136 (619756)
06-12-2011 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Schweitzer
If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.[/qs]
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?
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?
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. Brilliant! Insert laughing smiley here?
Edited by Chuck77, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2011 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 91 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 9:28 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 136 (620086)
06-14-2011 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pressie
06-13-2011 9:28 AM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
pressie writes:
Chuck77 writes:
If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.
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?
pressie writes:
This sounds fishy, as well. Dr Schweitzer has been the person who initiated research on soft dinosaur tissue. You, Chuck77, brought it to the attention of people participating on this on this forum, but you’ve never heard about the researcher who discovered it? Weird.
first of all, you have me quoting something I never said. Dr Adequate said "If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it." NOT ME.
Why do YOU find it "fishy" that I've never heard of her before AND that I did not know she used to be a YEC? In the ARTICLE I provided for the forum (From which I did not do a search on the authors entire past) NOWHERE in the article does she state that she used to be a YEC. Read it...
So, in short, it seems you have MISquoted me AND acused me of lying for no good reason. Pressie, it seems you lack reading comprehension skills and in doing so misrepresent others comments. Hopefully the forum can see thru this blunder of yours and not attribute it to me.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pressie, posted 06-13-2011 9:28 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Son, posted 06-14-2011 4:04 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 105 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 4:41 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 136 (620101)
06-14-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Pressie
06-14-2011 4:41 AM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Pressie writes:
Did you mean that you’ve never heard of her before you read that article?.
Yes, in ALL honesty I am saying i've never heard of the woman before. All I know is that soft tissue was found inside a T.rex femur. I didn't know who discovered it until after Dr Adequate brought it to my attnetion. As you can see in my question to purpledawn, I did not mention any particular Scientists':
chuck77 writes:
Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.
Im sorry if i've lead you to believe that I knew who she was. I do now. I really wasn't aware that I needed to know every Scientist who makes these discoveries. I suppose it would not have come up if she hadn't been a former YEC. In all of the Creationist sites I go to I've never searched for the topic. I've just seen it referenced in comments and articles.
It could have been Mr Rogers for all I knew. I just know it happened.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 4:41 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 6:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 06-14-2011 11:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 111 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-14-2011 1:54 PM Chuck77 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