Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 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: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 95 of 136 (619969)
06-13-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ?????
03-06-2003 10:05 AM


????? writes:
With "half lifes" and other chemicals, we have a pretty acurate way of dating. And yes it is very accurate though people have been saying how carbon dating isn't good. It is. Well back to my question, How do you explain the age of the dinosaurs? according to the bible the earth isn't near a million years of age much more a couple billion.
Just a question...
?????
I'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate.
"Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/05/110518121227.htm

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2011 3:13 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 97 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2011 3:28 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 102 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 1:11 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
(2)
Message 113 of 136 (620349)
06-15-2011 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Pressie
06-14-2011 12:29 AM


I think you are rude and your horns are showing.
I made no assertions really other than the research was interesting.
What that research does demonstrate is that evolutionists are always grabbing at straws. These evo researchers really have no idea......
When was The Faith Delivered? - Apologetics Press

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Pressie, posted 06-14-2011 12:29 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2011 7:15 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 124 by Pressie, posted 06-16-2011 2:50 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
(2)
Message 114 of 136 (620350)
06-15-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ZenMonkey
06-14-2011 1:54 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
The matter at hand is that evolutionists discard evidence that is uncomfortable.
A dino was most certainly found with tissue and bones in tact.
"Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue
So in reply to your nasty attitude I say that many evolutionists are liars when it suits them.
All this talk on dinos being around 65mya appears to be debunked nonsense that evolutionists will clutch to with their dying breath.
http://www.physorg.com/...urvived-mass-extinction-years.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/01/110127141707.htm
In other words you may as well post evidence from Alice in Wonderland as hold up this theoretical woffle as evidence.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-14-2011 1:54 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 06-15-2011 5:43 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 116 by DBlevins, posted 06-15-2011 6:18 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 06-15-2011 6:23 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 118 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2011 6:27 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2011 9:31 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 123 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-15-2011 9:41 PM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 127 of 136 (625786)
07-25-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ZenMonkey
06-15-2011 9:41 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Quote ZenMonkey
My apologies. I did not intend to be rude, and I'm sorry if my tone was offensive to you.
I see that others have already addressed the issue of the possible survival of soft tissue dinosaur remains. A full reading of the source material does make it clear that the remains in question were in fact mineralized - that is to say, fossils - and not soft tissue per se.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objection you and other creationists have to the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years is that this is evidence that contradicts the notion of a young earth. I've mostly seen this claim of fresh dinosaur remains as part of a general denial of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques. Is that what you're objecting to?
The two articles you cite in the later part of your post are about evidence that not all species of dinosaur went extinct about 65 million years ago, but that at least one line survives for another 700,000. I can't see that being able to determine that a hadrosaur bone is 64.8 million years old as opposed to 65 or 66 million goes very far to support the belief that dinosaurs actually went extinct only a few thousand years ago.
Interestingly enough, a major point of both articles is how this example shows how much more accurate dating techniques have become.
My apologies. I did not intend to be rude, and I'm sorry if my tone was offensive to you.I see that others have already addressed the issue of the possible survival of soft tissue dinosaur remains. A full reading of the source material does make it clear that the remains in question were in fact mineralized - that is to say, fossils - and not soft tissue per se.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objection you and other creationists have to the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years is that this is evidence that contradicts the notion of a young earth. I've mostly seen this claim of fresh dinosaur remains as part of a general denial of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques. Is that what you're objecting to?
The two articles you cite in the later part of your post are about evidence that not all species of dinosaur went extinct about 65 million years ago, but that at least one line survives for another 700,000. I can't see that being able to determine that a hadrosaur bone is 64.8 million years old as opposed to 65 or 66 million goes very far to support the belief that dinosaurs actually went extinct only a few thousand years ago.
Interestingly enough, a major point of both articles is how this example shows how much more accurate dating techniques have become.
ZenMonkey, I am not a scientist and I need to rely on the varacity of the information that is online and in research papers. I also did not mean to be rude here or elsewhere.
This is a snip from the article:
"The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died."
This is what the article states. If it is incorrrect information that is not my fault. If the truth has been exaggerated to suit the paradigm, that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available.
My point was around the unliklihood of 'soft tissues' being found that dates back anywhere near 65my. In other words my point was that if it is 'soft tissue' it is more likely to be much more recent than suggested. This assertion is based on common sense rather than scientifically knowing just how long 'soft tissue' will remain soft tissue for in any particular environment. The researchers appeared to be surprised themselves to find this 'soft tissue'.
If researchers or related articles have misrepresented the information I use, please refute as you have. I can then add this to my folder of misrepresetations.
I am not young earth so that is an erraneous assumption. I am only young earth when it comes to mankind, so when dinos lived is of no consequence to my beliefs. However, 'soft tissue' over 60myo produces some skepticism for me, regardless of the fact that it does not matter to me.
If there is an article that refutes this soft tissue being such but is rather some fossilized something or another then I am happy to take on the refute.
I guess that in the end if researchers cannot agree on what they have found, that says something else again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-15-2011 9:41 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 5:58 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 129 by Panda, posted 07-25-2011 7:46 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 133 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-25-2011 9:55 PM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 130 of 136 (625819)
07-25-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Schweitzer
Quote
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.
Just to finish off what I have to say....
I had a look at the quote that speaks to the 'soft tissue' being demineralized and a bit appears to have been missed.... I had best acknowledge that I at least read the info....
Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present - PMC
"Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. The present study attempts to trace the occurrence of these four components in bone from specimens spanning multiple geological time periods and varied depositional environments."
The mention of hollow and pliable blood vessels being found appears misleading if in fact all they found was not much at all.
Mary may be YEC turned evolutionist but John Sanford was an evolutionist turned YEC.
So basically my creationist response to what this find means to creationists is nothing at all unless one is a strict YEC. The only way this would present a concern to me is if the dating was accurate and robust and you placed mankind with dinosaurs 65mya.
Given that evolutionists refute any evidence of dinosaurs and mankind coexisting 'old earthers' don't have a problem but may explain why some are not total YEC's.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2011 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:03 PM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 132 of 136 (625824)
07-25-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
07-25-2011 5:58 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
quote Taq
Arguments from common sense are logical fallacies. Many findings in science have gone against common sense. For example, light can be both a particle and a wave. This goes against common sense, but that doesn't mean it is false.
This T. rex was found in a very well documented strata that is one of the most accurately dated strata around. That fossil is as old as they say it is. Whatever material they find in it has survived that long. No amount of incredulity refutes the facts.
Are you suggesting there is no common sense in evolutionary theory? I think there is, or should be. Quantum physics will make sense once they understand it. If light is both a particle and a wave you should not have any trouble understanding how God can cause to happen while not being physically present.
In fact I think some posters have refuted themselves on this one. The find spoken to cannot be both 'soft tissue' and just demineralized minerals.
I do not need to refute the dating for dinosaurs as when they lived is no conflict for me. I refute dating methods generally.
What I do have a problem with speaking and posting to part of a research paper that speaks to demineralized remnants when the next phrase speaks to presevation of blood vessels. It seems to me it cannot be both, so 'yes' that seems to escape common sense, as does the skepticism tied to pliable fibre 65myo or more, and I don't think I need a PHD is science to say so. I have given information of evolutionary researchers that have problems with it all. I also reserve the right to be skeptical like some of your evo researchers, whether it is a matter of common sense or not.
See this bit below
"Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence of still-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought.."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/.../274/1607/183.full
This info above suggests strongly to me that what was found was actually 'soft tissue' as well as demineralized stuff.
It appears that I have information that suggests there is dispute as to the validity of claiming preservation of soft tissue past 1 million years, as never seen before. The link below speaks to it.
"It was at this momentwhen a fragment of 68 million-year-old dinosaur was rendered as strings of letters decipherable only by the most labyrinthine mathematical algorithmsthat empirical certainty crumbled. What followed was a complex, contentious, and peculiarly modern scientific argument, one more about software and statistics than bones and pickaxes.
Before long, however, a distinctly human subplot emerged. Within 16 months, three separate rebuttals appeared, two in Science itself. Many researchers were skeptical of the quality of Asara's data and doubted that collagen could survive so long, even partially intact. "You're talking about something a hundred times older than anything ever sequenced," says Steven Salzberg, director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland. "If you have extraordinary results, they require extraordinary evidence."
Origin of Species: How a T. Rex Femur Sparked a Scientific Smackdown | WIRED
What is apparent from my being a YEC when it comes to mankind is that I have no faith in these algorithms, past population size algorithms, the fossils that sometimes date the strata eg Jehol birds etc that suggest mankind is more than 6,000yo. However this is not the thread topic.
I did go to the source, as you suggested, and that only presented more problems....as what they found was soft fibrous tissue. It is either soft tissue or it is not.
Interestingly, some evolutionary researchers do have a problem with this find as illustrated above. I do not appear to be the only skeptic.
As I said, it makes no difference to my beliefs so long as you are not placing mankind at the campfire with T Rex 65mya.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 5:58 PM Taq has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 134 of 136 (625827)
07-25-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 9:03 PM


quote Nuggin
Given that evolutionists refute any evidence of dinosaurs and mankind coexisting
We don't have to refute it. There's simply no evidence.
Someone paints a cartoon dinosaur on a jug and Creationists think they have something.
Like everything else they trot out, it's good for a laugh and little else.
I think what is funnier is not being able to discern the results of the research that one posts and speaks to, nor keep on topic.
If there is no evidence for mankind being around with dinos 65myo you and me are still dancing on the same page, Nuggin, like it or not.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:03 PM Nuggin 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