Jump to content


Photo

The T-Rex Blood Find Has Been Confirmed With Repeatable Results!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#21 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 25 December 2011 - 07:54 AM

i used your links to show that elsewhere, thanks for the info. oh btw i am starting to see that the acedemia and evos dont mind if the layman post stuff pro evo but if they dare to doubt and use science and even offer $$ to prove that say abiogenesis or such like is possible they dont know what they are talking about.

the later arent creationists at all, just wanting honest answers that dont violate logic or scientific standards.!

#22 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 25 December 2011 - 08:04 AM

yet this guy who researched stories and went to libraries and did research had No creditentials is loved by them

http://ncse.com/rncs...-bob-schadewald

http://en.wikipedia....bert_Schadewald

hey he did what we do.

#23 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 25 December 2011 - 09:21 AM


Quote

I do not agree that it is more impartial to question the age of the dinosaurs instead of better preservation than expected as they have been dated using independent means. The bones are millions of years old as determined by good scientific methods and one must not need to rely upon speculation of the timing of preservation of organic material.


Yes, what would be the "independent means" and "scientific methods" with whom the bones were tested, and an age of 68 million years was determined? That would be interesting to know what this was supposed to be, for the purpose of the discussion.


I really hate to see this one go unanswered. Geode has given a wave of the hand dismissal to the cited refereed science I gave in post #16. He has given us an assertion that the bone was discovered to be millions of years by the vague means of "good scientific methods." Geode also countered with the arguement that the modern results of were themselves evidence of watertight sealing of the T-Rex bone, by stating that if the soft fissue had been in any contact with water, it would have been destroyed even in thousands of years.

I guess we know, why there is no answer. But I'd like to see what Geode has to say.
Until now I'd say they attributed an age to the layer the bones have been found in. But of course there could be other tests applied of which I am not aware.

#24 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 25 December 2011 - 07:12 PM

I guess we know, why there is no answer. But I'd like to see what Geode has to say.
Until now I'd say they attributed an age to the layer the bones have been found in. But of course there could be other tests applied of which I am not aware.

As far as I know, unless there's another time marker, the dinosaur bone dates the strata, it's an index fossil. I've read papers where they'll dispute the range a bit, using index fossils versus a radiometric result in an igneous rock nearby. I haven't seen any literature on any "confirming" igneous rocks for the bone. The half lives for the peptide bonds would dispute the alleged age of the rocks. We have no way of knowing how much daughter isotope was in the rock at crystallization, how much parent or daughter has leeched out or in. There's plenty of legitimate reason why creationist don't accept these dating techniques over others that would dispute their believed ages.

At any rate, in the video the fossil was halfway down the cliff. What I think is funny is they have found dino skeltons under just feet of sand. It's always an ad hoc situation. If the fossils are sitting on the surface then it's because of erosion of 65 + million years, but if it's deep in sediment, it's because of layered depostion over 65 million years +.

Point being, the time markers in the stratum is what dates the stratum, not the other way around.

#25 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 December 2011 - 03:28 AM

.... Point being, the time markers in the stratum is what dates the stratum, not the other way around.

So unless we get any other report, there hasn't been any physical dating applied to the bones or anything close to it.
Do I understand you correctly that they say the layer is the age of the bones and the bones are the age that the literature says they have. Hence the bones are X old, the layer is X old and since the bones are in the layer that is X old the bones are X old. But how did they initially determine that the bones are X old in the first place?

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:08 PM

So unless we get any other report, there hasn't been any physical dating applied to the bones are anything close to it.
Do I understand you correctly that they say the layer is the age of the bones and the bones are the age that the literature says they have. Hence the bones are X old, the layer is X old and since the bones are in the layer that is X old the bones are X old. But how did they initially determine that the bones are X old in the first place?


Age dating using layers compared to the bones, and the bones compared to the layers has always been a form of circular reasoning.

#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:17 PM

This is a great thread. It is covering points that are truly devastating to evolution in the clearest possible way, but trying to get any of them to acknowledge that they have moved the goal posts of soft tissue degeneration by almost 68 million yrs is almost impossible. Blinders on.
  • lovemybirds likes this

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:04 AM

This is a great thread. It is covering points that are truly devastating to evolution in the clearest possible way, but trying to get any of them to acknowledge that they have moved the goal posts of soft tissue degeneration by almost 68 million yrs is almost impossible. Blinders on.


What's ironic is that in this thread you can hear the crickets from the atheist side of this issue.

Attached File  fingers-in-ears1.jpg   22.59KB   0 downloads

Attached File  head-in-the-sand2.jpg   28.58KB   0 downloads

Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

#29 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:28 AM

and theres a remote possibility of some types of dinosaurs still alive. if that is the case then we would have one more nail in the coffin evolution.

#30 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 December 2011 - 07:22 AM

Age dating using layers compared to the bones, and the bones compared to the layers has always been a form of circular reasoning.

So how did the dates attribute to bones and/or layers enter the circle then. Did someone make them up?

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:58 AM

So how did the dates attribute to bones and/or layers enter the circle then. Did someone make them up?


The way that it works that evolutionists don't like to admit is that if you take a 100 year old bone and dig down and bury it in a million year old layer. Over a period of time the dating markers of the layer will cross contaminate the bone making it date the same age as the layer even though the bone is not that old. What this does for supporting the things spoke of in the Bible even though the fossils date old it was because the earth was created old and therefore the fossil get cross contaminated from the earth (dirt-layers) in which they were buried in.

Example: A 6,000 year old fossil gets buried (during the flood 4,400 years ago) in a layer that dates 50 million years and it will eventually date 50 millions years old even though it's only 6,000 years old.

But because the layer dates the fossils and the fossils date the layer (circular reasoning) they will ignore cross contamination just so the evidence solely supports evolution. If they considered cross contamination the whole fossil record would fall apart in supporting evolution, So circular reasoning is needed to make the evidence conform to the accepted theory.

Why would God create a "aged" earth? For the same reason he created all life fully formed so they could survive. To make the creation work under the laws of physics and the laws of survival all matter was created already aged.

Examples:

1) Our planet has to be created to be over 4 billion years old because under the laws of physics the planet has to be that old in order to be cooled down enough to support life.
2) Our sun is a G-type main sequence star. This class of star makes it perfect for supporting life on this planet. This is because this class of star is mainly stable so it’s fluctuations are not bad enough to destroy life on this planet. Also, the type of star determines the habital zone (distance a planet has to be from the star and be able to support life).

So as you weigh the age as a mechanism for why everything dates differently you soon start to realize that age (creating things already aged) is a big part of creation. It also shows God's power over time because His time is infinite.

But to understand this even further: God is not a law breaker which means He will not break the laws He creates which includes the laws of the universe that exist today. Knowing this means that the laws during creation had to be different in order for God to create this way and not break any existing laws. So what was different to allow this? Man had not sinned yet which means death did not exist yet, So the creation was done under eternal laws not non-eternal laws which we observe. This is why when we try to explain creation under current non-eternal laws it makes no sense, But when you apply that the laws were different then it makes perfect sense. For even science cannot prove that the laws that govern the universe and life always remained the same.

#32 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:05 AM

....Why would God create a "aged" earth? For the same reason he created all life fully formed so they could survive. To make the creation work under the laws of physics and the laws of survival all matter was created already aged.
....

Or then appearance of age in the sense of measurements people can take from which they estimate/extrapolate ages. Based on present day assumptions that is. For instance if you take present day composition, assuming initial composition an assuming change rates you can come up with an age. But it's for sure not the correct age, if your assumptions are wrong. On the other hand they've then to go to ignore other evidences. For example that the temperature change over time (amongst other things) in the solar system would also set limits on how far back you can go in terms of times before the planet gets inhabitable. And in our case there are of course the decay rates of soft tissue in dinosaurs. There suddenly the old agers find all kinds of excuses why the decay rates could have been much different, that is SLOWED down.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:37 AM

Or then appearance of age in the sense of measurements people can take from which they estimate/extrapolate ages. Based on present day assumptions that is. For instance if you take present day composition, assuming initial composition an assuming change rates you can come up with an age. But it's for sure not the correct age, if your assumptions are wrong. On the other hand they've then to go to ignore other evidences. For example that the temperature change over time (amongst other things) in the solar system would also set limits on how far back you can go in terms of times before the planet gets inhabitable. And in our case there are of course the decay rates of soft tissue in dinosaurs. There suddenly the old agers find all kinds of excuses why the decay rates could have been much different, that is SLOWED down.


Creating with age already added and leaving the evidence of what was done (dating markers) shows how God did create. Creating with age and leaving no evidence of what was done would be a deception. If God can create living matter (all life) old enough and ready to multiply on the same day, then why not dead matter as well?

Example: Since God created everything already aged, which is right? The 6,000 year time-line or the age that is shown when dating things? They both are.
1) 6,000 years is the actual time passage.
2) Millions or Billions of years age dating of matter shows God's power over time during the time (6 days) before sin.

Can science actually prove that the actual time passed that aged all the matter in the universe? Nope. The only way to be sure that the actual time passed that left the dating markers would be to have a time machine so that one could go back in time and see if anything existed billions of years ago. But since a time machine does not exist that only way we could ever conclude that this time passed is only through age dating markers. So basically the proof that would make the claim of that much time passing is not observable.

To make it more understandable:
Let's say you are building a house. Down the street you hear that a house that is 100 years old is being torn down and it was built with wood that has been known to last several 100s of years. So you decide to buy this wood from the contractor to build your house. 10 years later someone asks you: How old is your house? Your possible answers are:

1) It's 10 years old because I built it 10 years ago.
2) It's 110 years old because the material you used was already 100 years old when you built it.
3) Or you could say that it's both ages due the when it was built and how long ago it was built.

So you see God created a 4.6 billion year old earth 6,000 years ago. So how old is it? It's both ages just like the house would be, So who is wrong in the old earth young earth debate? No one actually. One answer whows how God created with age, while the other answer shows how much actual time passed.

#34 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:44 AM

So unless we get any other report, there hasn't been any physical dating applied to the bones or anything close to it.
Do I understand you correctly that they say the layer is the age of the bones and the bones are the age that the literature says they have. Hence the bones are X old, the layer is X old and since the bones are in the layer that is X old the bones are X old. But how did they initially determine that the bones are X old in the first place?

The gradualists are always going to refer you to radiometric dating. And also there are sedimentation rates which, I'm thinking, were initially figured by people like Lyell, and Darwin, but they have been revised time and again. We could probably find links to those set by a congress of geology at sometime, but I don't have time to search.

But all that led up to now, and the bones are indexed at certain age by species. The species would have been given a range of first appearance, and extinction. Then
other time markers, or associated fossils, would come into play to determine more "exact" dating.

But yeah, you could look up index fossils at wiki, and there are some creationist
books on the subject, but I don't have time to look right now. Maybe Jason777 or someone else can refer us to some good lit.

Age dating using layers compared to the bones, and the bones compared to the layers has always been a form of circular reasoning.

I go to church with an environmental official, who worked as a petroleum geologist before he took office. He said that underground is not all pretty layers, it's very complex. There are alot of lenses, and discontinuous strata. I've seen the same thing in outcrops. stata beside more homogenous, non stratified rock. My point is these dinosaurs are at different depths in the "dirt." If you combine the fact that the strata reflect turbidity, with discontinuous strata (and some layers, or depostions are very large) it would seem that sometimes, opinion or supposition have to make a correlation for fossils that are not in the same area.

At any rate, the sedimention often reflects turbidity, or large single depositions, or a mixture of both, How are you going to make true correlations by an index? Especially when you find blood cells in a time marker that was in wet sediment?

#35 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:55 AM

and theres a remote possibility of some types of dinosaurs still alive. if that is the case then we would have one more nail in the coffin evolution.


They will never let it go. Just reinterpret the evidence.

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:11 AM

I go to church with an environmental official, who worked as a petroleum geologist before he took office. He said that underground is not all pretty layers, it's very complex. There are alot of lenses, and discontinuous strata. I've seen the same thing in outcrops. stata beside more homogenous, non stratified rock. My point is these dinosaurs are at different depths in the "dirt." If you combine the fact that the strata reflect turbidity, with discontinuous strata (and some layers, or depostions are very large) it would seem that sometimes, opinion or supposition have to make a correlation for fossils that are not in the same area.

At any rate, the sedimention often reflects turbidity, or large single depositions, or a mixture of both, How are you going to make true correlations by an index? Especially when you find blood cells in a time marker that was in wet sediment?


The video in the first post shows that they took several fossils and tested them, even different species. I am sure that they all did not come from wet sediments.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users