Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sasquatch

Greetings

Recommended Posts

Because no one has found evidence that they havent. If you want to overthrow all of geology as well as the other disiplines of earth science go for it, but you have to bring your own research to the table. Work that can be tested, retested and cooborated by other scientists within that respective field of disipline..

 

It doesn't matter whether or not they have found evidence that they haven't, that is another discussion, but what I am talking about here stands - no one knows the age of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, more atheistic evolutionists making more claims about their evidence that must always solely support evolution. What would one expect from a group of people who all believe the same thing. And your continued attempt to make us sound stupid using categorizing tactics about people whom disagree with you as a group that is stupid. Childish games do not prove anything scientific only that it shows that you must act childish to be an evolutionist and to defend evolution itself. Because if it were not needed so many of you would not be doing it.

 

We also laugh at you when you guys use terms like freethinker. If you guys were truly about freethinking you would not care what we thought. And anyone could be apart of yur group because your group of freethinkers would not care either. But let's be honest. Freethinking in your group is only within the realm in which you all determine. And only those who think and believe within that realm of thinking that is acceptable will you accept. Pitiful that you point fingers at us and make accusations while all along from your own own hands you guys have 3 fingers of your own pointing right back at you. I guess your motto is: Do as I say not as I do. Because everything you accuse us of I can point it right back to you. If you don;t believe me make a list of what makes you justified in your belief against us and see,

 

And one more thing, you skipped over half of my post, I guess if you are to ignorant to answer questions and therefore must us categorizations instead what should I expect? Certainly not any scientific answers. But some how knowing it all and ignorance goes together? I guess that's what I should expect from a theory that allows you to be right and wrong at the same time. No wonder there is no real definition for truth scientifically because real truth does not exist in science. And If I am wrong give us the scientific definition of truth.

 

But I guess to define truth you would also have to have written down morals that everyone on your side should follow, but that don't exist either does it. I guess when your side has to constantly change truth actually committing to it is out of the question. Because once you do then you actually would have a standard you might have to live up to. Can't have that can you?

 

What I've done is provide materials and supporting evidence for an old earth. I'm well aware that you think it's bunk and a conspiracy and I respect your opinon on that. However that doesnt make the evidence go away, It's still there. If you think there is some experiment that can be used to test somthing like the outdated idea of a global flood, please propose it. There is little "scrutiny" among creation scientist peers. They propose all kinds of models, etc. based on speculation centered around their own interpretations of scripture, but that's about it. Rarely do they propose any means of testing their hypotheses or models. You have to bring somthing to the table if you want to eat. As for not "responding" to every point, I cant as I'm at work. It's not outta disrespect. :Just_Cuz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whether or not they have found evidence that they haven't, that is another discussion, but what I am talking about here stands - no one knows the age of the earth.

 

If no one "knows the age" of the earth, then how can you say Earth is 6000 years old? That's a pretty bold, matter of fact statement if no one "knows".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work that can be tested, retested and cooborated by other scientists within that respective field of disipline..

 

How do you test the original saturation?

 

How do you test that rates were always the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If no one "knows the age" of the earth, then how can you say Earth is 6000 years old? That's a pretty bold, matter of fact statement if no one "knows".

 

I don't know that the earth is 6000 years old. You can scan this entire forum and you will never find me saying that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other part of the dino blood and tissue is the scientific field of forensics. Now when they tell their class that it is best to get to the evidence before it degrades is the timeline within dinosaur extinction time or our lifetime? Because either evidence like this lasts millions of years which means there is no hurry and the forensic field is wrong, Or it does not and all that you have presented is wrong. Why? You cannot have contradictions like this and be right on both counts. So somebody lying to protect a theory that if true does not need protection. But if not true needs more untruth to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other part of the dino blood and tissue is the scientific field of forensics. Now when they tell their class that it is best to get to the evidence before it degrades is the timeline within dinosaur extinction time or our lifetime? Because either evidence like this lasts millions of years which means there is no hurry and the forensic field is wrong, Or it does not and all that you have presented is wrong. Why? You cannot have contradictions like this and be right on both counts. So somebody lying to protect a theory that if true does not need protection. But if not true needs more untruth to prove it.

 

Sweitzers work has been twisted and misrepresented as she openly says this. If this was real news then DNA would have been found, It wasnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweitzer offered hypotheses for how the tissue could have survived so long. One is that the densely mineralized bone, combined with as-yet-undiscovered geological or environmental processes, protected the structures within. Also a response to Schweitzer's 2007 paper the one reporting the presence of protein points out several questions about the findings, including the likelihood of contamination. The comment, written by Mike Buckley and an array of co authors, pointed out that the likelihood of collagen breakdown. Tests that should have been performed but were not. The inability to perform standard analyses on fragmented peptide sequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've done is provide materials and supporting evidence for an old earth. I'm well aware that you think it's bunk and a conspiracy and I respect your opinon on that. However that doesnt make the evidence go away, It's still there. If you think there is some experiment that can be used to test somthing like the outdated idea of a global flood, please propose it. There is little "scrutiny" among creation scientist peers. They propose all kinds of models, etc. based on speculation centered around their own interpretations of scripture, but that's about it. Rarely do they propose any means of testing their hypotheses or models. You have to bring somthing to the table if you want to eat. As for not "responding" to every point, I cant as I'm at work. It's not outta disrespect. :Just_Cuz:

 

Let's go deeper into the problem so you can see what most atheists refuse to see, But first I will ask a question to make you ponder what I am about to present,

 

Can you are any other atheist prove that the laws of physics and time always remained the same? No you cannot, So possibilities where the laws and times were different also have to be pondered or you deny other possibilities in favor of one conclusion which is not science. With me so far?

 

So we have to include that something may have been different but what? If you apply what the Bible says it makes it very clear that time during the creation was different. Why? According to what it says death cannot exist until the first sin. And the first sin did not happen until the 6th day. So all that was done before it was done under different laws of physics and different laws of time. With me so far?

 

So what would have to change in the laws of physics and time to make what we currently know infinite instead of finite? 2 things have to change:

 

1) The process of aging.

2) The laws of thermal dynamics.

 

For time to pass and nothing die or decay the process of "aging" has to become separate from time. In other words age becomes a constant even though time passes. Which means that whatever age something is created as it will stay that age unless the laws change. This is why all the animals and humans were created old enough to go forth and multiply. Because if all were created as babies, when would they grow up in a timeline were "aging" no longer exists? And if God creates all living matter already aged because of this, why not dead matter such as the earth and other things in the universe?

 

What this does and what we would expect to see if this were true is that the correct age of everything would be perfect for life on this planet to survive. And that is exactly what we have. Or sun if the correct age and type star so that life can exist on this planet. Our planet is the correct age to be cool enough and have a strong magnetic field to deflect the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere away. And I could go on and on about how creation with age makes everything we see work just like it does. And what do you have? It just randomly happens, Fat chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweitzers work has been twisted and misrepresented as she openly says this. If this was real news then DNA would have been found, It wasnt.

 

In the video did she mention creationists or was her main problem evolutionists who did not want her to test their evidence because they were afraid that she would find confirmation that would bring up questions about the old earth time-line. Like I said you cannot prove that the laws of physics and the laws of time remained the same. So to ignore this which I know you will only shows that you believe that all evidence must conform to evolution and to prove that you are willing to bend any rule that you can. If you choose to be ignorant on purpose it is your own fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not reading unsupported statements, I'm reading about the results of research that was conducted. "Both research teams used instruments called ion microprobes to date and analyze the zircon crystals, which often contain uranium, rare earth elements and other impurities. Uranium decays to lead at a known rate. Uranium-lead ratios in the zircons showed they formed as early as 4.4 billion to 4.3 billion years ago when they crystallized in molten granite"

 

OK, so how do they know what the original saturation of the "uraniam, rare earth elements and other impurities" were?

 

And how do they know that the present "known rate" has always been the same?

 

Exactly what I would have asked. I like to use the analogy of a burning candle.

 

You walk into a room and see a burning candle. Now you can measure how much of the candle is left and how much wax melts each minute, however how from these two things can you determine how long it has been burning for? In order to claim as much you need to know the initial height of the candle so then you can apply the rate of wax melted per minute in order to give an estimate of time. This is the same in that we do not know the initial amount of radioisotopes in the item hence radioactive dating simply is debunked on this basis alone. (We do not know the initial amount since we were not there to take a sample at the beginning of the universe, or the formation of the "ancient" rocks...)

 

However there is a way from the candle to work out how long it has been burning and that is to get an estimate of the wax that has been melted and then apply that retrospectively with the rate to see how long it would have taken to melt the wax that is presently melted... Now this is what the RATE team has done with helium in zircon crystals. Helium is a byproduct of uranium decay, (so in my analogy it is the byproduct that is the melted candle wax), and from this data the age of the earth is around 6000 years...

 

Read the book I mentioned, "thousands not millions" it is based on this evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweitzers work has been twisted and misrepresented as she openly says this

Oh, it has been twisted an misrepresented because she "says this".

 

She is an evolutionist! What do you expect her to say? :get_a_clue:

 

Schweitzer offered hypotheses for how the tissue could have survived so long.

That illustrates perfectly how difficult evolution is to falsify - a new hypotheses can be always thrown in at the last minute to save the day. Anything that satisfies the demands of the worldview will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it has been twisted an misrepresented because she "says this".

 

She is an evolutionist! What do you expect her to say? :get_a_clue:

 

 

 

That illustrates perfectly how difficult evolution is to falsify - a new hypotheses can be always thrown in at the last minute to save the day. Anything that satisfies the demands of the worldview will do.

 

Also she may just be saying that so she doesn't get black listed ;)

 

 

Yeah ad hoc hypothesises go hand-in-hand with pseudoscience ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it has been twisted an misrepresented because she "says this".

 

She is an evolutionist! What do you expect her to say? :get_a_clue:

 

 

 

That illustrates perfectly how difficult evolution is to falsify - a new hypotheses can be always thrown in at the last minute to save the day. Anything that satisfies the demands of the worldview will do.

 

Sweitzer says that she's a devout Christian. Jus pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweitzer says that she's a devout Christian. Jus pointing that out.

 

Also she may just be saying that so she doesn't get black listed ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More from her... "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” She makes total sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from her... "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” She makes total sense to me.

 

And your point? As was said before, just because she says X doesn't mean anything...

 

The fact remains that living tissue and proteins have been found belonging to dinosaurs in bones that should not contain them. This is a huge contradiction and exposes how weak the data is for an old earth.

 

Further any comments on the evidence I presented by the RATE team, (or will you ignore it like my Biochemical evidence... :( )

 

 

 

EDIT: I believe there is a passage in the Bible asking believers to love God with all their heart, soul and MIND. Hence having evidence of God doesn't detract from having faith at all. It expresses how we can love God with our Mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your point? As was said before, just because she says X doesn't mean anything...

 

The fact remains that living tissue and proteins have been found belonging to dinosaurs in bones that should not contain them. This is a huge contradiction and exposes how weak the data is for an old earth.

 

Further any comments on the evidence I presented by the RATE team, (or will you ignore it like my Biochemical evidence... :( )

 

 

 

EDIT: I believe there is a passage in the Bible asking believers to love God with all their heart, soul and MIND. Hence having evidence of God doesn't detract from having faith at all. It expresses how we can love God with our Mind.

 

As I said I'm not well studied enough to comment on your "biochemical evidence" yet so I'm not ignoring you. After Schweitzer's first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this at least in part. She said that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work which doesn help her credibility or give weight to what is claimed. Also note that a team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said I'm not well studied enough to comment on your "biochemical evidence" yet so I'm not ignoring you. After Schweitzer's first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this at least in part. She said that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work which doesn help her credibility or give weight to what is claimed. Also note that a team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum.

 

Firstly everyone has an opinion on everything, I am asking yours for the Biochemical evidence.. Its a whole new game when a person presents evidence of which is ignored and then the claim is still made (at least indirectly) that there is no evidence... I also asked about the radiometric dating flaws and the RATE team's reasearch with Helium from Zircon crystals... (But as I predicted it was ignored)

 

 

The "pond scum" argument has long since been debunked. Soft tissue has been found in many many other fossils since the first find so the claim that it was accidentally bacteria or such is BS. Furthermore, a study was done that identified a protein in the bones that is not homologous to the bacteria claimed to inhabit the fossils so that also debunks the claim... I suggest reading up on the latest info, (even if it goes against your own beliefs).

 

Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex

 

http://www.sciencema...5717/1952.short

 

Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein

 

http://www.sciencema.../5822/277.short

 

Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry

 

http://www.sciencema.../5822/280.short

 

Original Biomaterials Preserved in Dinosaur Bone

 

http://journals.camb...ine&aid=1217016

 

 

 

The next two are Creationist sources with references and links to peer reviewed articles, (for posterity)

How Long Can Cartilage Last?

 

http://www.icr.org/article/5704/365/

 

Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth

 

http://www.icr.org/article/4621/365/

 

 

 

Here is an article from 2005 citing fossil Magnolia leaves with DNA (800bp long)... (SO much for your claims earlier about no DNA being found.....). The MAX age these fossils have due to the DNA is a few 10,000 years, however it is more probable of just 10,000 years.

 

http://naturalselect...silizeddna.html

 

In a similar vein, Sykes (1991) has commented that in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolysis imply that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. In his review paper, Lindahl goes on to argue that “it seems feasible that useful DNA sequences tens of thousands of years old could be recovered, particularly if the fossil has been retained at low temperature,” giving as an example DNA from mammoth tissue thought to be 40,000 years old. So, our knowledge of DNA stability makes it seem highly improbable that this molecule could be preserved for more than a few tens of thousands of years at most. Others have noted that, "Certain physical limits seem inescapable. In approximately 50,000 years, water alone strips bases from the DNA and leads to the breakage of strands into pieces so small that no information can be retrieved from them. Oxygen also contributes to the destruction of DNA. Even in ideal conditions–in the absence of water and oxygen and at low temperature–background radiation must finally erase all genetic information," 27

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I just noticed I'm the one giving the evidence here, care to cite some papers claiming pond scum was the cause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweitzer says that she's a devout Christian. Jus pointing that out.

 

Anyone can claim anything. Claims don't prove it action does. We get people here all the time that like to join up under false worldviews, it is soon clear during their debates (their actions) they are not what they claimed to be. So nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize tha your not getting the complete picture from just reading the abstracts right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as any good skeptic knows. The finding of intact collagen protein in dinosaur fossils is certainly an extraordinary claim, and the finding of hemoglobin is even more stunning. Creationists are shooting themselves in the foot by avoiding the contamination issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can claim anything. Claims don't prove it action does. We get people here all the time that like to join up under false worldviews, it is soon clear during their debates (their actions) they are not what they claimed to be. So nice try.

 

She seems reasonable to me. At least she's keeping her work seperate from her personal religious beliefs. And she also admits the possibility of contamination existed and that more work needs o be done to come to a true conclusion..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from her... "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” She makes total sense to me.

 

And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it.

 

You know I have come to the conclusion that you don;t listen to anyone here, It's not that you have to agree but it's like we are saying nothing and you are just promoting your agenda. So basically I consider you now a time waster. Here not to debate the issues but to ignore all that are not in support of your own so that your promotion of what you believe can look totally positive and absolute.

 

What you do beyond this point will determine whether you stay or go. Because these problems have been pointed out to you over and over and you continue as if you are deaf and blind. But let's be honest. The reason you don;t listen or ignore more than half of what people are saying here is because you have zero respect for anyone whom would dare to disagree with you. So for what reason would I allow you to stay here when you won't listen to the mods or admins here and all you do is waste everyone's time? And you disrespect everyone here with your comments and your ignorance on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She seems reasonable to me. At least she's keeping her work seperate from her personal religious beliefs. And she also admits the possibility of contamination existed and that more work needs o be done to come to a true conclusion..

 

As usual you did not look at the video or anything else any one provides because you would rather be ignorant. the video I provided was an update to the find. She opened several other fossils and found the same thing. So your attempt at trying to make it sound like a fluke is disproved. And now you look stupid because you prefer to be ignorant on purpose. Nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike have you read her actual papers? "And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it". Where? Please show me where she is quoted as stating this. And as for "debating" In order for a debate to continue, there must be new points made. Otherwise, it's stagnant, and pretty much over. While there's always new discoveries being made in evolution, the same isn't true of creationism. The debate among scientists has been over for decades.. however, the public and political debate is far from over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms