Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Seeker25

Soft Tissues Found In Dinosaur Fossils

Recommended Posts

This reminds me of something...hmmm...

nebs-idol.jpg

You have a rather vivid imagination if you are equating a 3,500 year old society with today's. gigglesmile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reliably? Who says? Evolutionists who make very real assumptions about the samples they date including the assumption about the original content of those samples?

 

"I have no reason or the requisite knowledge to refute these findings..."

 

I do. We do. That's a big part of the reason for the existence of EFF to begin with.

That's what you think they are? Time to come out of the bronze age friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what you think they are? Time to come out of the bronze age friend.

So the fact that we can poke holes, big enough to drive a mack truck through is...bronze age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a rather vivid imagination if you are equating a 3,500 year old society with today's. gigglesmile.gif

Don't need too much imagination. You admitted yourself you'd rather bow to "scientists and their findings"...Do you know the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a rather vivid imagination if you are equating a 3,500 year old society with today's. gigglesmile.gif

What's different about todays society? We have technology but that doesn't mean we are somehow above our ancestors. The image is highly relevant to todays society, yes we don't bow to golden statues in our society but we definitely bow to the idols of today. Idols for atheists are people with titles, this being the idol for intelligence. Obviously idols come in many forms, one such example is the ever bowing nature of the cellphone obsessed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of fossils are found in rock strata reliably dated into the millions of years. I have no reason or the requisite knowledge to refute these findings so must bow to greater learning.

The fact that no prehistoric dinosaurs are extant today also lends credence to the long age theory regarding these animals.

 

I should ask. Since we know that the techniques used are prone to give false positive results... (If you date things of known age they get "millions of years" despite it being a few hundred or so)... How then can you "reliably" know which results is due to a false positive result and which results are actually correct?

 

Or do they guess? wink.png

 

 

EDIT: One should ask, what frame of reference was used to establish the ages? Since we cannot use things of known age how did they work out the measure by which the results are defined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the fact that we can poke holes, big enough to drive a mack truck through is...bronze age?

 

They must have been pretty smart back then huh ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I should ask. Since we know that the techniques used are prone to give false positive results... (If you date things of known age they get "millions of years" despite it being a few hundred or so)... How then can you "reliably" know which results is due to a false positive result and which results are actually correct?

 

Or do they guess? wink.png

 

 

EDIT: One should ask, what frame of reference was used to establish the ages? Since we cannot use things of known age how did they work out the measure by which the results are defined?

Here's a good place to start.

When you reply again, please tell me the difference between relative dating and radiometric dating.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the fact that we can poke holes, big enough to drive a mack truck through is...bronze age?

Can you give an example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give an example?

Ummm you're responding to one now, and I suggest you check out the R.A.T.E. group. Considering you were using a hypothesis from several years ago and even the secular scientific community now acknowledges that it's actual dinosaur soft tissue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm you're responding to one now, and I suggest you check out the R.A.T.E. group. Considering you were using a hypothesis from several years ago and even the secular scientific community now acknowledges that it's actual dinosaur soft tissue.

You seem to like the "driving a Mack truck through poked holes" analogy - so is this the RATE group you were talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to like the "driving a Mack truck through poked holes" analogy - so is this the RATE group you were talking about?

Interesting that you'd use a blog rather than look at the actual scientific papers released. Very telling of your exhaustive research....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what you think they are? Time to come out of the bronze age friend.

 

The bronze age is a man-made designation; just like evolution itself. It has no basis in reality.

 

This world is degenerating, not evolving. Open your eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm you're responding to one now, and I suggest you check out the R.A.T.E. group. Considering you were using a hypothesis from several years ago and even the secular scientific community now acknowledges that it's actual dinosaur soft tissue.

Utilizing the caution I recommended earlier, I found this in a well known online resource:-

If you have something that undeniably resolves the issue, please link it.

The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions; upon further inspection and peer review, however, neither of these reports could be confirmed.[177] However, a functional peptide involved in the vision of a theoretical dinosaur has been inferred using analytical phylogenetic reconstruction methods on gene sequences of related modern species such as reptiles and birds.[178] In addition, several proteins, including hemoglobin,[179] have putatively been detected in dinosaur fossils.[180][181]

(WIKIPEDIA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utilizing the caution I recommended earlier, I found this in a well known online resource:-

If you have something that undeniably resolves the issue, please link it.

Ok so I'm talking about Nature, Science, PNAS,PLoS One, etc. and you're going to go with wikipedia....ohhhhkay I think we're done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I'm talking about Nature, Science, PNAS,PLoS One, etc. and you're going to go with wikipedia....ohhhhkay I think we're done here.

Please, go ahead and link me to the PNAS article.

That is, if you actually care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good place to start.

When you reply again, please tell me the difference between relative dating and radiometric dating.

Thanks.

 

Wikipedia..... Really... It is useful as a starting point but not really for arguments, (especially when the link you gave doesn't address the issue).

 

Care to answer the questions in your own words, this isn't a link-fest its a forum for discussion... Feel free to give your explanation and provide quotes from links as evidence for your explanation... that is how you debate or have a discussion.

 

So here is the question again, please respond

 

 

 

I should ask. Since we know that the techniques used are prone to give false positive results... (If you date things of known age they get "millions of years" despite it being a few hundred or so)... How then can you "reliably" know which results is due to a false positive result and which results are actually correct?

 

Or do they guess? wink.png

 

 

EDIT: One should ask, what frame of reference was used to establish the ages? Since we cannot use things of known age how did they work out the measure by which the results are defined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you'd use a blog rather than look at the actual scientific papers released. Very telling of your exhaustive research....

Ok so I'm talking about Nature, Science, PNAS,PLoS One, etc. and you're going to go with wikipedia....ohhhhkay I think we're done here.

 

Perhaps the statement of "​I double and triple checked my sources, many of which were scientific sites" seems a bit over-exaggerated ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia..... Really... It is useful as a starting point but not really for arguments, (especially when the link you gave doesn't address the issue).

 

Care to answer the questions in your own words, this isn't a link-fest its a forum for discussion... Feel free to give your explanation and provide quotes from links as evidence for your explanation... that is how you debate or have a discussion.

 

So here is the question again, please respond

 

It is just a starting point to see if you people will actually read any links I provide so I know if I will be wasting my time.

 

 

I should ask. Since we know that the techniques used are prone to give false positive results... (If you date things of known age they get "millions of years" despite it being a few hundred or so)... How then can you "reliably" know which results is due to a false positive result and which results are actually correct?

 

Or do they guess? wink.png

 

Where did you get the data for a "few hundred years or so"?

Or did you just guess? wink.png

 

EDIT: One should ask, what frame of reference was used to establish the ages? Since we cannot use things of known age how did they work out the measure by which the results are defined?

 

The strata were independently aged by geologists into the millions of years - in the case of the Hell Creek T-Rex specimen, 68 million years.

Btw, perhaps you can do me the common courtesy of responding to my question to you re-relative and radiometric dating?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I'm talking about Nature, Science, PNAS,PLoS One, etc. and you're going to go with wikipedia....ohhhhkay I think we're done here.

I'll give you another assignment - show me in any of those articles where Sweitzer or anyone else (other than a yec) dates the specimens at around 10,000 years or less.

Or is that just an assumption on your part?

As far as I'm aware, it is not the scientific default position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wikipedia..... Really... It is useful as a starting point but not really for arguments, (especially when the link you gave doesn't address the issue).

 

Care to answer the questions in your own words, this isn't a link-fest its a forum for discussion... Feel free to give your explanation and provide quotes from links as evidence for your explanation... that is how you debate or have a discussion.

 

So here is the question again, please respond

 

1. It is just a starting point to see if you people will actually read any links I provide so I know if I will be wasting my time.

 

 

I should ask. Since we know that the techniques used are prone to give false positive results... (If you date things of known age they get "millions of years" despite it being a few hundred or so)... How then can you "reliably" know which results is due to a false positive result and which results are actually correct?

 

Or do they guess? wink.png

 

2. Where did you get the data for a "few hundred years or so"?

Or did you just guess? wink.png

 

EDIT: One should ask, what frame of reference was used to establish the ages? Since we cannot use things of known age how did they work out the measure by which the results are defined?

 

3. The strata were independently aged by geologists into the millions of years - in the case of the Hell Creek T-Rex specimen, 68 million years.

 

 

4. Btw, perhaps you can do me the common courtesy of responding to my question to you re-relative and radiometric dating?

 

 

 

 

1. Or perhaps you say that now as to cover your use of shoddy sites for your information...

 

 

2. You've completely ignored my question.... AGAIN.... I'll answer yours (I already have the quotes and links to do so), after you answer mine... As they say, first in best dressed wink.png

 

Or were you hoping I'd snap at your red herring and deviate away from my question?

 

Here is the question again, please answer it this time...

 

I should ask. Since we know that the techniques used are prone to give false positive results... (If you date things of known age they get "millions of years" despite it being a few hundred or so)... How then can you "reliably" know which results is due to a false positive result and which results are actually correct?

 

Or do they guess? wink.png

 

 

3- Again you've missed the question... simply saying 'Geologists found out this age' doesn't give the FRAME OF REFERENCE they used to determine it... So please answer the question and give the frame of reference the Geologists used in order to determine "millions of years"...

 

 

4- You're question had nothing to do with my post.... Additionally you gave no line of reasoning as to how it was relevant, let alone a form of argument. (It was your initial attempt to dodge the issue I presented).... Nobody stated anything about relative dating so this is your red herring. Ergo since it is a red herring I didn't answer it, (also since you didn't actually answer the questions I asked FIRST).

 

Answer my post FIRST, (properly no more red herrings please), then I will answer your red herring question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer my post FIRST, (properly no more red herrings please), then I will answer your red herring question...

Gilbo, that's so unfair. How are evolutionists supposed to debate if you take away the red herrings?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo, that's so unfair. How are evolutionists supposed to debate if you take away the red herrings?

 

Sorry Adam, I guess I should have said earlier that I'm not a fan of fish ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. Or perhaps you say that now as to cover your use of shoddy sites for your information...

 

 

Quite incorrect - if you look at the original link, you will see why.

You aren't gonna start reaching on me now are you?

 

 

2. You've completely ignored my question.... AGAIN.... I'll answer yours (I already have the quotes and links to do so), after you answer mine... As they say, first in best dressed wink.png

 

Or were you hoping I'd snap at your red herring and deviate away from my question?

 

Here is the question again, please answer it this time...

 

I should ask. Since we know that the techniques used are prone to give false positive results... (If you date things of known age they get "millions of years" despite it being a few hundred or so)... How then can you "reliably" know which results is due to a false positive result and which results are actually correct?

 

Or do they guess? wink.png

 

Which false positive result are you referring to?

 

3- Again you've missed the question... simply saying 'Geologists found out this age' doesn't give the FRAME OF REFERENCE they used to determine it... So please answer the question and give the frame of reference the Geologists used in order to determine "millions of years"...

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you will look around this site. It goes back to that relative dating I asked you look at before.

 

4- You're question had nothing to do with my post.... Additionally you gave no line of reasoning as to how it was relevant, let alone a form of argument. (It was your initial attempt to dodge the issue I presented).... Nobody stated anything about relative dating so this is your red herring. Ergo since it is a red herring I didn't answer it, (also since you didn't actually answer the questions I asked FIRST).

 

*Sigh* Sad you prefer to dance around rather than actually investigate links I am providing. I was hoping you might be different.

Answer my post FIRST, (properly no more red herrings please), then I will answer your red herring question...

 

Resorting to accusations already is an indication you are beginning to run scared.

If you wish to continue a normal discussion, then stop beating around the bushes.

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