Oh look, more dinosaur tissues

[6days]

I would imagine that many things, once they are dehydrated and stored in a non-oxidising environment, stay the same forever.

Another nonsense non science idea to try add time into scripture.

 

[6days]

*The researchers found fragments of protein particles, not functioning proteins, let alone preserved cells or tissues.

Preserved cells? Cell walls break when frozen so its not likely you have preserved cells from a 4000 year old dino in Montana USA. However there may be remnants of cells.....


"Scientists accidentally discover what appear to be red blood cells and collagen fibres during analysis of ‘crap’ fossils ..."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...d-and-collagen-discovered-in-fossil-fragments

 

[Jose Fly]

So basically this thread is creationists citing science that they think supports their beliefs ("soft tissues"), but when it's pointed out that aspects of the very science they're citing directly contradict their beliefs (common ancestry of birds and dinos), those are conveniently waved away.

Can you say confirmation bias?

 

[User Name]

The whole 'appearance of age' canard is what bugs me. How does anyone know what "millions/billions of years old" is supposed to look like just from looking at a rock, unless he's already decided it's gotta be that old?

The Age of Our World Made Easy

​

 

[Jose Fly]

Early on, the different ages were made up and assigned to the 'geologic column'.

From that point on, the age of rocks and fossils have been determined by that fabricated dating system.

Says noted geophysics expert "steko at Theology Online". :chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

Musterion is correct.

Stellar evolutionists think distance means age.

Biological evolutionists think sophisticated design is evidence of age.*

Geological evolutionists think decay rate of isotopes is evidence of age.

As Christians we believe that "in the beginning God created.

You should trust the book of nature before the book of men.

 

[Jose Fly]

These fossils that Dr. Schweitzer has been studying come from the Hell's Canyon formation in Montana. Because the formation is such a treasure trove of fossils, its geologic strata have been studied extensively, by multiple scientists using different methods. Some of the results include...

METHOD: RESULT (Millions of years ago)

40Ar/39Ar total fusion: 64.8±0.1

40Ar/39Ar age spectrum: 66.0±0.5

40Ar/39Ar age spectrum: 64.7±0.1

40Ar/39Ar total fusion: 64.8±0.2

K-Ar: 64.6±1.0

Rb-Sr isochron: 63.7±0.6

U-Pb concordia: 63.9±0.8


Now could one of our resident geochronology experts please explain the mechanism by which all those different methods produced such consistent results?

 

[gcthomas]

I just love that 6days used the word "peatree" instead of "petri" for the dish.
:chuckle: He is so familiar with science...

 

[iouae]

I just love that 6days used the word "peatree" instead of "petri" for the dish.
:chuckle: He is so familiar with science...

 

[6days]

You should trust the book of nature before the book of men.

Absolutely!!
Rom.1:20
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

 

[6days]

These fossils that Dr. Schweitzer has been studying come from the Hell's Canyon formation in Montana. Because the formation is such a treasure trove of fossils, its geologic strata have been studied extensively, by multiple scientists using different methods. Some of the results include...

No C-14?
Hmmmmm. Cant do that one because it wouldnt support evolutionary conclusions.

 

[6days]

So basically this thread is creationists citing science that they think supports their beliefs ("soft tissues"),

Not just soft tissues.... all science supports the truth of Gods Word.

 

[Jose Fly]

No C-14?
Hmmmmm. Cant do that one because it wouldnt support evolutionary conclusions.

You're dodging. What specific mechanism explains the consistent results from different dating methods?

Not just soft tissues.... all science supports the truth of Gods Word.

I wonder if you appreciate just what a "fundie-bot" you've become? You used to be somewhat entertaining, but lately you mostly just repeat variations of "science supports the truth of Gods Word", like it's just a rote mantra you repeat reflexively.

 

[iouae]

No C-14?
Hmmmmm. Cant do that one because it wouldnt support evolutionary conclusions.

"The half-life of a radioactive isotope describes the amount of time that it takes half of the isotope in a sample to decay. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the half-life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years."

Do the maths. How much C14 would be left after 64 million years?

And they don't use C14 dating on rocks. They do it on RECENT C containing organic material. Beyond a few half-lives it completely loses its accuracy.

 

[Selaphiel]

No C-14?
Hmmmmm. Cant do that one because it wouldnt support evolutionary conclusions.

Why would they use a method that doesnt even have the range necessary? The maximum range of C-14 dating is ~60,000 years. That is why they use potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium methods, their half-life is much longer and thus their range is much longer.

Suggesting C-14 in this case is like claiming the blast furnace is 100 degrees celsius because your thermometer stopped there when you put it in.

 

[User Name]

No C-14?
Hmmmmm. Cant do that one because it wouldnt support evolutionary conclusions.

Carbon-14 dating doesn't support young earth creationist conclusions.

YEC claims a 6,000-year-old earth, but carbon-14 dating works well beyond that timeframe.

 

[User Name]

Early on, the different ages were made up and assigned to the 'geologic column'.

From that point on, the age of rocks and fossils have been determined by that fabricated dating system.

Geology and Earth History

​

 

[Nick M]

What specific mechanism explains the consistent results from different dating methods?

The same false assumptions. :duh:

 

[Jose Fly]

The same false assumptions. :duh:

Such as....?

 

[6days]

Whywould they use a method that doesnt even have the range necessary? The maximum range of C-14 dating is ~60,000 years.

Exactly my point. Evolutionists start with the conclusion and exclude any thinking or tests that *might disagree with their belief system.