Until Mary Schweitzer shocked the secular science world with her dinosaur soft tissue find dinosaurs had never been tested for age. Their ages were tagged to the assumed ages of the rocks they were embedded with. Actual carbon dating of the actual dinosaur bones themselves is a relatively new scientific procedure that secularists show strong opposition against conducting for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, dinosaur bones have been tested now and the results match results found for other remains, like those of mammoths, for example.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Until Mary Schweitzer shocked the secular science world with her dinosaur soft tissue find dinosaurs had never been tested for age. Their ages were tagged to the assumed ages of the rocks they were embedded with. Actual carbon dating of the actual dinosaur bones themselves is a relatively new scientific procedure that secularists show strong opposition against conducting for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, dinosaur bones have been tested now and the results match results found for other remains, like those of mammoths, for example.
Dear marke,
Now, you think like I do!!! God could have made our heaven in one day. He could have expanded on that theory and increased the stars after that with all the days that occurred after that day one. I mean, if He created heaven, and the host of heaven in, I think it was on created afterwards, He can create more stars and planets in other thousands of years that have passed since. If He can create all that He has in a mere 6 days, that is AWESOME!! I mean, if He can create our galaxy in one day, think of what He could do in the thousands of years that have come and gone since. God may have rested on the 7th day, the Sabbath Day, that doesn't mean He could do some more work on Sunday-Friday each week and month. Sure, He looked around and saw that everything He made was good, that doesn't mean He didn't create further galaxies as the years have gone on. I'm sure He would just be bored to not have something else to create in the days and years after creating Adam and his 'significant other.'
What did you think God would do after creating Adam and Eve? Sure, He can watch Adam and Eve, but He could also make another galaxy in each day that follows, except the Sabbath. God is not going to get bored; Hardly! Is He going to just watch over Adam and Eve for every minute of their lives without doing other things to pass His Time with? God created the Sabbath so that man would not work nonstop for months on end. And God didn't created two days off each week, but mankind decided on a 'weekend," taking two days off. Man can then work for five days, then do the work around the home too, and then take a day off with NO work. Not all men do that though. Sometimes they work their whole weekend and then during the whole week, taking no time off. That is a sin. The Sabbath is literally on Friday evening until Saturday evening. Constantine decided things differently, I guess by accident.
Look at how Adam was first created, not as a baby, but as a full grown man. So when God created him, Adam was aged. This goes for Eve, and all of the plants, animals and fish, and I believe, also the planet Earth and the other stars and galaxies, etc. I don't know why He does this, but it pleases Him to do this. I also believe He created an aged Earth and Moon, and the same for the host of Heaven, and all else He created. He didn't create every thing as baby's, but instead as adults. He even created 'Chickens' before eggs were even made. So if anyone asks you, what came first. The chicken or the egg, you will be correct to say the 'chicken.'
God didn't want to create Adam as a one-hour-old baby whom He'd have to raise and wait until the baby could talk, walk, think, reason, make choices, etc. You all have to realize that there is a 'Fourth Dimension,' and I've seen it in part. No, I won't tell you what I've seen. It would be too much for you. Now I know why Jesus said to His disciples, 'There is more that I could tell you, but you would not be able to bear it.' Something to that effect. If anyone wants me to look up the Bible verses, let me know.
I also believe that certain men of science like to say things are way older than they are, and other info. You don't see them saying things are a few thousand years old, but instead that this is a million years old, and this is 3 billion years old, etc. It gets really ridiculous. They are not telling us the truth or correct age of things. They just guess and if they say million of years old, no one can refute them because no one has been around for a million years. They say that man and woman are '2 million years old' for example, when God says man is only 6,000 years old, or so. Science is a real scammer. I will have to write more on this a bit later. They defy what God says the age of man is. It's a sham. Well, it's 6am and I should have gone to bed at midnight. Good Night!!
God Bless Your Hearts!!
Michael
Last edited:
It does not speak well of one-sided secularists who refuse to consider scientific evidences they do not want to consider.
Old earth evolution/creation would be obvious to average people if they didn't have to fit it into the YEC story written by Hebrew priest in Babylon. This truth annoys people because the church has convinced them that the books written by biased holy men were actually written by God. Therefore, to doubt the book is to doubt God. So we get a contorted defense against all evidence to the contrary.
I believe God created the men who created the story.
It seems many people have their own theological views they cannot support with facts.
Men like Stephen Hawking have spent years looking for life in space, to no avail. Dozens of expensive government-funded observatories sit idle around the world after years of failed expensive search for signs of alien life that has never been found. God created earth with abundant oxygen and water and secularists cannot explain that. Men should honor God for giving us life on earth.
gcthomas
New member
Uranium-lead absolute dating has been used on dinosaur bones since 2010, and the dates are consistent with the relative methods, so your claim here is misleading.
From http://m.geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/2/159.abstract
gcthomas
New member
I believe these two organisations have a statement of faith in biblical inerrancy, and the science findings will be rejected if they conflict with their intro interpretation of the Bible. Hardly scientific.
What good are unspoken but devoutly observed rejections to any and all scientific evidences which do not match secularist projections and assumptions? The atheistic evolutionists have no clue about how life and matter could possibly have emerged from nothing without God and yet they foolishly banish all studies into the supernatural as if that is off-limits to science. If that is the case I wonder that they spend so much time searching the universe in vain for life beyond earth.
Last edited:
True -
Why are we now seeing actual testing of bones since 2010 after decades of reporting ages of bones which were never tested? Because soft tissue finds have changed the landscape dramatically in the last decade. Some scientists have carbon tested dinosaur bones the same way that mammoth bones have been tested and the ages range from 5,000 to 50,000 years and no more. Secularists say the tests are flawed. Does that mean that all radiocarbon testing is flawed, whether for mammoth or other bones?
How can radioisotope dating be verified for accuracy? One way is to test ages of samples with known ages to see if test results match the known ages. Date dinosaur bones with known ages? No, we don't know if those assumed ages are accurate. Date volcanic rock from volcanoes with known ages? Yes, that is an excellent way to verify the dating methods. Here are some results:
1. Mt. Etna - erupted 2100 years ago, but rocks were dated 25 million years ago.
2. Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona - erupted in 1065 AD, but rocks were dated 200,000 years old.
3. Lava flows at Mt. Nguarhoe, New Zealand - erupted in 1949, 1954, but rocks dated 275,000 years old.
4. Hualalai basalt, Hawaii erupted 200 years ago, but rocks were dated 1.4 to 22 million years old.
5. Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in 1971, but rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 years old.
6. Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.
http://qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/
What does it say for scientists who question carbon dating results of 40,000 years for mammoths and dinosaurs, but who refuse to deal with problems with traditional assumptions brought out by tested results of samples of verifiable age which are known to be false?
That opinion is correctly referred to as an "imagination."
gcthomas
New member
Why do you reject the U-Pb dating? Without dealing with these you can be accused of cherry picking results.
On the datings you mention, they have similar flaws to the alleged dino ones. I haven't looked at all of them, but as a for-instance, I'll mention the first, the Mt Etna figure. Dr Austin submitted a processed sample to a lab that advertised that they were unable to take samples aged 2 My old or younger, due to limitations with their method. Yet Austin submitted anyway. Don't you see a potential problem, here? He claims to have removed the older material that was present as xenoliths in the rock, but there has been no independent scrutiny of his work (peer review) so we don't know if he managed or even used reliable techniques. That he claims a date that the lab in the unreliable range advertised by the lab, suggests we shouldn't trust him sufficiently to self certify this. I'd guess that his young date was a result of argon contamination in the testing lab (hence the 2 My limit) and perhaps incorporation of the older material known to be in the samples he collected.
Questions: Again, why reject the U-Pb dating of the dinosaurs? Why do you claim C14 dates for dino bones are as low as 5000 years when I am unaware of anything claimed for an identified sample of less than 12000 years? Are you saying that the world is it least 50000 years old as your data suggests or should we disregard these C14 dates as I have been saying all along?
Test results in dating are rejected all the time by researchers who know the dates often vary, sometimes wildly. My question stands. If we refuse to test dating methods by samples of known age then how can we trust any dating results?
gcthomas
New member
I am not sure what you mean here, but I'm guessing you are claiming that scientists routinely reject anything that does not match assumptions. I that right? You know that there are thousands of easily identifiable instances of scientists routinely accepting contrary results as soon as the evidence of theory stacks up?
The only reason that creationism is rejected outright now is that is has NEVER managed to prove what it claims with either verifiable evidence or coherent theory. It is thoroughly religious in content, and as such will always be yelling ineffectually from the sidelines while actual scientists are substantially unaware even of their existence day to day.
There are several really quite good and coherent theories at to how it all started, so your claim is dishonest or at least overly hopeful.
Supernatural, if it means anything at all, means 'not appropriate study for science' since the idea itself requires that you reject science's power to analyse and understand it.
It appears that many secularists deliberately reject the findings of the RATE Group, although they cannot scientifically falsify the Group's findings. There seems little doubt that such rejections are theologically based and not scientifically based.
Here is a marvel. Secularists adamantly deny that anyone can prove anything and yet dismiss evidence they don't like by claiming it lacks irrefutable proof.
Secularists do not disprove many evidences they dismiss, they just claim those evidences are either invalid or non-existent, neither of which is true.
There are no scientifically valid "coherent theories" which explain the origin of life and matter. That is just propaganda.
Dirt does not think. Chemicals do not create life from nothing with no help. Science is stupid without God. Chemicals do not think, spirits do, yet secularists declare their adamant intention of remaining ignorant about those serious supernatural issues which should matter a great deal to science.
Rosenritter
New member
[/QUOTE]
Nope, its all straw. You are choosing arguments to attack that are not what I put forth.
If you haven't figured it out yet, my challenge was flawed. Just like yours was. Which you wont admit because you wanted someone to bite at your flawed challenge.
- Status