Real Science Friday CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 2)
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, "they" is a pronoun referring to your earlier statement that dragons lived alongside of humans.
Were those dragons, the "they" who lived along side of humans, firebreathing? Is that understandable now? Were any of those dragons fire breathing? Or is it your claim that T. rex lived with humans? Might as well be, if you think there is evidence of any dinosaurs living with humans I suppose they all did?
Were those dragons, the "they" who lived along side of humans, firebreathing? Is that understandable now? Were any of those dragons fire breathing? Or is it your claim that T. rex lived with humans? Might as well be, if you think there is evidence of any dinosaurs living with humans I suppose they all did?
CapnFungi
New member
Jukia said:
It is my belief (I don't require evidence) that man did indeed coexist with dragons (ie. dinosaurs). It is not my belief that T-Rex breathed fire
It was understandable before. I just wanted to make sure you knew what you were asking.
I claim to believe this. Just like you believe that they didn't! Neither of us have cold hard proof! Its a matter of faith.
God Bless You
Jukia said:
Why do you debate topics if you really have no answer that you can explain?
C-14 dating is accurate or it is not. If not, then why would an evolutionist say with any confidence how old a sample is?
Seems to me, finding any C-14 in any sample points to a young age since the half life is of C-14 is 5730 years.
Radiocarbon dating can be accurate when you control the variables. That's what I'm saying -- I'd like to see a creationist publication that took every known precaution and C14 dated something like a scientist would.
Here's the premise "it is possible for C14 to contaminate a sample, and we have identified several common factors which are responsible and are known to contaminate samples". From this, it is statistically much more probable that anomalous C14 readings in a sample are contaminations than it is for all the other known radiometric dating techniques to be wrong. It's basic philosophy of science, is it not?
But see you're in the exact same boat paddling the other way. What happened to the samples that are old? Contaminated? Something actually leached the carbon OUT?
I think I have a pretty good idea of radiometric dating and the physics/chemistry behind it. But I have never done it, nor do I consider myself an expert. People have made various claims about such dating's unreliability here, on BEL and various fundamentalist web sites (even Dr. Dino in the slammer, I'll bet). Instead of going back and forth about this, one of you who disputes it, and would therefore seem to have the burden of proof since you are disputing a generally accepted scientific procedure, should contact someone who does the work, question that person and report back. It is clear that anyone here with any real scientific understanding and belief in the real world has no real issue with it and is able to understand that perhaps the process is not quite as simple as Pastor Enyart would like us to believe.Shimei said:
However, I suspect my suggestion is like the seed falling on the barren ground. Will result in nothing but continued lack of knowledge.
CapnFungi
New member
I read the articles and/or journals. I have access to databases, I can do the research.
Do I have to call them now and ask..
Did you tell lies in your articles about the soft-tissue specimens found in the Montana T-Rex fossils?
Is it true, that this is all a fabrication, and that you in fact never found such evidence for a young earth creationists?
ROFLOL you amuse me Jukia. I'll pos rep for making me laugh!
Do I have to call them now and ask..
Did you tell lies in your articles about the soft-tissue specimens found in the Montana T-Rex fossils?
Is it true, that this is all a fabrication, and that you in fact never found such evidence for a young earth creationists?
ROFLOL you amuse me Jukia. I'll pos rep for making me laugh!
aharvey
New member
What about option 3? Looks can be deceiving. Aren't you at all intrigued that none of the people actually involved in this research refer to the material as organic tissue, red blood cells, etc., etc.? They say it looks like those things. The only people who tried as soon as possible to give the impression that it is those things are folks who have some ulterior motive or another for wanting it to be so (i.e., creationists and various PR folks).CapnFungi said:
Yes, I just wish more creationists would be upfront about this being their approach to science, knowledge, and the Bible. Much easier and more honest than trying to pretend the science doesn't say what it says, it really says what the Bible says.CapnFungi said:
But dragons have nothing to do with this, of course.
thanks, humor is often a good thing.CapnFungi said:
But I suspect your approach to some scientist as set forth here would be non-productive. Might be better off saying "I am confused, can you explain this?" Then if you don't like the answer raise your questions in a more reasoned manner.
This is a very interesting point. Granted, it could very well turn out to be actual organic matter -- but it may not. You'll notice that the scientists involved do not jump to conclusion (put away your jump to conclusion mats, creationists). The closing line of Schweitzer’s paper states, "Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain." Compare that with Bob Enyart's analysis from his show on August 7th where he said, “Inside that dinosaur bone, this huge T-rex, they had soft-tissue, blood cells, blood vessels, they had tissue that was flexible.” And Bob Enyart again a week later, “They broke open the femur bone and they found soft tissues in there - blood vessels, blood cells - soft tissue.”aharvey said:
Can someone please tell me the difference between the scientist's claim and Bob Enyart's claim? Granted, it may turn out that there is actual soft-tissue. It may not. In either case Bob's assertion was unsupported and a misrepresentation of the situation at the time it was made. Interestingly, Dr. Schweitzer (an evangelical Christian herself) said, "They [Christians] treat you really bad...They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” (from the article Dinosaur Shocker in the Smithsonian Magazine).
Dr. Poinar, in a perspective article in the journal Science is quoted as saying, “Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived." So there is precedent in this situation to at least warrant further consideration.
- Status