What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • Guest, We are excited to announce a new era for ChristianForums.net! Please visit our Community Message!

Did Man Walk With Dinosaurs?

A

AlexBC

Guest
#61
Scientists present a hypothesis (a belief), and they seek evidence that will prove or disprove that belief before it becomes elevated to a theory. The evidence a scientist will accept does not mean that it is beyond question. Scientists disagree among themselves on almost every hypothesis and theory. The history of quantum mechanics and particle physics is a history of wars among scientists who strongly opposed each other.

There have been other examples found of soft tissue preserved in "ancient fossils":

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilizeddna.html

Hope this helps

Tri
Hey. Sorry about the long response time. Working on Tokyo time here:sad

I will concede that many examples of soft tissue have been found in various fossils but that a vast majority are met with a lot of skepticism within the field.

I also think that there is a little misunderstanding from some people. Sometimes when it's said that soft tissue has been preserved it can mean that the mineralisation has so perfectly replaced the structures within the animal that fine structures, blood vessels, even blood cells can be preserved. These are more akin to impressions of the tissue rather then being the tissue itself.

I actually read up on a lot of the things you mentioned in previous posts over breakfast this morning. Pretty interesting. I admit there were some things I had not known about. Pretty interesting stuff. :yes
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
891
Christian
Yes
#62
I actually read up on a lot of the things you mentioned in previous posts over breakfast this morning. Pretty interesting. I admit there were some things I had not known about. Pretty interesting stuff. :yes
I have plenty more trivia where that came from :wave
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
891
Christian
Yes
#64
Awesome. I'm still leaning on the side of the fossils being older than some suggest but it's interesting reading about research that challenges that. :study
It is. I think you might enjoy the research put forward by the RATE team (RadioIsotopes and the Age of the Earth). They have some good videos on Youtube from Origins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZmoGJC4YA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPJA2N9mCgM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-MyiBIYGA0

I don't personally subscribe to the 6-day creation; for I believe in the 1000 years per creative day conversion. The RATE team do subscribe to the 6-day creation, but that is ok. Our basic premise is the same. They have dozens of videos on pretty unique topics. I was impressed with the radiohalos, which I think is video 3 above. Let me know if I can help with any further research.
 
A

AlexBC

Guest
#65
It is. I think you might enjoy the research put forward by the RATE team (RadioIsotopes and the Age of the Earth). They have some good videos on Youtube from Origins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZmoGJC4YA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPJA2N9mCgM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-MyiBIYGA0

I don't personally subscribe to the 6-day creation; for I believe in the 1000 years per creative day conversion. The RATE team do subscribe to the 6-day creation, but that is ok. Our basic premise is the same. They have dozens of videos on pretty unique topics. I was impressed with the radiohalos, which I think is video 3 above. Let me know if I can help with any further research.
Cheers. It's going to take more evidence for me to abandon the number of 4.5 billion but I can definitely see how this research could support alternative ideas on the age of the Earth. :study
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
891
Christian
Yes
#67
Cheers. It's going to take more evidence for me to abandon the number of 4.5 billion but I can definitely see how this research could support alternative ideas on the age of the Earth. :study
The 4.5 billion years rests on one set of science only: Radiometric dating. There is no other time-clock that gives the date 4.5 billion other than uranium-lead decay. That is really the only question you need to examine to see if the 4.5 billion is credible. Other than that, there are dozens of other methods of dating that give a contrary time-scale; such as helium, hydrogen and carbon 14 saturation in the atmosphere; sea salt accumulation; decay rate of earth's magnetic field..., just to name a few. These other dating methods also give dates for the duration of the earth, and they are drastically different to uranium dating. For the science to be credible there cannot be alternative explanations that give consistent contrary answers; yet there is. The other consideration is how long natural selection would take place if you were relying on random mutations. Scientists estimate that evolution would actually take much longer than 4.5 billion years. The only reason that they are sticking to that date is because of the restrictions placed due to uranium dating. It's quite an irony.

Tri
 
A

AlexBC

Guest
#68
The 4.5 billion years rests on one set of science only: Radiometric dating. There is no other time-clock that gives the date 4.5 billion other than uranium-lead decay. That is really the only question you need to examine to see if the 4.5 billion is credible. Other than that, there are dozens of other methods of dating that give a contrary time-scale; such as helium, hydrogen and carbon 14 saturation in the atmosphere; sea salt accumulation; decay rate of earth's magnetic field..., just to name a few. These other dating methods also give dates for the duration of the earth, and they are drastically different to uranium dating. For the science to be credible there cannot be alternative explanations that give consistent contrary answers; yet there is. The other consideration is how long natural selection would take place if you were relying on random mutations. Scientists estimate that evolution would actually take much longer than 4.5 billion years. The only reason that they are sticking to that date is because of the restrictions placed due to uranium dating. It's quite an irony.

Tri
I can see where you're coming from, but you also have to remember that research involving the "molecular clock" in studying the divergence of species has also given a number of arouind 3.5 billion for the last common ancestor of all living organisms. So there are other things supporting it.
 
A

Atothetheist

Guest
#69
I can see where you're coming from, but you also have to remember that research involving the "molecular clock" in studying the divergence of species has also given a number of arouind 3.5 billion for the last common ancestor of all living organisms. So there are other things supporting it.
Nope, there are serveral checks that scientists do to make sure that they get the right number for the origin of the universe.

Not to mention that if you believe that the world is 6,000 years old, we shouldn't have evidence of irrigation systems being built before then, or the fact that a civilication in Mesapotamia had been there.

Now, I will say it again, no. There is no possible evidence in support of CREATION with out it easily being refuted or explained in a way that it makes it not a problem.

You can deny science, but you have no evidence for creation, or humans and dinosaurs walking together.
 
A

Atothetheist

Guest
#70
I can see where you're coming from, but you also have to remember that research involving the "molecular clock" in studying the divergence of species has also given a number of arouind 3.5 billion for the last common ancestor of all living organisms. So there are other things supporting it.
One of the problems with Carbon, abd Helium, and all of the other stuff the guy mentioned to you is the fact that Carbon decays rapidly, and you can only use the element to ACCURATLY date things into the thousands. It does not work for such things as finding out the age of the earth.

The magnetic field is easy, He assumes it was created when the earth was created, which is not an assumption you should make.

Helium dating is a method in which you can date water. So, if there was no water in the beginning, then obviously the dates were messed up.

Nt to mention the fact that scientists believe Water didn't form until
One billion years after the forming of the earth, and you can hardky call it water.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,955
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#71
Nope, there are serveral checks that scientists do to make sure that they get the right number for the origin of the universe.

Not to mention that if you believe that the world is 6,000 years old, we shouldn't have evidence of irrigation systems being built before then, or the fact that a civilication in Mesapotamia had been there.

Now, I will say it again, no. There is no possible evidence in support of CREATION with out it easily being refuted or explained in a way that it makes it not a problem.

You can deny science, but you have no evidence for creation, or humans and dinosaurs walking together.
If you take creation to mean young earth then I largely agree. But the belief that there is a creator behind it all does not conflict with the science in any way.

I've found the below interview helpful:

http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response
 
A

AlexBC

Guest
#72
One of the problems with Carbon, abd Helium, and all of the other stuff the guy mentioned to you is the fact that Carbon decays rapidly, and you can only use the element to ACCURATLY date things into the thousands. It does not work for such things as finding out the age of the earth.

The magnetic field is easy, He assumes it was created when the earth was created, which is not an assumption you should make.

Helium dating is a method in which you can date water. So, if there was no water in the beginning, then obviously the dates were messed up.

Nt to mention the fact that scientists believe Water didn't form until
One billion years after the forming of the earth, and you can hardky call it water.
Yep. That's why i'm still firmly in the 4.5 billion years area. I can appreciate the efforts of these scientists trying to reconcile these things with the Biblical account but I have yet to hear any arguments that sway me.

The Carbon-14 evidence is one that particularly irks me because it is used so often in arguments but is so easily debunked.

I think Tri would disagree with us though. Sorry, dude;)
 
A

AlexBC

Guest
#73
If you take creation to mean young earth then I largely agree. But the belief that there is a creator behind it all does not conflict with the science in any way.

I've found the below interview helpful:

http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response
I kiiiiiiind of agree with you. But then the problem is that you can plug any deity into that equation. The hole doesn't necessarily fit just the Christian God.

Interesting read btw. Things I disagree of course with but pretty well written.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,955
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#74
Yep. That's why i'm still firmly in the 4.5 billion years area. I can appreciate the efforts of these scientists trying to reconcile these things with the Biblical account but I have yet to hear any arguments that sway me.

The Carbon-14 evidence is one that particularly irks me because it is used so often in arguments but is so easily debunked.

I think Tri would disagree with us though. Sorry, dude;)
Again, I'm very much in agreement with this. The question of Genesis is another matter but I don't take it as a scientific account.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,955
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#75
I kiiiiiiind of agree with you. But then the problem is that you can plug any deity into that equation. The hole doesn't necessarily fit just the Christian God.

Interesting read btw. Things I disagree of course with but pretty well written.
Completey accept your point. You can fit most Gods into the data. The general point I was making was that science cannot exclude a creator behind it all. The scientist can do so by his conclusion but both (there is or isn't a creator) go beyond the evidence.
 
A

AlexBC

Guest
#76
And let's not forget that the Sun itself can be dated. And we are witnessing new suns being born in the galaxy right now. So that shows that even something like the sun can have a natural beginning.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,955
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#77
I kiiiiiiind of agree with you. But then the problem is that you can plug any deity into that equation. The hole doesn't necessarily fit just the Christian God.

Interesting read btw. Things I disagree of course with but pretty well written.
Completey accept your point. You can fit most Gods into the data. The general point I was making was that science cannot exclude a creator behind it all. The scientist can do so by his or her conclusion but both (there is or isn't a creator) go beyond the evidence.
 
A

AlexBC

Guest
#78
Completey accept your point. You can fit most Gods into the data. The general point I was making was that science cannot exclude a creator behind it all. The scientist can do so by his conclusion but both (there is or isn't a creator) go beyond the evidence.
True. That's the very reason I identify as agnostic atheist.

Well, having recently watched Prometheus i'm starting to wonder about the origin of life on earth:lol
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,955
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#79
True. That's the very reason I identify as agnostic atheist.

Well, having recently watched Prometheus i'm starting to wonder about the origin of life on earth:lol
Never got round to seeing it. Was it any good?