[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[GodsGrace]

http://creationrevolution.com/key-flaw-found-radioisotope-isochron-dating/

Looks like another wrinkle in the assumption that things are being dated correctly. Very interesting read.

I couldn't find the link.
But I don't trust scientists too much anyway.
They talk about theories.
God talks about facts.
They change they're mind all the time.
God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
We need scientists. They've done a lot.
But they don't know how anything began or how the universe holds together.
They did find the "God Particle" which only proves even more that a creator builder has to exist.
I pray God guides their hands and minds.

 

[Barbarian]

Numerous studies have documented the presence of pliable, un-fossilized tissue still remaining in dinosaur fossils.

Show us one. Checkable source to the paper. As you see from Armitage's paper, he never claimed to have found unfossilzed tissue or even cells. Just collagen fibers. Someone told you a story about it, but they weren't being honest with you.

Feel free to show us a study that documents tissue.

 

[Cygnus]

Show us one. Checkable source to the paper. As you see from Armitage's paper, he never claimed to have found unfossilzed tissue or even cells. Just collagen fibers. Someone told you a story about it, but they weren't being honest with you.

Feel free to show us a study that documents tissue.

I already told you the Armitage's paper was dated 2001....this pre-dates later studies and finds by about 13 years.

The following is from a later find....

Soft Bone Material from a
Brow Horn of a Triceratops horridus
from Hell Creek Formation, Montana
Mark Armitage
Soft fibrillar bone tissues were discovered within a brow horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. Soft material was present in pre- and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of bone matrix that had yet to turn into hard bone. This matrix possessed visible structures consistent with bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact osteocyte tissues featuring elegant filipodial interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocytelike cells were present in sheets of soft tissues. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18 to 20 microns in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence
of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This work is the first to report soft tissues from adult Triceratops horn in a Creation journal.

 

[Barbarian]

Unfortunately, even other creationist haven't been able to confirm these claims. Interestingly, the material was used to verify the evolution of birds from dionsaurs
Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.

"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005]).

In a related study, a team led by Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University conducted tests that also revealed the presence of collagen in the T. rex remains.

In one experiment, antibodies that normally react in the presence of chicken collagen reacted strongly to the dinosaur protein, suggesting a similar molecular identity.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html

It's one more set of evidence for evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Back in the 1800s, Thomas Huxley predicted that birds would be shown to have evolved from dinosaurs. This was based on anatomical and fossil evidence. Later, numerous transitions between dinosaurs and birds were found, confirming Huxley's prediction.

But now we have molecular and immunological evidence further showing that Huxley was right.

 

[Cygnus]

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Considering evolutionism doesn't happen....the better science shows the birds and dinos have a common creator.

 

[Cygnus]

Back in the 1800s, Thomas Huxley predicted that birds would be shown to have evolved from dinosaurs. This was based on anatomical and fossil evidence. Later, numerous transitions between dinosaurs and birds were found, confirming Huxley's prediction.

But now we have molecular and immunological evidence further showing that Huxley was right.

Two sources come to mind that say evolutionism isn't the means of creation.
1) Science
2)The bible.

As to the numerous transitions....the evo-scientist are still speculating and looking.

 

[Barbarian]

Two sources come to mind that say evolutionism isn't the means of creation.
1) Science

While the Bible takes no stand on the way God created life's diversity, Science clearly indicates that evolution (not evolutionism) is the way life's diversity occured.

As to the numerous transitions....the evo-scientist are still speculating and looking.

Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. There are still a few of them without known transitionals, so you've got a chance. Let's see what you have.

 

[Barbarian]

Considering evolutionism doesn't happen....

But as you know, evolution is directly observed to happen.

the better science shows the birds and dinos have a common creator.

Science can't comment on God; it's too weak a method to consider the supernatural. However, as you just saw, the prediction (over a hundred years ago) that birds evolved from dinosaurs, has been validated by the discovery of unfossilized organic material in dinosaur bones.

 

[Cygnus]

While the Bible takes no stand on the way God created life's diversity, Science clearly indicates that evolution (not evolutionism) is the way life's diversity occured.

I had to chuckle a little bit when I read what you posted. The opening verses of Genesis tells of life diversity. Heck, it even has man being created from the dust. Genesis even has birds being created prior to dinosaurs.

 

[Cygnus]

Science can't comment on God; it's too weak a method to consider the supernatural. However, as you just saw, the prediction (over a hundred years ago) that birds evolved from dinosaurs, has been validated by the discovery of unfossilized organic material in dinosaur bones.

Now that would be in direct contradiction to what is mentioned in the bible. Birds first...dinosaurs later.

As I said earlier...looks more like a common creator used similar DNA to make similar traits.

 

[Barbarian]

I had to chuckle a little bit when I read what you posted. The opening verses of Genesis tells of life diversity.

It just doesn't say how it was done. But He left us evidence to show, and the curiosity to go find out.

Heck, it even has man being created from the dust.

As even early Christians knew, this was figurative, showing us that man was brought forth like the other animals, but was given a special spirit and soul by God directly.

Genesis even has birds being created prior to dinosaurs.

No, that's wrong. The "days" (yom) of creation represent categories of creation, not actual days. As you might know, "Yom" has a good number of meanings, not related to actual days. And as Christians have noted, the idea of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them rules out the yom of the creation story being literal days.

 

[Barbarian]

Now that would be in direct contradiction to what is mentioned in the bible. Birds first...dinosaurs later.

Nope. As you learned, they aren't literal days. That's a modern revision of God's word by men.

As I said earlier...looks more like a common creator used similar DNA to make similar traits.

We can test that belief. Turns out DNA evidence can be tested by looking at populations of known descent. And as predicted, such data shows common descent.

 

[Barbarian]

But you haven't yet answered my question:

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. There are still a few of them without known transitionals, so you've got a chance. Let's see what you have.

Do you have enough faith in your new doctrine to test it?

 

[Cygnus]

It just doesn't say how it was done. But He left us evidence to show, and the curiosity to go find out.

Genesis might not go into the details...but what is mentioned certainly isn't evolutionism.

As even early Christians knew, this was figurative, showing us that man was brought forth like the other animals, but was given a special spirit and soul by God directly.

I would also imagine you would claim Paul got it wrong in 1 Tim 2:13.
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. This clearly shows Adam and then Eve wasn't brought forth from other animals.
I suggest you scrap your concept and line up with what the bible actualy teaches rather than what man has inserted into scripture.

No, that's wrong. The "days" (yom) of creation represent categories of creation, not actual days. As you might know, "Yom" has a good number of meanings, not related to actual days. And as Christians have noted, the idea of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them rules out the yom of the creation story being literal days.

You're not convincing ahyone. Simple reading. When the days are numbered and morning and evening associated with the word day...a literal 24 hour long interpretation is called for. Yes, yom has several nuances..and the sentance structure here clearly refers to 24 hour long time periods.

 

[Cygnus]

But you haven't yet answered my question:

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. There are still a few of them without known transitionals, so you've got a chance. Let's see what you have.

Do you have enough faith in your new doctrine to test it?

I can pick any animal...evolutionism never happened. The only transitionals you have are made up from wild speculation and plaster of paris.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
But you haven't yet answered my question:

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. There are still a few of them without known transitionals, so you've got a chance. Let's see what you have.

Do you have enough faith in your new doctrine to test it?

(declines to do so)

Now we know. If you don't have even that much faith in your new doctrine, why do you believe it?

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis might not go into the details...but what is mentioned certainly isn't evolutionism.

Doesn't mention atoms or protons or magnetic fields, or DNA, either. There's a lot of things that are true, that aren't in Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
As even early Christians knew, this was figurative, showing us that man was brought forth like the other animals, but was given a special spirit and soul by God directly.

I would also imagine you would claim Paul got it wrong in 1 Tim 2:13.

He got it right. You just aren't willing to accept it as it is. I suggest you scrap your concept and line up with what the bible actualy teaches rather than what man has inserted into scripture.

And as Christians have noted, the idea of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them rules out the yom of the creation story being literal days.

You're not convincing ahyone.

Convinced Christians, long before either of us were born, long, long before YE creationism was invented. The sentence structure clearly shows that it was meant to be figurative. And as early Christians noted, trying to revise it into literal days resulted in logical absurdities.

Let God be God.

 

[Cygnus]

He got it right. You just aren't willing to accept it as it is. I suggest you scrap your concept and line up with what the bible actualy teaches rather than what man has inserted into scripture.

I only found one part of your reply woth responding to. The rest is imply hog-wash.

So, the bible teaches Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from Adams rib....You claim I inserted special creation into the bible?
What is taught sounds nothing like evolutionism..so I have to ask, why do you insert evolutionism into the bible?

 

[Vaccine]

Let me at to the conversation,
Radiometric age dating techniques received a serious blow after the discoveries of soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones. Rocks dated at 65+ MY's have been found to contain these specimens. When scientist realized that the soft tissue shouldn't be there thy had to scramle for new ideas. Most settled on, well the soft tissue is there...so it must be possible. Others claimed they samples were preserved when they were protected by "iron" which was based upon a 3 year experiment....as if 3 out of 65+ MY's gives accurate results.

The finding of soft tissue sure casts doubt on the dating methods. Suppose it is true, why isn't the discovery of 65,000,000 year old soft the greatest discovery since penicillin?
Supppse it's possible organic material preserved for millions of years. Maybe preserving material for 65 million years isn't practical but suppose they could find a way to achieve just 0.00015384615384615% of that. Red cross would be able to keep blood 100 years instead of
a few months. Every item in the grocery store just added 100 years to it's shelf life. What should be happening is every effort to find how and why organic material lasted so long. ANY discovery stemming from that, no matter how small, has the potential to have a huge impact on how organic material is preserved.
But this is just seen as another pawn in the creation/evolution thing. Add some iron to blood and set it on a shelf to shut down any more interest. They should be ashamed they haven't examined this more.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/