[_ Old Earth _] carbon dating?

[reznwerks]

accurate

Reznwerks wrote:

There is no debate here regarding archeology. I could not care less whether something is accurate regarding archeology and the bible. If it is, great, if not ,so what. Biblical archeology does not prove nor validate the fantastic claims and promises made elsewhere in the bible. Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.

Yes, the Bible is accurate and you do care because you spend considerable time and effort trying to discredit it.
The bible is accurate on some things and inaccurate on others and that is a matter of record. I don't have to try to discredit it as it does a good job by itself. I only point it out.

You apparently realize you’re wrong. You need fantastic evidence?
Absolutely when a book talks about turning sticks to snakes, parting of the seas, a supernatural being impregnating a human, promises of life everlasting for the simple childish act of believing or brainwashing yourself into believing , yes fantastic evidence is needed.

Try looking at the geological record of the flood. There was not a greater geological event in the history of the world. If you can’t believe that, what hope is there for you? I’m sorry. I can’t help you.
Never happened the evidence is clear.



Reznwerks wrote: [quote:bceb9] The bible is only about three thousand years old. The oldest evidence of writing is probably 5000 years old. However since you are willing to accept every other pagan God as evidence of a creator perhaps you are finally seeing the light on Christianity. After all the earlier religions were closer to the event and God himself and perhaps you are correct in that the original thoughts and traditions have been abandoned. Perhaps you should think about following an earlier tradition and therefor a more true form of observance.

The Bible is an account that begins with creation. There is no account that predates it.
Someone had to be first. So what?

The reason we don’t have Noah’s original writings is because the Jews were very careful to replace older copies of scripture. The originals were recopied and replaced when they became worn and there was any danger of it being unreadable. The oldest ones may have been destroyed or we just haven’t found them yet.
You know this how? LoL We know how old the bible is based on the history of writing and the descriptions of events and when they occurred in mans history. The bible is about three thousand years old.

Let me clarify what I meant. Pagan gods are proof that the real creator exists.
Pagan Gods are proof that Pagans gods were worshipped and that is all.

Even without a Bible to explain it, we can learn about God from his works. From a study of creation, we can easily see that creatures of every kind have the ability to communicate.
This is the evolutionary process and no God is there as evidence to show one was involved.


From studies of man from earliest beginnings to the present day, we can see a built-in desire to worship a deity. This desire to communicate with and worship God is our ‘evidence of things not seen.’
Its a desire but we don't know where it comes from. Only man knows and understands he is going to die and that is a powerful force to conjur up all kinds of stories in order to lessen that FEAR of finality. However there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE he is on to something other than hope.

If the Bible is true, we would also see the evidence of remnants of the knowledge of God that man took with him from the tower of Babel.
There is no evidence of the tower of Babel.

Your suggestion to follow an earlier tradition of God is understandable, given your beliefs.
I have no beliefs.

The problem is that all the others are more corrupted and less coherent.
How could they be more corrupted when they were closer to the original?

Maybe that is why the Jews were chosen as God’s representatives to the world. They were positively meticulous in their record keeping.
Sorry but the record keeping was not meticulus. Here are some glaring errors that you can't accont for.

1. I Samuel 17:50-51 says that David killed Goliath. II Samuel 21:19 says that Elhanan killed the same Goliath.
2. Matthew 28:2 and Mark 16:5 say that there was one "angel" or "young man" at the empty tomb on Easter morning. Luke 24:4 says that there were "two men."
3. In Matthew 28:7 and Mark 16:7, the women are told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, where they will see the resurrected Christ. In Luke 24, Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem and ascends to heaven from Bethany, whereas in Matthew 28, Jesus appears to ascend to heaven from a mountain in Galilee.
4. In the first two chapters in the Bible are found two contradictory accounts of creation. There are eight points of contrast between the accounts:
a. Human wickedness prompted "Yahweh" to wipe out descendants of Adam, along with animals, reptiles and birds, but not sea creatures.
b. No details are given about the size of the ark or what it's made from or how it's made.
c. Noah is instructed to take seven (7) pairs of edible animals on board, and one pair of animals that you don't eat.
d. The flood is a simple matter of too much rain falling for "forty days and forty nights," a Hebrew idiomatic phrase meaning "long enough."
e. The ark lands in an unknown location after Noah sends out a dove on three occasions to test for dry ground. All passengers disembark soon after, it seems.
f. Noah initiates a covenant-making ceremony with Yahweh. He builds an altar, kills one of every edible specie of animal and bird and cooks the meat on the altar. Yahweh is pleased and promises never again to destroy every living thing.

New Flood Story

a. "God" decided to kill everything under the heavens in which there is the "spirit of God," in response to humans filling the Earth with violence.
b. Details are given of the size and shape of the ark, along with specific directions as to how it is to be built and from what it is to be made.
c. Noah is instructed to take one pair of all animals on board, and is reminded to take food for all.
d. The flood is a complex matter involving the undoing of creation. The dome that divided the waters above the Earth from the waters below the Earth is severely threatened when water comes down from above, and comes up from below for one hundred fifty days.
e. The ark lands in the mountains of Upper Mesopotamia and Noah and his family and all the animals remain in the ark for several months before disembarking.
f. God initiates a covenant-making ceremony with Noah. He gives the humans similar instructions to those he gave to the humans in the description of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. God gives the rainbow as a sign of his promise that he will never again drown every living thing.
Well so much for the claim of accuracy. Note, that I didn't say that, your bible which is "error free" did that.


Instead of painting a glorious, unblemished past, the prophets and scribes recorded events accurately depicting both the good and evil that happened.
As I said before some things might be correct and some things might not. The bible is not a textbook and at best only offers clues to the history of the Middle East of which some of it is verified. As to the fantastic claims you still need fantastic evidence.

[/quote:bceb9]

 

[unred typo]

There were several giant sons born to Goliath. I know you will not understand this incredibly complicated concept, but one of the boys probably got named Goliath the Gittite after his Dad, Goliath the Philistine.

(1 Chr. 20:4-8)
15 When the Philistines were at war again with Israel, David and his servants with him went down and fought against the Philistines; and David grew faint. 16 Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels, who was bearing a new sword, thought he could kill David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah came to his aid, and struck the Philistine and killed him. Then the men of David swore to him, saying, "You shall go out no more with us to battle, lest you quench the lamp of Israel."
18 Now it happened afterward that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbechai the Hushathite killed *Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant. 19 Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of *Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
20 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant. 21 So when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of *Shimea, David's brother, killed him.
22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

Matthew 28:2 tells of an angel that descended from heaven, rolling back the stone and sitting on it. Mark 16:5 tells about the angel sitting inside the tomb. Luke mentions both the angels. The women came at different times, and they were frightened, and they told their recollections to others who accentuated the minor details of their own impressions. It makes the second hand account more believable, not less. Obviously it was not a contrived tale or it would have had a sameness about it. None of these things are actually conflicting, but told with a different emphasis to different people by different witnesses. If you were to interview 4 witnesses to an accident, you would get as many if not more ‘discrepancies,’ especially if you got the story from people who had only been given the details and not actually been there. In other words, these are not mistakes but only partial pictures of the same events. The same is true of Genesis. Your “glaring errors†are silly, petty attempts to discredit an amazing historical record. I have better things to do than spend time going over your incredibly tedious little list.

If you don’t want to believe it, don’t. No one is trying to force you into “promises of life everlasting for the simple childish act of believing or brainwashing yourself into believing.†That, I‘m sorry to tell you, is an error of significance. The Bible doesn’t teach such ignorance. Everlasting life is the reward for those who believe what Jesus said and follow what he told us to do. If you by some accident of birth were born in a place that was foolish enough to have lost this information, fear not, he is “not dead and he will never leave us nor forsake usââ¬Â if we are seeking truth, and not just excuses to ignore him.
.

 

[Barbarian]

Bottom line?

C-14 dating of material of known age shows that it is accurate. With lake varves, we have direct calibration of material of known age going back tens of thousands of years.

And it works. The truly paranoid idea that God somehow fixed all the factors that would affect the many, many different dating methods to make them all come up with the same erroneous results, and then stop doing it so that recent results of known age would not give false results, is too silly to seriously consider.

Why not just accept what it is?

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

Bottom line?

C-14 dating of material of known age shows that it is accurate. With lake varves, we have direct calibration of material of known age going back tens of thousands of years.

And it works. The truly paranoid idea that God somehow fixed all the factors that would affect the many, many different dating methods to make them all come up with the same erroneous results, and then stop doing it so that recent results of known age would not give false results, is too silly to seriously consider.

Why not just accept what it is?

It works for the ToE or they would find another method that gave them the ages they consider correct. They toss out the dates they don’t want. Bottom line. God hasn’t ‘fixed the factors’ of anything. Layers in a lake or ice are not annual or semi-annual or even usable for counting backwards. Tree rings may be more or less annual but you can’t add the rings of dead trees to living ones to give you longer ages. That’s as ridiculous as adding up all your cousins’ ages to get your grandfather‘s age. The oldest single living tree is between 5, and 6,000 years old. All of this has been discussed before. The population of the world is about what one would expect for a 5-6000 year old earth. The oldest writing is only a few thousand years old. There are many more evidences for a young earth than you want to consider.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Bottom line?

C-14 dating of material of known age shows that it is accurate. With lake varves, we have direct calibration of material of known age going back tens of thousands of years.

And it works. The truly paranoid idea that God somehow fixed all the factors that would affect the many, many different dating methods to make them all come up with the same erroneous results, and then stop doing it so that recent results of known age would not give false results, is too silly to seriously consider.

Why not just accept what it is?

It works for the ToE or they would find another method that gave them the ages they consider correct.

You have it backwards. When they did the varve calibration, it turned out that the dates weren't precisely right, and they were off by a few percent. So scientists changed the theory to fit the facts. Creationism tries to change the facts to fit the theory.

They toss out the dates they don’t want.

See above. You have it backwards.

Bottom line. God hasn’t ‘fixed the factors’ of anything. Layers in a lake or ice are not annual or semi-annual or even usable for counting backwards.

Yep. They are dead certain, because varves (unlike most laminae) form two a year, one light, and one dark layer. Always. No exceptions, unless you manage to have two winters and two summers in one year.

We can still watch them form, so we know that it's right.

Tree rings may be more or less annual but you can’t add the rings of dead trees to living ones to give you longer ages.

Sure you can. Where two tree's lifetimes overlapped, and they were in the same area, they will have the same pattern of thin and thick rings where the overlap occured. So you can date one by the other.

That’s as ridiculous as adding up all your cousins’ ages to get your grandfather‘s age.

Nope. You still haven't figured out how it works.

The oldest single living tree is between 5, and 6,000 years old. All of this has been discussed before. The population of the world is about what one would expect for a 5-6000 year old earth.

Nope. Wrong again. The population of the Earth has fluctuated for a long time, until the industrial and green revolutions, and modern medical care.

The fact is, six thousand years ago, there were cities in different parts of the Earth, and they had thousands of people. And yet, all of these are assumed to be from one pair, a few hundred years before that. Be honest with yourself; it's not possible.

The oldest writing is only a few thousand years old.

The oldest known map is over 8000 years old. The oldest known tools are a few million years old. The oldest known human art is about 20,000 years old.

There are many more evidences for a young earth than you want to consider.

Sorry. None of it stands up to examination. Here's another way to check that claim:

In the Pacific Ocean, there are atolls. These are reefs growing up from sunken volcanoes. When volcanoes slowly subside, the fringing reef often grows fast enough to stay close to the surface, and so the reef rock grows thicker and thicker. Reef-forming coral grows about 0.5 cm per year. At Enitiwok atoll, the SeaBees drilled cores before the H-Bomb tests. There was well over a kilometer of coral before they hit volcanic rock. How long has the atoll been growing at Enitiwok?

(hint: over 200,000 years)

 

[Imagican]

Guys,

Isn't it perfectly obvious that anyone that accepts 'six' literal days of creation, simply lacks the insight or understanding to clearly see that God would NOT be confined to the limitations of man and his ideas of or methods of measuring time? In other words, how simple would one really have to be to believe that a God capable of creation would be limited by or to His own creation.

A day to us would by NO MEANS define a day to God. A day refereed to in the Bible is nothing more than a specific period of time. NO, not limited to the mere 24 hour rotational period of a planet of HIS CREATION. A day to Him could be the rotation of the galaxy or even the universe.

We KNOW that time happens and that it has taken much time for much to happen. It is funny to listen to the different ways that traditionalist try and answer the questions raised by the discoveries that we make every day.

Dinosaurs and man NEVER coexisted. There were certain examples of prehistoric animals that DID coexist, but T-Rex and man didn't share the same time period and that's obvious to anyone that cares to learn the truth.

I also find it quite humerous that these same people that continually resist the sciences that prove the vast age of the earth wouldn't hesitate in the least to take antibiotics to cure an infection, or have an x-ray taken of a broken bone, or turn on their television, pick up their cell phone, or start up the engine of their car that runs on a fuel derived from a substance, (oil), that came from these exact animals that we have fossil remains of to this day, and took perhaps millions upon millions of years to form after their deaths. They will accept and believe in the sciences that personally benefit them and enhance their lives yet continue to ignore and deny all that goes against their anciently created understanding of the world in which our ignorant ancestors created in a time when they knew NOTHING OF SCIENCE.

We were created in the image of God. That means that we have the potential capacity of God's understanding. Wake up folks. Science does NOT contradict the Bible for those that have understanding. What we discover is the NATURE of God's ability and methods with which He created. It does nothing more than prove the vast understanding of God and His ability to foresee the needs that must be in order to have what it is that He chooses.

This 'lack of belief' in creation that seems to prevail now days in the sciences is no more commendable than those that refuse to accept the proofs offered by science. This was not always the case however and many of the scientist of the past that are so admired in the present would be heart broken to see this change.

MOST of the scientist of the past found that each and every time they discovered something that it reeked of creation rather than random chance or evolution. Simply studying DNA should show anyone with an open mind that this didn't just happen. It is a tool created and way beyond the possibility of random chance. It is the building block of life as we know it. Funny, but it's the building block of ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. It is not a mistake or fluke, it is the Creator's tool with which He made life possible. So intricate and complex, yet so simply obvious now that we begin to understand it.

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and let me add this for all that don't find my conclusion obvious already:

Both sides of this argument are completely WRONG. That's why you find this debate continuing endlessly.

The truth is somewhere in the middle yet both sides are so adamantly against the ideas of the other that they are blinded to it. God exists and so does our discovery of His methods of creation. Once one can get beyond the myths and stories of the past that they don't really understand, then this fact becomes apparent.

God so loved us that He gave us the ability to learn and understand. Don't ignore this guys, it's an insult to Him and goes to show that He was totally correct in His understanding that we weren't ready for it.

 

[unred typo]

Sorry for the delay in answering. I've been on an adventure.


Barbarian observes:

Bottom line? C-14 dating of material of known age shows that it is accurate. With lake varves, we have direct calibration of material of known age going back tens of thousands of years.

And it works. The truly paranoid idea that God somehow fixed all the factors that would affect the many, many different dating methods to make them all come up with the same erroneous results, and then stop doing it so that recent results of known age would not give false results, is too silly to seriously consider.

Why not just accept what it is?

Yes, you’re so right. It is too silly and paranoid to seriously consider such a notion. I can’t imagine why you keep acting like that is what I’ve been saying. I repeat: Bottom line. God hasn’t ‘fixed the factors’ of anything. Evolutionists have contrived various methods that give them the dates that they desire. Counting isotopes only prove how many isotopes are left, and have no bearing on how many were originally there, or for how long or what unforeseen events have changed the amount of any given isotope in whatever substance being dated.


Barbarian observes:

Reef-forming coral grows about 0.5 cm per year. ...There was well over a kilometer of coral before they hit volcanic rock. How long has the atoll been growing at Enitiwok? (hint: over 200,000 years)

That's quite simplistic, isn‘t it? You want to say human populations fluctuated over 6000 years but coral has been growing at this static rate for 200,000 years? Coral today might grow .5 cm per yr but there was a time when dragonflies grew to be a couple of yards wide. Has any calibration taken this into consideration? Do you even know this? Where did these giants come from? Why did they grow so big? If coral grew that fast then, I think your figures should be adjusted quite a bit. How has pollution affected these growing rates? What if the corals were becoming less prolific every year or for the last fifty? Have they been affected by some growth diminishing disease or genetic defect? Did the coral have a reef base of stronger, faster growing organisms before the oceans started becoming saltier and more polluted? How much faster would coral grow under more favorable conditions? What if coral in those atolls averaged a foot of growth every year for three thousand years, then reduced to 8 inches for the next thousand and then to 6 for a couple hundred more, gradually reducing down to less than a half inch to the present? How long would that be to get your kilometer thickness? Hint: less than 4500 years.


Barbarian observes:

Yep. They are dead certain, because varves (unlike most laminae) form two a year, one light, and one dark layer. Always. No exceptions, unless you manage to have two winters and two summers in one year. We can still watch them form, so we know that it's right.

Yep. Do you have a site that says that there are no exceptions to this varve count? I would like some actual reports of the physical counting of these layers, slides of the composition and the documentation of them being observed for the past twenty at the very least, where there was a sheet of plastic or something placed on the bottom and forty or more layers counted above it. I wonder how the summer layer doesn’t become intermixed with dust and how the pollen from fields and trees and dust from the shore doesn’t blow onto the lake and become stirred up with every passing current? How many volcanic ash layers have they found? How about tree leaves, dying algae, spring floods, fish poo, and bottom stirring creatures like turtles, and herds of deer and moose?

Barbarian observes:

Sure you can. Where two tree's lifetimes overlapped, and they were in the same area, they will have the same pattern of thin and thick rings where the overlap occured. So you can date one by the other.

The dead tree obviously didn’t have the same experience as the one that survived, or it would still be living. Thickness of the ring is specific to that tree’s amount of nutrients and sunlight or the diseases and parasites it endured. Each one is an individual and grows at it’s own pace. In a severe drought, a ring may not be formed in one, while another may grow well due to a shadier location or deeper roots into a water source. Your hypothesis is highly speculative at best. They’re haphazard rings, without the trace of a date carved in them. If you would count the rings on the oldest, you might find that the calculated years actually record the time since the flood.


Barbarian observes:

Nope. Wrong again. The population of the Earth has fluctuated for a long time, until the industrial and green revolutions, and modern medical care.

The fact is, six thousand years ago, there were cities in different parts of the Earth, and they had thousands of people. And yet, all of these are assumed to be from one pair, a few hundred years before that. Be honest with yourself; it's not possible.
The oldest known map is over 8000 years old. The oldest known tools are a few million years old. The oldest known human art is about 20,000 years old.

Your dates are wrong and your population theory is way off base. Modern medical care has given us more abortions than live births and the under developed countries have a much higher population growth rate. The flood reduced the human survivors to 8 and according to a census taken in Jasher less than 300 years later, there were 1490 men plus women and children who were not counted. So a total of at least 4000 sounds reasonable enough. If the 1490 men each have 2 sons and 2 daughters, and each pair raises 2 more pairs, in 40 years, we could be well over a population of 8500, even if we kill off all the original parents. Under optimum conditions, it could be three times that. Why don't you try being honest with your millions of years of human existence. You'd have to have zero population growth for most of the history of man or it would be standing room only here on earth.

Barbarian observes:

Nope. You still haven't figured out how it works.

I think I have figured out exactly how it works. Everything that favors the development of the ToE is gospel truth, and everything that conflicts with it is labeled as an anomaly, an error, or a mystery that we can trust to be solved eventually by the fanatic evolutionists… I mean; dedicated scientists.


.

 

[unred typo]

Imagican wrote:

Isn't it perfectly obvious that anyone that accepts 'six' literal days of creation, simply lacks the insight or understanding to clearly see that God would NOT be confined to the limitations of man and his ideas of or methods of measuring time? In other words, how simple would one really have to be to believe that a God capable of creation would be limited by or to His own creation. A day to us would by NO MEANS define a day to God. A day refereed to in the Bible is nothing more than a specific period of time. NO, not limited to the mere 24 hour rotational period of a planet of HIS CREATION. A day to Him could be the rotation of the galaxy or even the universe.
We KNOW that time happens and that it has taken much time for much to happen. It is funny to listen to the different ways that traditionalist try and answer the questions raised by the discoveries that we make every day.

Who said God was limited to our time if we use six literal days for creation? That is the rotation that God himself set the world to. We’re synchronized to his watch. I think it’s a bit presumptuous to assume that he couldn’t have done what he said he did in the time he said he did it in. But I guess you know more about it than anyone else, even God.


Imagican wrote:

Dinosaurs and man NEVER coexisted. There were certain examples of prehistoric animals that DID coexist, but T-Rex and man didn't share the same time period and that's obvious to anyone that cares to learn the truth.

I don’t suppose you heard how a well preserved Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton had been found in 1990 and brought for analysis to Montana State University. During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains, it was noted that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone with intact red blood cells. This, in a dinosaur dead for some 65-million years, is unbelievable. The findings should have rocked the whole scientific world but it was just explained away and basically ignored. How strange. Smells like a cover up to me.


Imagican wrote:

I also find it quite humerous that these same people that continually resist the sciences that prove the vast age of the earth wouldn't hesitate in the least to take antibiotics to cure an infection, or have an x-ray taken of a broken bone, or turn on their television, pick up their cell phone, or start up the engine of their car that runs on a fuel derived from a substance, (oil), that came from these exact animals that we have fossil remains of to this day, and took perhaps millions upon millions of years to form after their deaths. They will accept and believe in the sciences that personally benefit them and enhance their lives yet continue to ignore and deny all that goes against their anciently created understanding of the world in which our ignorant ancestors created in a time when they knew NOTHING OF SCIENCE.

You can make a oil type sludge from rotten dead animals and plants in a couple thousand years under the right conditions. Where did you get the idea that it would take ‘millions upon millions of years to form’? I suppose that theory has been proven?

Imagican wrote:

We were created in the image of God. That means that we have the potential capacity of God's understanding. Wake up folks. Science does NOT contradict the Bible for those that have understanding. What we discover is the NATURE of God's ability and methods with which He created. It does nothing more than prove the vast understanding of God and His ability to foresee the needs that must be in order to have what it is that He chooses.

Here we evidently agree. We may have a slight difference of opinion as to what true science is and what it has truly proven and discovered as true.

Imagican wrote:

This 'lack of belief' in creation that seems to prevail now days in the sciences is no more commendable than those that refuse to accept the proofs offered by science. This was not always the case however and many of the scientist of the past that are so admired in the present would be heart broken to see this change.
MOST of the scientist of the past found that each and every time they discovered something that it reeked of creation rather than random chance or evolution. Simply studying DNA should show anyone with an open mind that this didn't just happen. It is a tool created and way beyond the possibility of random chance. It is the building block of life as we know it. Funny, but it's the building block of ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. It is not a mistake or fluke, it is the Creator's tool with which He made life possible. So intricate and complex, yet so simply obvious now that we begin to understand it.

Good luck with trying to convince those concepts to some of those“open minds.â€Â

 

[Barbarian]

I don’t suppose you heard how a well preserved Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton had been found in 1990 and brought for analysis to Montana State University. During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains, it was noted that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone with intact red blood cells.

Almost. No red blood cells, but a little hemoglobin. Interestingly, when checked out, it was more like that of birds than of reptiles. Just what evolutionary theory predicted.

So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues".
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57

"Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues...The rat immune response against hemoglobin in the T. rex bone was further verified by immunoblot analysis (Fig. 6). The antiserum obtained from each rat recognized both pigeon and rabbit hemoglobins whereas a normal (nonimmunized) rat serum did not. Weak reactivity was observed against the turkey hemoglobin although the protein band was too faint to be reproduced photographically. That the antisera did not react with snake hemoglobin shows that the reactivity is specific and not artifact.
Mary H. Schweitzer*, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse§, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner*, and Jean R. Starkey, Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June 1997

Birds, mammals, and dinosaurs are archosaurs, which is a distinct group from other reptiles, and the heme obtained from the dino bone verified this fact, obtained by very different sources of information.

This, in a dinosaur dead for some 65-million years, is unbelievable.

How so? After all, million-year-old leaves have been unearthed from anoxic envirionments, still green (they rapidly blacken after exposure, and decay).

The findings should have rocked the whole scientific world but it was just explained away and basically ignored.

Hardly ignored. It was just nother demonstration that evolutionary theory is correct. Of course creationists never tell you the whole story.

How strange. Smells like a cover up to me.

Me too. But there's a lot of things they don't want you to know about.

 

[unred typo]

“So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues".
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57

That was eight years ago…do you suppose we could be confident enough yet? Is it blood compounds or not? Cut the double talk and obvious evasion. What were the results of the carbon dating? If it is hemoglobin, you should be able to date it.



The Barbarian doesn’t think it strange that blood should be found in Rex bones and observes:

How so? After all, million-year-old leaves have been unearthed from anoxic envirionments, still green (they rapidly blacken after exposure, and decay).

Why is it that whenever an creationist in the past made the supreme fatal mistake of assuming that T Rex bones could be dated with carbon 14 methods, they were blasted off the page by evolutionists who proclaimed their ignorance that carbon 14 could only be used on things less than 50-60 thousand years and no tissue could possibly survive a million years?

What I see is the question of “Is it really blood?†being answered by “Yes, we were correct that T Rex was more closely related to the bird famiy.â€Â

:roll:

 

[Barbarian]

“So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues".
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57

That was eight years ago…do you suppose we could be confident enough yet? Is it blood compounds or not?

Heme and hemoglobin fragments. Not exactly "blood compounds", but the remains of them. When I said "hemoglobin" I meant fragments of hemoglobin. It would be remarkable if even a very stable compound like hemoglobin would be intact after millions of years.

Cut the double talk and obvious evasion. What were the results of the carbon dating? If it is hemoglobin, you should be able to date it.

Don't know if they did a carbon dating. It wouldn't give you anything. The results would just be "Greater than 40,000 years" (or something in that range, depending on what the accuracy of the particular method was)

The Barbarian doesn’t think it strange that blood should be found in Rex bones

Turns out that it wasn't blood. Some chemical remants of what had been blood. See above.

Barbarian observes:
How so? After all, million-year-old leaves have been unearthed from anoxic envirionments, still green (they rapidly blacken after exposure, and decay).

Why is it that whenever an creationist in the past made the supreme fatal mistake of assuming that T Rex bones could be dated with carbon 14 methods, they were blasted off the page by evolutionists who proclaimed their ignorance that carbon 14 could only be used on things less than 50-60 thousand years and no tissue could possibly survive a million years?

I remember the first part. Never heard anyone say the 2nd part, though.

What I see is the question of “Is it really blood?†being answered by “Yes, we were correct that T Rex was more closely related to the bird family.â€Â

Wrong again. We have some remnants of things that were once in the blood. Some of the fragments are intact enough to compare the heme with that of other species.

And it shows that birds are indeed the closest living relatives to T-rex.

 

[unred typo]

“So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues".
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57

That was eight years ago…do you suppose we could be confident enough yet? Is it blood compounds or not?

Heme and hemoglobin fragments. Not exactly "blood compounds", but the remains of them. When I said "hemoglobin" I meant fragments of hemoglobin. It would be remarkable if even a very stable compound like hemoglobin would be intact after millions of years.

[quote:c8f8e]Cut the double talk and obvious evasion. What were the results of the carbon dating? If it is hemoglobin, you should be able to date it.

Don't know if they did a carbon dating. It wouldn't give you anything. The results would just be "Greater than 40,000 years" (or something in that range, depending on what the accuracy of the particular method was)

The Barbarian doesn’t think it strange that blood should be found in Rex bones

Turns out that it wasn't blood. Some chemical remants of what had been blood. See above.

Barbarian observes:
How so? After all, million-year-old leaves have been unearthed from anoxic envirionments, still green (they rapidly blacken after exposure, and decay).

Why is it that whenever an creationist in the past made the supreme fatal mistake of assuming that T Rex bones could be dated with carbon 14 methods, they were blasted off the page by evolutionists who proclaimed their ignorance that carbon 14 could only be used on things less than 50-60 thousand years and no tissue could possibly survive a million years?

I remember the first part. Never heard anyone say the 2nd part, though.

What I see is the question of “Is it really blood?†being answered by “Yes, we were correct that T Rex was more closely related to the bird family.â€Â

Wrong again. We have some remnants of things that were once in the blood. Some of the fragments are intact enough to compare the heme with that of other species.

And it shows that birds are indeed the closest living relatives to T-rex.[/quote:c8f8e]

I find it totally incredible that no carbon dating was apparently done, or if it was, the results were kept secret. If the evolutionists were honestly looking for the truth, they would not merely assume the T Rex was “millions of years old,†but might actually consider the distinct possibility that it did survive to recent ages. Is it beyond your comprehension that a small pocket of dinosaurs could have been alive and well and living in Montana a few thousand years ago? What’s the big problem? Do we have a sacred cow we don’t want to sacrifice? We have living examples of creatures that have survived for supposedly that long. I believe the alligator and Coelacanth are supposed to have remained basically unchanged for however “many millions of years.†I’m sure that they have been properly distanced from their ancient relatives in order that the “millions of years†might still be credible. Why not just bite the bullet and admit they were walking the earth at the same time as humans? It really won’t spoil your theory any more than apes co-existing with humans, will it? Think of it as Barney and Big Bird on the same show. The kids will eat it up. :wink:

 

[Barbarian]

I find it totally incredible that no carbon dating was apparently done, or if it was, the results were kept secret.

It wouldn't be done, because of the nature of radiometric testing. Each radioactive isotope has a half-life, a period of time in which half of the substance decays to something else. Because it's a probabalistic process, there will always be a little of it, but after a certain number of half-lives, (depends on the isotope) scientists can no longer get a meaningful age. The needle just pegs on "older than this method can test."

Even worse, all of it would be contaminated by geological carbon in the form of carbonates, which would give "older than the method can test."

If the evolutionists were honestly looking for the truth, they would not merely assume the T Rex was “millions of years old,†but might actually consider the distinct possibility that it did survive to recent ages.

C-14 wouldn't give you that. Even if God performed a miracle and took a recent body and put it in ancient rocks, contamination would still make it untestable.

Is it beyond your comprehension that a small pocket of dinosaurs could have been alive and well and living in Montana a few thousand years ago?

The people living there at the time have detailed stories, descriptions, etc. of all the living things there. I think it's incomprehensible that they missed something that large.

What’s the big problem? Do we have a sacred cow we don’t want to sacrifice?

Apparently, someone does.

We have living examples of creatures that have survived for supposedly that long. I believe the alligator and Coelacanth are supposed to have remained basically unchanged for however “many millions of years.â€Â

Nope. We find none of the modern species in the fossil record, although we can find more primitive members of each group. Crocodillians are certainly an ancient group, although they have become more specialized and less diverse than earlier ones. They were, at one time, of a more upright stance, and did not crawl abouit. On group were vegetarians. Some modern crocodillians can still gallop when it suits them, but that's about all that's left of the ancient sort.

The modern coelacanth is very different in habitat and anatomy from the ancient ones. That's why it's a different species. What surprised scientists was that they had imagined the line had died out, and then they found one in a very restricted and little-known habitat.

I’m sure that they have been properly distanced from their ancient relatives in order that the “millions of years†might still be credible. Why not just bite the bullet and admit they were walking the earth at the same time as humans?

As you can see, you idea depends on the Indians living there being really, really inobservant.

It really won’t spoil your theory any more than apes co-existing with humans, will it?

Nope. It certainly wouldn't rule out evolution. There's a more basic reason why it's not a credible story.

The evidence contradicts it.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

It wouldn't be done, because of the nature of radiometric testing. Each radioactive isotope has a half-life, a period of time in which half of the substance decays to something else. Because it's a probabalistic process, there will always be a little of it, but after a certain number of half-lives, (depends on the isotope) scientists can no longer get a meaningful age. The needle just pegs on "older than this method can test."

Even worse, all of it would be contaminated by geological carbon in the form of carbonates, which would give "older than the method can test."

Heh heh. We can’t test it because it might be contaminated and give a false “older than this method can test†date? So we are just going to assume it is older than we can date and go on to rave about how it’s so much more bird-relative-like now that it has hemoglobin remnants we can look at? How contaminated can it be if it has been sealed up to survive for all these “millions of years?†Your slip is showing.


The Barbarian wrote:

What surprised scientists was that they had imagined the ( coelacanth ) line had died out, and then they found one in a very restricted and little-known habitat.

Maybe finding that a colony of dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago would really shock them. They probably couldn’t handle it. Perhaps it would be better if we didn’t find that out. We wouldn’t want the entire scientific community dying of embarrassment.

The Barbarian wrote:

The people living there at the time have detailed stories, descriptions, etc. of all the living things there. I think it's incomprehensible that they missed something that large.

Unless it was so scarce and endangered it became extinct by the time man migrated to that area. We do have all those dinosaur carvings, paintings, figurines and other artifacts that the ToE proponents are in denial about and claim that they are fakes. We know they are fakes because, after all, dinosaurs were extinct by then. You can see some pictures here: http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

The Barbarian wrote:

Nope. We find none of the modern species in the fossil record, although we can find more primitive members of each group. Crocodillians are certainly an ancient group, although they have become more specialized and less diverse than earlier ones. They were, at one time, of a more upright stance, and did not crawl abouit. On group were vegetarians. Some modern crocodillians can still gallop when it suits them, but that's about all that's left of the ancient sort.

How do you know they were vegetarians? Bits of carrot fossilized between their teeth or the pea soup on their neck ties? It wouldn’t surprise me anyways since God created all animals as vegetarians.


The Barbarian wrote:

Nope. It certainly wouldn't rule out evolution. There's a more basic reason why it's not a credible story. The evidence contradicts it.

The evidence suggests that no matter what the evidence is, if it disagrees with the accepted millions/ billions of years theory, evolutionists will find a way to refute it and the ToE will march on in spite of it, not because of it.

Here is a quote from Mary Schweitzer who recently made an even more startling discovery than the 1990 Tyrannosaurus rex find in which some parts of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone with what appeared to be red blood cells. The article says: “About three years ago (2002) she and her team had to divide a very large T. rex thigh bone in order to transport it on a helicopter. When the bone was opened flexible soft tissue "meat" was found inside. This is incredible because this bone was supposed to be some 68 million years old. Microscopic examination revealed fine delicate blood vessels with what appear to be intact red blood cells and other type of cells like osteocytes - which are bone forming cells. These vessels were still soft, translucent, and flexible. Subsequent examination of other previously excavated T. rex bones from this and other areas have also shown non-fossilized soft tissue preservation in most instances. This find calls into question not only the nature of the fossilization process, but also the age of these fossils. How such soft tissue preservation and detail could be realized after 68 million years is more than miraculous - - It is unbelievable! Schweitzer herself comments that, "We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think . . .†“

This comment is incredible in itself. Faced with undeniable proof that T Rex lived not so long ago, she continues to hold to her faith in millions of years. Do you suppose the entire scientific community has been subjected to mass hypnosis during long boring lectures? I know it happens in churches and living rooms with preachers and televangelists asking for money and I don’t see why it wouldn’t work in colleges as well. It seems there is some unwritten code that states when faced with a choice between common sense and believing in “millions/billions f years†dogma a scientist must remain true to the ToE and protect it from accidental exposure to truth.

 

[Barbarian]

Heh heh. We can’t test it because it might be contaminated and give a false “older than this method can test†date?

Yep. Geologic carbon much older than the method can handle. It always comes out that way.

So we are just going to assume it is older than we can date

It's older than we can date by C-14. However, we can get a very good idea how old it is, by seeing the ages of igneous rocks above and below that level.

and go on to rave about how it’s so much more bird-relative-like now that it has hemoglobin remnants we can look at?

That's a remarkable finding. And a prediction of evolutionary theory, now verified by direct evidence. Pretty impressive.

How contaminated can it be if it has been sealed up to survive for all these “millions of years?â€Â

Bones, when they fossilize, as these have, are replaced by stone. Some of the bone at the center of the bones was not yet completely fossilized. But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.

Your slip is showing.

I would say that your ignorance is showing, but that would be unkind. Suffice to say that you don't understand the principle behind the process.

Barbarian observes:
What surprised scientists was that they had imagined the ( coelacanth ) line had died out, and then they found one in a very restricted and little-known habitat.

Maybe finding that a colony of dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago would really shock them.

As much as the coelacanth did, I would guess.

They probably couldn’t handle it.

They were pretty excited about the coelacanth, but they handled it. Any scientist who found evidence of dinosaurs (other than birds) living in the last few thousand years would have his career made for life.

Perhaps it would be better if we didn’t find that out. We wouldn’t want the entire scientific community dying of embarrassment.

That sounds pretty paranoid to me, especially, since this find was widely reported.

Barbarian observes:
The people living there at the time have detailed stories, descriptions, etc. of all the living things there. I think it's incomprehensible that they missed something that large.

Unless it was so scarce and endangered it became extinct by the time man migrated to that area.

It did, of course. Just a lot longer than you want to accept.

We do have all those dinosaur carvings, paintings, figurines and other artifacts that the ToE proponents are in denial about and claim that they are fakes.

I guess if you want to believe bad enough, some of them might start to look like dinosaurs. I'd sure like to see a good representation of a T-rex than can be shown to have existed in preColumbian times.

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Pretty weird stuff. The imagination of the guys interpreting these, I mean. Griffins came about because people found fossils of ceratopsians in Central Asia. Dragons and long-necked "sauropods" came about because the Greeks found fossils of Sivatherium, a weird extinct giraffe, with a skull that became the prototype for dragons, and necks and backbones. The Cyclops legend came about from fossil skulls of elephants, which appear to have but one orbit. Some of these had been actually excavated and displayed as dragons, griffins, etc.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. We find none of the modern species in the fossil record, although we can find more primitive members of each group. Crocodillians are certainly an ancient group, although they have become more specialized and less diverse than earlier ones. They were, at one time, of a more upright stance, and did not crawl abouit. On group were vegetarians. Some modern crocodillians can still gallop when it suits them, but that's about all that's left of the ancient sort.

How do you know they were vegetarians?

Teeth adapted for vegetation. Short muzzles. Smaller heads. Typical of herbivorous reptiles.

Barbarian on dinosaurs surviving somewhere until recently:
Nope. It certainly wouldn't rule out evolution. There's a more basic reason why it's not a credible story. The evidence contradicts it.

The evidence suggests that no matter what the evidence is, if it disagrees with the accepted millions/ billions of years theory, evolutionists will find a way to refute it

I can see you're frustrated, but you surely have to understand that the evidence won't support your ideas.

This comment is incredible in itself. Faced with undeniable proof that T Rex lived not so long ago, she continues to hold to her faith in millions of years.

Subsequent tests seem to indicate the "cells" aren't cells, and the "blood vessels" are not made of collegen and muscle.

There's no great conspiracy, and scientists are not fools. The answer is quite simple. You've been conned by people who know little more than you do about it.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

Yep. Geologic carbon much older than the method can handle. It always comes out that way.
It's older than we can date by C-14. However, we can get a very good idea how old it is, by seeing the ages of igneous rocks above and below that level.
Bones, when they fossilize, as these have, are replaced by stone. Some of the bone at the center of the bones was not yet completely fossilized. But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.

That’s always been my feeling actually. A tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous dates much older than they actually were. If it gives you the date you really wanted though, there is no reason to question it, is there?

The question remains. If the bone is not fossilized, why can’t it be dated?

The Barbarian wrote:

That's a remarkable finding. And a prediction of evolutionary theory, now verified by direct evidence. Pretty impressive.

I’m happy you found a silver lining in that dark cloud raining on your evolutionary chain. Pretty evasive of the actual issue though. Obviously, the T Rex wasn’t lying there for the last 65 million years and your overlying and underlying layers are misdated as well. If they haven’t tried carbon 14 dating, it’s because they’re afraid of the results.



The Barbarian wrote:

I would say that your ignorance is showing, but that would be unkind. Suffice to say that you don't understand the principle behind the process.

It might be ignorance but wouldn’t that be your fault for not explaining it well enough? I do understand it from reading the sites you all send us to and most of the people reading these boards do, too. I may be stubborn but I’m not stupid. Correct me if my analogy is wrong but if I had a pitcher of water and every day someone came in and took half of the water that’s left in it, and replaced it with the same amount of lead sinkers, by the time it gets down to just a drop of water, you can still measure the water and the lead, figure it out and tell exactly how long ago the bottle was full of just water. That seems fairly simple. If it was a 48 oz pitcher and there were 46 ½ lead 1 oz sinkers and 1 ½ oz of water left, that would mean 5 days ago the pitcher was full. Except you can’t do it. You can’t know how many times water was added or taken away from the bottle or how many times lead sinkers were added or taken away or if there were already lead sinkers in the pitcher to begin with or if some of the water evaporated or if it was never really full of water at all to begin with. As you told us, “it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.â€Â

The Barbarian wrote:

They were pretty excited about the coelacanth, but they handled it. Any scientist who found evidence of dinosaurs (other than birds) living in the last few thousand years would have his career made for life.

LOL. Not according to history. Only those who find things in favor of the ToE are rewarded handsomely. Anyone who steps on the ToE, gets stomped into the toilet with any dreams he might have had of being rich and famous in the mainstream scientific community. Short of walking into a newscast with a live dinosaur in tow, you would be treated as if you were claiming to have seen extraterrestrial life. Even a bone with blood in it doesn’t prove it was less than a million years old to these ToE kissers.

The Barbarian wrote:

It did, of course. Just a lot longer than you want to accept.
I guess if you want to believe bad enough, some of them might start to look like dinosaurs. I'd sure like to see a good representation of a T-rex than can be shown to have existed in preColumbian times.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
Pretty weird stuff. The imagination of the guys interpreting these, I mean. Griffins came about because people found fossils of ceratopsians in Central Asia. Dragons and long-necked "sauropods" came about because the Greeks found fossils of Sivatherium, a weird extinct giraffe, with a skull that became the prototype for dragons, and necks and backbones. The Cyclops legend came about from fossil skulls of elephants, which appear to have but one orbit. Some of these had been actually excavated and displayed as dragons, griffins, etc.

I’m not the one in denial. You explained away perfectly credible evidence and it was a lot more convincing than anything the ToE has going for it. I’m sure mistakes have been made in the ignorance of the past and there are plenty of pig jaw bones and mermaid tales to prove it. The overwhelming evidence speaks for itself. There are too many instances in too many places to be brushed aside.

The Barbarian wrote:

I can see you're frustrated, but you surely have to understand that the evidence won't support your ideas.

You must be projecting your own feelings into my posts. I find myself laughing at most of this absurd reasoning and it is quite amusing to see how predictably you defend the dogmatic doctrines of the ToE.


The Barbarian wrote:

Subsequent tests seem to indicate the "cells" aren't cells, and the "blood vessels" are not made of collegen and muscle.
There's no great conspiracy, and scientists are not fools. The answer is quite simple. You've been conned by people who know little more than you do about it.

Well, you might get me to admit your con artists are better at it than mine. This, in response to the immune response tests done and the conclusions made about the T Rex tissue, is quite compelling though: “So, it seems rather clear, despite the objections of many evolutionists, to include Schweitzer herself, that a 1,000da molecule would elicit an extremely weak response at best and would not necessarily elicit a specific response to a certain type of hemoglobin molecule since surface epitopes are generally more specific in their antigenic nature than are buried epitopes (i.e., heme is somewhat hidden within a cleft of the hemoglobin molecule so 3 or 4 amino acids attached to it would also be somewhat hidden). How then is it remotely logical to suggest that a molecule weighing just over 1,000da (a heme group plus 3 or 4 amino acids) could elicit such a strong as well as specific immune response as Schweitzer et al. observed? In light of the additional recent finds of even more striking soft tissue and blood cell preservation, it seems much more likely that such an immune response so specific for certain types of hemoglobin could only be elicited by a larger portion of intact hemoglobin than many scientists seem to even consider. Of course, one can't really blame them because explaining how delicate soft tissue vessels (with obvious red blood cells inside containing relatively large portions of hemoglobin molecules) could remain intact for over 65 million years seems just a little bit difficult.
Such finds are much more consistent with a fairly recent catastrophic burial within just a few thousand years of time. Non-catastrophic burial would allow for rapid biodegradation of such delicate soft tissues. Time itself destroys soft tissues as well as DNA and proteins in short order. Current real-time observations suggest that bio-proteins could not remain intact more than a few tens of thousands of years - 100,000 years at the very outside limit of protein decay. The fact that such proteins are found, intact, in bones supposedly older than 65 million years is simply inconsistent with such an assumed age - by many orders of magnitude.â€Â

The Barbarian wrote:

Barbarian on dinosaurs surviving somewhere until recently:
Nope. It certainly wouldn't rule out evolution. There's a more basic reason why it's not a credible story. The evidence contradicts it.

If I were you, I’d be working on the idea that “dinosaurs surviving somewhere until recently†“certainly wouldn't rule out evolution.†I think God is in the process of serving up more fresh dino to amaze or dismay you. A word of caution to the wise: Be careful not to mix too much hoss pucky with your words, since you might have to eat them. :wink:

 

[Solo]

Most people assume that fossilized bones like those of dinosaurs must be very, very old to have turned to stone. However, many such bones have not been thoroughly “permineralized†(meaning the rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone). In fact, the amount of time that it takes for a bone to permineralize is highly variable since modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks. Moreover some dinosaur bones have been found still containing soft tissue, red blood cells and detectable hemoglobin. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology at North Carolina State University isolated soft tissue from the femur of a T.rex and published her results in the journal Science. Note on the picture to the right that the bloody tissue found inside the T. rex bone is still pliable and resilient.

Some have stretched the bounds of imagination to preserve their evolutionary timetables. “The fact that the soft tissues were preserved for tens of millions of years turns on its head what paleontologists used to think about fossils - that any soft tissue should not last beyond 100,000 years.†(“T-Rex Fossils Yield Soft Tissue,†Discovery News, March 24, 2005.) But it seems more reasonable that these bones would be relatively recent deposits. “Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation.†(Wieland, Carl, “Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report,†Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 19, pp. 42-43, 1997.)

"In 1967 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-meter-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bone. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbilled dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs." (Helder, Margaret, 1992 "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 14, p. 16)

Buddy Davis (co-author of the book The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure) describes how he recently traveled to the North Slope in Alaska where they explored the Liscomb Bone Bed. His expedition discovered thousands of frozen unfossilized dinosaur bones, some of them with ligaments still attached! This does not fit the evolutionary story of dinosaurs becoming extinct 60 million years ago.

Carbon 14 is used to date fossils and other rocks that were once living things. Very precise dating from mass spectrometer analysis has substantiated the presence of Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. Some have suggested that the samples became contaminated with modern Carbon 14. But it has also substantiated that Carboniferous coal carefully extracted from deep within mines still contains Carbon 14! This is dramatic evidence of youthfulness since all of the detectable Carbon 14 should have decayed within 100,000 years. (Baumgardner, Fifth ICC Paper, 2003.)

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/old/old.htm

 

[Barbarian]

That’s always been my feeling actually. A tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous dates much older than they actually were.

Nope. It takes a significant amount of contamination. Would you take the time to learn about how it works, so you understand?

If it gives you the date you really wanted though, there is no reason to question it, is there?

That was Austin's argument when he gave that faked sample to the labs to be tested. But scientists don't work that way.

The question remains. If the bone is not fossilized, why can’t it be dated?

They were. You just can't use C-14 for material that old.

The Barbarian wrote: Quote:
That's a remarkable finding. And a prediction of evolutionary theory, now verified by direct evidence. Pretty impressive.

I’m happy you found a silver lining in that dark cloud raining on your evolutionary chain.

As you learned earlier, no one is suprised that C-14 doesn't work for fossils. Nothing that old retains enough to be measured.

Pretty evasive of the actual issue though. Obviously, the T Rex wasn’t lying there for the last 65 million years and your overlying and underlying layers are misdated as well. If they haven’t tried carbon 14 dating, it’s because they’re afraid of the results.

Sorry, someone's had a little fun with your lack of knowledge. Until recently we couldn't even test very old human material with C-14.

Barbarian observes:
I would say that your ignorance is showing, but that would be unkind. Suffice to say that you don't understand the principle behind the process.

It might be ignorance but wouldn’t that be your fault for not explaining it well enough?

I did assume you understood the fundamentals, since you were making pronouncements about it.

I do understand it from reading the sites you all send us to and most of the people reading these boards do, too. I may be stubborn but I’m not stupid. Correct me if my analogy is wrong but if I had a pitcher of water and every day someone came in and took half of the water that’s left in it, and replaced it with the same amount of lead sinkers, by the time it gets down to just a drop of water, you can still measure the water and the lead, figure it out and tell exactly how long ago the bottle was full of just water. That seems fairly simple. If it was a 48 oz pitcher and there were 46 ½ lead 1 oz sinkers and 1 ½ oz of water left, that would mean 5 days ago the pitcher was full.

From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.

Except you can’t do it. You can’t know how many times water was added or taken away from the bottle or how many times lead sinkers were added or taken away or if there were already lead sinkers in the pitcher to begin with or if some of the water evaporated or if it was never really full of water at all to begin with.

There are rough analogues to all that, and texts on radiodating spend a lot of words describing those cases, and how to avoid them.

As you told us, “it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.â€Â

More than a tiny trace.

The Barbarian wrote: Quote:
They were pretty excited about the coelacanth, but they handled it. Any scientist who found evidence of dinosaurs (other than birds) living in the last few thousand years would have his career made for life.

LOL. Not according to history.

Then you don't know history very well. Marjorie Courtenay Latimer, although not a graduate biologist (she was a nurse) discovered the animal in 1938, I think. Her discovery was heralded around the world as a remarkable find, and she went on to have a long career as one of those lucky few who are famed ( that species of coelacanth was named for her) and successful (she was made the curator of a museum).

She died last year at the age of 97, respected and famed.

Only those who find things in favor of the ToE are rewarded handsomely.

Daniel Hunt Morgan, and Steven Gould would be surprised to hear that. Both men upset parts of Darwinian theory and were richly rewarded for their efforts.

Barbarian on assuming crude drawings "just have to be dinosaurs:"
It did, of course. Just a lot longer than you want to accept.
I guess if you want to believe bad enough, some of them might start to look like dinosaurs. I'd sure like to see a good representation of a T-rex than can be shown to have existed in preColumbian times.

(and this is offered)

Not much, is it?

Barbarian observes:
Pretty weird stuff. The imagination of the guys interpreting these, I mean. Griffins came about because people found fossils of ceratopsians in Central Asia. Dragons and long-necked "sauropods" came about because the Greeks found fossils of Sivatherium, a weird extinct giraffe, with a skull that became the prototype for dragons, and necks and backbones. The Cyclops legend came about from fossil skulls of elephants, which appear to have but one orbit. Some of these had been actually excavated and displayed as dragons, griffins, etc.

I’m not the one in denial.

Apparently so. The fossils they used were not the ones you suggested. But suppose they were. What if they found a T-rex skeleton. What do you think they'd think?

They found ceratopsian skulls, and made the best guess they could about what it looked like. Ditto for the giraffe and mammoths. And so we get stories and pictures of griffins and dragons and cyclopean beings.

Fact is, we know that happened. And even better, we have evidence that they actually found fossils of those animals.

Barbarian observes:
I can see you're frustrated, but you surely have to understand that the evidence won't support your ideas.

(denial)

Barbarian observes:
Subsequent tests seem to indicate the "cells" aren't cells, and the "blood vessels" are not made of collegen and muscle.

There's no great conspiracy, and scientists are not fools. The answer is quite simple. You've been conned by people who know little more than you do about it.

“So, it seems rather clear, despite the objections of many evolutionists, to include Schweitzer herself, that a 1,000da molecule would elicit an extremely weak response at best and would not necessarily elicit a specific response to a certain type of hemoglobin molecule since surface epitopes are generally more specific in their antigenic nature than are buried epitopes (i.e., heme is somewhat hidden within a cleft of the hemoglobin molecule so 3 or 4 amino acids attached to it would also be somewhat hidden).

Perhaps your guy hasn't had any graduate work in immunology. I have. And his story is laughable. Here's why:

On T-cell recognition of nickel as a hapten.

Emtestam L, Olerup O.

Department of Dermatology, Huddinge Hospital, Sweden.

T-cells recognize antigens as peptides associated with self-molecules encoded by genes of the HLA region. In patients with contact allergy to nickel, T-cells that are specific for non-peptide haptens have been described. Previously, we have isolated HLA class II-restricted nickel-specific T-cell clones from patients with nickel sensitivity. In this paper, data on the fine specificity of a nickel-specific HLA-DR4-restricted clone have been reevaluated. Genomic tissue typing employing polymerase chain reaction and sequence-specific primers were used. Nickel was presented to the T-cell clone by all three subtypes of HLA-DR4 included in our panel. Two different DRB4*0404-positive cells presented nickel, whereas only 3 of the 7 DRB1*0401-positive and one of the 3 DRB1*0408-positive cells restimulated the T-cell clone. These findings are compatible with the notion that nickel interacts with endogenous peptides in the antigen-presenting groove of the HLA molecule, thereby changing these peptides' antigenicity rather than their ability to bind to the HLA molecule. Variations of the endogenous peptide in the antigen-presenting groove as well as differences of the HLA molecules give the DR4 specificity of the nickel-specific clone MCE2.

Nickel has an atomic mass of 58.69. And yet, it is a powerful allergen, eliciting a strong immune response.

How then is it remotely logical to suggest that a molecule weighing just over 1,000da (a heme group plus 3 or 4 amino acids) could elicit such a strong as well as specific immune response as Schweitzer et al. observed?

It could directly a T-cell, or it could easily combine with some fraction in the blood as a hapten. Since heme readily combines with globins to form hemoglobin, the latter seems most likely. Do you think your guy didn't know this? Or did he just hope you didn't?

Barbarian observes:
Barbarian on dinosaurs surviving somewhere until recently:
Nope. It certainly wouldn't rule out evolution. There's a more basic reason why it's not a credible story. The evidence contradicts it.

If I were you, I’d be working on the idea that “dinosaurs surviving somewhere until recently†“certainly wouldn't rule out evolution.â€Â

Moot point. Now the likelihood of a small dromosaur is a little better. And that would be much more interesting than a T rex. But it looks like that isn't going to be.

I think God is in the process of serving up more fresh dino to amaze or dismay you. A word of caution to the wise: Be careful not to mix too much hoss pucky with your words, since you might have to eat them.

Well, that's certainly a consideration isn't it? Would you care to venture a guess as to when we will actually find such a thing?

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

Nope. It takes a significant amount of contamination. Would you take the time to learn about how it works, so you understand?

I was quoting you. Do you read what you write? Here it is again:

The Barbarian wrote previously:

Bones, when they fossilize, as these have, are replaced by stone. Some of the bone at the center of the bones was not yet completely fossilized. But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.

The Barbarian wrote:

They were. You just can't use C-14 for material that old.

So what was used to test the T Rex bones? What were the results?





The Barbarian wrote:

As you learned earlier, no one is suprised that C-14 doesn't work for fossils. Nothing that old retains enough to be measured.

No one wants to admit they are not that old?




The Barbarian wrote:

Sorry, someone's had a little fun with your lack of knowledge. Until recently we couldn't even test very old human material with C-14.

Right. But if they aren’t that old, they could be tested with C-14. We’ll never know because evolutionists are afraid to take the chance they were wwr r rong.




The Barbarian wrote:

From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.

That was a direct quote from you that gave me that. I guess it depends on which foot the shoe is on and whether it pinches the ToE.

The Barbarian wrote:

There are rough analogues to all that, and texts on radiodating spend a lot of words describing those cases, and how to avoid them.

Sure, I bet there are more exceptions than rules. LOL


The Barbarian wrote:

Then you don't know history very well. Marjorie Courtenay Latimer, although not a graduate biologist (she was a nurse) discovered the animal in 1938, I think. Her discovery was heralded around the world as a remarkable find, and she went on to have a long career as one of those lucky few who are famed ( that species of coelacanth was named for her) and successful (she was made the curator of a museum).
She died last year at the age of 97, respected and famed.

She had one in tow in front of television cameras… not much else they could do. It was the one that wouldn’t go away. The only thing left was to give it a new name and make it sound like it was so much different than fossil specimens.



The Barbarian wrote:

Daniel Hunt Morgan, and Steven Gould would be surprised to hear that. Both men upset parts of Darwinian theory and were richly rewarded for their efforts.

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny  and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."  Stephen Jay Gould



The Barbarian wrote:

(and this is offered)
(Barbarian posts 1 single example from the many on the site)

Not much, is it?

That wasn’t all of it either. You must have select-a-vision.


The Barbarian wrote:

Apparently so. The fossils they used were not the ones you suggested. But suppose they were. What if they found a T-rex skeleton. What do you think they'd think?
They found ceratopsian skulls, and made the best guess they could about what it looked like. Ditto for the giraffe and mammoths. And so we get stories and pictures of griffins and dragons and cyclopean beings.
Fact is, we know that happened. And even better, we have evidence that they actually found fossils of those animals.

If the actual animals had gone extinct, they would be stuck with reconstruction, yes. I doubt if nomads and natives in North or South America or Mexico are interested in restoration of dinosaur bones to use as models for their art work.





The Barbarian wrote:

Perhaps your guy hasn't had any graduate work in immunology. I have. And his story is laughable. Here's why:
bla bla bla…Since heme readily combines with globins to form hemoglobin, the latter seems most likely. Do you think your guy didn't know this? Or did he just hope you didn't?

Well, did you think I would know enough about what you were talking about to refute it? I don’t know him but I know what you do to what I write, and you rarely interpret what I say correctly or at least you don’t repeat it that way so it seems you either are intentionally deceptive or have a comprehension issue yourself.




The Barbarian wrote:

Well, that's certainly a consideration isn't it? Would you care to venture a guess as to when we will actually find such a thing?

Solo just mentioned an interesting, yet sad occurrence: "In 1967 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-meter-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bone. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbilled dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs." (Helder, Margaret, 1992 "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 14, p. 16) Apparently it could be right under your noses right now and you wouldnââ¬â„¢t “actually find such a thing†even then. :roll: