The dinosaurs when down in a great catastrophe. That fact is finally acknowledged by science, but the details concerning the event are in conflict withMessage 1 of 126 , Aug 4, 2012View SourceThe dinosaurs when down in a great catastrophe. That fact is finally acknowledged by science, but the details concerning the event are in conflict with revealed religion and science itself. The current idea is an asteroid struck the earth and killed off the huge beasts of the past some 65 million years ago. This was `confirmed' a couple of years ago.
The problems start with the timing. Molecular biology has done experiments which have determined that "soft tissue" can not hold its form for more than 120,000 years (depending on temperature). In 2005, soft tissue was discovered by the famous paleontologist Jack Horner in the femur of a T-rex. The T-rex is supposed to be in the range of 65 million years old. With this discovery and public acknowledgement, all sorts of dino soft tissue is gaining recognition. In the TV documentary named "Dinos: Return to Life" the narrator clearly states that molecular biology indicates soft tissue can not last more than 100,000 years. About this, Jack Horner's colleague simply says, "We have to rethink the fossilization process".
This is no real answer to explain the existence of the dino soft tissue and is merely a deflection of the real problem! The real problem is even worse because the soft tissue is in excellent condition. If it were anywhere near 100,000 years old, it would have broken down into goop. The tissue is rubbery and veins can are clearly see. This indicates the degradation from molecular vibration in probably only between 2% and 10%. This suggests the T-rex was killed and buried less than 12 thousand years ago.
At this creation link a few minutes of the 60 Minutes story is available. I suggest all watch it. It is readily admitted that the "laws of science and biology say the blood cells and tissue can't still exist", yet they still foolishly and stupidly think it is millions of years old!
When you watch the video be sure to notice the responses of the other scientists: immediate criticism and denial. Only when the evidence is put in their face do they accept it but they don't accept the actual implications because they suffer from "blindness of mind".
The problem gets worse for those who think the soft tissue is over 60 million years old. More dino soft tissue has been discovered and has been C-14 dated at less than 30,000 years old.
The C-14 dates on dinosaurs are the beginning of problems for an advanced age of the earth. C-14 decays to a point that after 100,000 years there would be no C-14 remaining. This includes minerals, limestone, oil, coal, natural gas and such which is presumed older than the dinosaurs. In these things there should be no C-14 remaining.
This is not the case at all. In fact, using the AMS machine there is nothing which is testable that does not have C-14 in it!
Radio Carbon Journal:
Vol. 7 No. 1 (1965) p 372-398
Crude oil from a well of 1050 feet depth dated three times. Twice by commercial labs> dates: 28,600 +/-130 once >37,000 years and once >42,000 years (supposedly last two dates beyond limit of the machine. The machines of this era could date to 49,000 years).
Radio Carbon Journal:
Vol. 38 No. 1 (1996) p 78
Apparently oil from Nevada has C-14 in it.
(Must pay to see the data but less than 50,000 years).
There is an immediate disclaimer for results claiming radio active contamination. Clearly, some one doesn't want to lose their funding!
Radio Carbon Journal:
Vol. 46 No. 1 (2004) p 201-206
There is C-14 in quartz (around 25,000 years old).
Radio Carbon Journal:
Vol. 49 No. 3 (2007)
Anthracite: hard shiny coal (accounts for 1% of all coal) age less than diamonds and not so easy for water to soak into and contaminate (42,000 years old).
Graphite: comes from coal (31,000 year old)
Diamonds grey 78,600 Diamonds white 79,500 BP
Coal, graphite and diamonds have C-14 remaining. Since diamonds are supposed to be older than any type of life (900 million to 3.2 billion years), it is consistent that their "ages" are higher than anything else tested.
There are many other results of C-14 results referenced by creationists. I have avoided those but there is no reason to disbelieve the numbers. Apparently, everything that can have C-14 in it still does have C-14 in it which validates my thought that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions or billions.
The rebuttal for this evidence is "contamination from the environment". There are a few problems with this. Problem one, there has been no real evidence put forward to prove C-14 test samples were actually in a radio active area. Problem two, there have been no test which show that C-14 can be produced radioactivity in the ground when the Nitrogen is trapped inside a formed molecular structure such as oil or diamonds. Problem three, radio active bombardment can be halted with a few feet of rock strata. All ground resources are surrounded by rock. Problem four, radio active materials would have to be at a strong level to get through even a foot of rock to contaminate whole oil or coal fields. In other words, the C-14 test material would be radioactive.
The AMS machines should retest everything! They have the ability to see almost all the radio carbon. This would then improve and reduce dates for all of the older tests. The next step is to determine what the rate that C-14 is building up in the atmosphere. A geological clock can then indicate how old the earth really is and recalculate the actual age of objects based on what the C-14 content was in the past compared to today.
In my opinion, scientists whom think the dinosaurs died millions of years ago and we live on a multi-billion year old earth simply believe in a fairy tales. Finally, because of radio active carbon and molecular biology, I don't think the earth is as old as all the scientists seem to think it is. Life then did not have time to "evolve" and was either directly created or brought here by some advance being or beings.
Hey, Todd, I was hoping you would drop by! Now that I have a decent internet connection I see you ve been busy elsewhere. (I hope you like my dog.) ... Well,Message 126 of 126 , Sep 7View SourceHey, Todd, I was hoping you would drop by! Now that I have
a decent internet connection I see you've been busy elsewhere.
(I hope you like my dog.)
> Well, to be honest, he's fighting a lost battle.Well, yeah, but in that context I wasn't speaking strictly of
> Lost over two hundred years ago. ;-)
geology... I was thinking more along the lines of Acts 5:39.
Are you familiar with the book I linked in that last message?
Title: History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
Author: Andrew Dickson White
There's some pretty good stuff in it, including a chapter on
astronomy. As I understand it, White's method of "conflict
thesis" is rather outdated in terms of historiography -- but
then again, so is creationism itself. It's pretty amazing to
see all these same excuses from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries
still parading around the internet as modern creation science.
Here's something from Chapter 7, about archaeology:
| In the last years of the sixteenth century Michael Mercati
| tried to prove that the "thunder-stones" were weapons or
| implements of early races of men; but from some cause his
| book was not published until the following century, when
| other thinkers had begun to take up the same idea, and
| then it had to contend with a theory far more accordant
| with theologic modes of reasoning in science. This was
| the theory of the learned Tollius, who in 1649 told the
| world that these chipped or smoothed stones were
| "generated in the sky by a fulgurous exhalation conglobed
| in a cloud by the circumposed humour."
| But about the beginning of the eighteenth century a fact
| of great importance was quietly established. In the year
| 1715 a large pointed weapon of black flint was found in
| contact with the bones of an elephant, in a gravel bed near
| Gray's Inn Lane, in London. The world in general paid no
| heed to this: if the attention of theologians was called
| to it, they dismissed it summarily with a reference to the
| Deluge of Noah; but the specimen was labelled, the
| circumstances regarding it were recorded, and both specimen
| and record carefully preserved.
Uh oh. I can see where *this* is going...
"Conglobed in a cloud by the circumposed humour" is pretty
humorous in itself!
And this book was published in 1896 -- the year radioactivity
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism