Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global Warming...and Gaseous Dinosaurs (if the Dinosaurs can do it....?)
http://www.apologeticspress.org ^ | 7/1/2012 | Eric Lyons, M.Min

Posted on 09/27/2013 3:53:17 AM PDT by kimtom

According to evolutionary theory’s assumption-based dating methods and circular reasoning (see DeYoung, 2005), for well over 100 million years large sauropod dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Antetonitrus allegedly lived more than 200 million years ago, Apatosaurus 150 million years ago, and Argentinosaurus 95 million years ago—about 30 million years before dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct. Note that these dinosaurs supposedly did not flourish on Earth for just hundreds or thousands of years, but for multiplied millions of years. Evolutionists contend that dinosaurs inhabited Earth at least 500 times longer than “modern humans.”

Consider the connection between the vast time that sauropod dinosaurs allegedly were on Earth with a recent study published in Current Biology concerning “climate warmth” (i.e., global warming). According to Dr. David Wilkinson of John Moores University in Liverpool, and his colleagues, sauropods produced massive amounts of the “greenhouse” gas methane, which would have warmed the planet considerably. [NOTE: Scientists have suggested that greenhouse gas is “21 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat on Earth and causing climate change” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” 2012).] Wilkinson and colleagues conservatively estimate that the “global methane production from sauropods” was “520 million tonnes per year” (2012, 22[9]:292-93, emp. added). Just how much is 520 million tons, comparatively speaking? According to Wilkinson, “Our calculations suggest these dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” emp. added).

Even though sauropods supposedly would have warmed the planet .........

(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; creation; gas; globalwarming; notanewstopic; notasciencetopic; realscince; science; truescience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
A previous post begged the topic......
1 posted on 09/27/2013 3:53:17 AM PDT by kimtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kimtom

2 posted on 09/27/2013 3:55:04 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom
According to evolutionary theory’s assumption-based dating methods and circular reasoning

I clicked on this post because the title suggested that a serious scientific discussion was about to follow.

Then I read this opening sentence, and realized that it's just another screed by some anti-science kook (of the creationist variety; many flavors of anti-science exist).

Seriously, it looks bad for Christians to embrace anti-science of any flavor.

3 posted on 09/27/2013 4:13:03 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

You obviously do not know science nor assumptions in radio isotope dating methods


4 posted on 09/27/2013 4:14:49 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

SHould have read the article.


5 posted on 09/27/2013 4:23:25 AM PDT by Laserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Actually, I have a PhD in the life sciences. In the course of getting that PhD, I had to learn the physics of radioisotopes and how to use them for scientific measurements. Radioisotopic measurements are among the most precise and accurate forms of measurement there are, because the rate of radioisotopic decay remains constant over time, and the decay process is invariable. For instance, sulfur 35 *always* decays through emission of a beta particle and becomes chlorine.

I seriously doubt that the M. Min who wrote this blog piece has ever stepped foot in a science class (other than sitting through the obligatory introduction to science course required as part of general education). He (she?) is certainly no expert on science.


6 posted on 09/27/2013 4:29:26 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

My guess: methane emitted from swamps via decaying animal and vegetable and to termites due matter exceeds that emitted from animals emissions. However, I have not found any authoritative investigation of how much man has lowered methane emissions by draining swamps and by trees into useful products such as paper and lumber instead of allowing trees to be eaten by termites.


7 posted on 09/27/2013 4:32:22 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Only because dinosaurs eventually gave up smoking and checked their triglycerides.


8 posted on 09/27/2013 4:36:34 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

OkY, FOR EXAMPLE:

No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks.

For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, or neodymium) were present when the rock formed (via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on unproven assumptions).

Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected.1 For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years!2 Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.

The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.* Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.

Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!

REF: .A. A. Snelling, “The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 285–303; Ref. 4, 2005.

G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed. (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2005); A. P. Dickin, Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

.A. A. Snelling, “The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1998), pp. 503–525


9 posted on 09/27/2013 4:43:57 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

I do not believe he can


10 posted on 09/27/2013 4:44:53 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Yes, yes, but most continued their poor diet.
Micheeellllle-osaurus was born yet, until a few thousand years later.....


11 posted on 09/27/2013 4:46:51 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Must have been horrible back then. They couldn’t bury the dead so life back then was living atop dead dino’s and putting up with the stench. Probably not an inch of land without a dead dinosaur!


12 posted on 09/27/2013 4:50:57 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laserman
SHould have read the article.

No need to waste my time like that. I already have to bypass many serious scientific discussions simply because I don't have limitless time to read and comment on real science, much less pseudoscience.

13 posted on 09/27/2013 4:51:39 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Oh, nice. Now you are copying and pasting from one of the anti-science creationist sites. Remember, if they are promoting creationism, they are scammers. They may be able to use big words, but that does not make them scientists.

As I said, I cringe whenever I see Christians fall for pseudoscience. At a time when fewer people are going to church than ever, is it really wise to promote this image of Christians as illiterate heathens?


14 posted on 09/27/2013 4:55:12 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.

3. The earth is a rock.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


15 posted on 09/27/2013 4:55:30 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Your problem appears to be simple - pride. You believe only the way your authority figures dictate [in order to get your PhD but what about other PhDs - do all simply agree?] therefore all creation science must be bad, yet you still try to defend the Christian faith. Choose ye this day who ye will serve - mankind or God!

Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts


16 posted on 09/27/2013 5:17:48 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

And yet you have time to lecture all those fellow FReepers you consider dim-witted b/c their faith informs their science, their bia, and their politics? Really. Truly. Astounding.

Please tell us more how dumb we are and how smart you are - BTW here’s some more facts they didn’t discuss when you were instructed in the infallible science of long ages...

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


17 posted on 09/27/2013 5:24:03 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
About the author:

Eric Lyons:

“Eric Lyons is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min (and what exactly is an M.Min – Master of Ministry, Master of Muddled thinking?). Eric, his wife Jana, and their three children (Bo, Micah, and Shelby) live and worship in Wetumpka, Alabama, where Eric works with the youth of the Wetumpka church of Christ. Eric currently serves as a member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press, where he has worked for the past 12 years.”

“Eric has authored or co-authored a number of books, including The Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies (Volumes 1 & 2), Behold! The Lamb of God, Truth Be Told, and Wonders of God's Creation. In addition, he writes weekly for the Apologetics Press Web site, is editor of the Explorer Series (sp?), and assistant editor of Discovery, the monthly magazine on Scripture and science for children published by Apologetics Press. Eric speaks frequently at youth rallies, Gospel meetings, and seminars around the country, and specializes in presenting seminars on the following topics…”

Eric is also the author of this very “scientific” blog post - Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together?

Surly Eric knows more about science than you do! ;) ,

18 posted on 09/27/2013 5:28:14 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
image of Christians as illiterate heathens?..”

so I am a illiterate am I?

I smile

Delineating Christianity by a NON-Christian is tripe

not even a true evolutionist would argue against established science fact.

shall I quote only evolutionist journals then??? I can still prove my point.

so you support man made global warming then?

19 posted on 09/27/2013 5:34:40 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“...of the anti-science creationist sites. R...”

Don’t know any!!

:)


20 posted on 09/27/2013 5:35:42 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

“... putting up with the stench. Probably not an inch of land without a dead dinosaur!...”

Oh no, they were buried very rapidly...had to have fossils , you know.


21 posted on 09/27/2013 5:36:57 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

One question: Has anyone ever determined what effect, if any, pressure and heat have on the decay rate of isotopes? Rock buried under tons of other rock is going to endure great pressure and very high temperatures.


22 posted on 09/27/2013 5:41:54 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
yes,

NUCLEAR HALF-LIFE MODIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
GDR GREEN NEWSLETTER 001
“..
Radioactive isotope half-lives can be decreased to neutralize nuclear waste and weapons. This phenomenon can be accomplished by using equipment available since the late 1800’s and this technique has been known for the past 40 years. Incorporating this technique can result in vast financial savings, solve the current insurmountable environmental problems of radioactive waste storage and ensure this planet a future free from the threat of deadly nuclear radiation contamination.
........”

he goes on to say,
“...Many renowned scientists may find this half-life modification statement beyond all reason. This I have been told many times by many PhDs over the past 40 years. The Secretary of Energy announced, as was reported April 9, 2003 in the Los Angeles Times, that the DOE Secretary knew of no other way of disposing of the nuclear waste other than burying it at Yucca Mountain (and like sites)....”

his colleagues do not like the implication.

Ref: Submitted by Larry Geer for GDR

Radioactivity Deactivation at High Temperature in an Applied DC Voltage Field Demonstrated in 1964 Full story on GDR.org

By: Larry Geer & Cecil Baumgartner

23 posted on 09/27/2013 5:51:14 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Public;

Thanks for these facts you are right!! he is (more)qualified!!!

I would not have been so harsh...

Thanks!!!!


24 posted on 09/27/2013 6:02:29 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Simple answer - NO. They would need scientific instruments that could endure heat that would melt steel and pressure that would crumble skyscrapers [que Rosie O’Donell!].

Heat in several thousands of degrees and pressure in tens of thousands of PSI.


25 posted on 09/27/2013 6:09:45 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Qualified to teach Sunday school perhaps. Espousing his misinformed and misguided opinions on science, well not so much.


26 posted on 09/27/2013 6:13:47 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Speaking of stench - Mary Schweitzer and her group noted that this particular dig site smelled like rotting flesh...

Dinosaur Shocker - 68 million year old T Rex w/ red blood cells
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html#ixzz0VZChRzSL


27 posted on 09/27/2013 6:15:24 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

“.. his misinformed and misguided opinions on science, well not so much...”

could you expound on his errors in science Please?

references accepted.

Thanks


28 posted on 09/27/2013 6:15:56 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Great article,65 million year old blood tissue, amazing!
(sarc)

she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”

Interesting, like a democrat “Christian” can support killing the unborn..???

(sarc, again)


29 posted on 09/27/2013 6:21:17 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

So to square this with my post #25 - reduced half life would have to be inferred from radio-isotope measurements before and after neutralizing the nuclear waste. No instruments exist to make measurements during same said process.

And how they do this neutralization is equally informing - with high heat and pressure approaching that found under the Earth’s crust in molten rock!


30 posted on 09/27/2013 6:27:34 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kimtom
Try this, and written by a Christian who is also a scientist:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

More about the author: Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. He spent two years at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (La Jolla, CA) where he studied isotopes of helium, neon, argon, and nitrogen in terrestrial rocks. He worked seven years in the Geological and Planetary Sciences Division at Caltech, where he continued the study of meteorites and worked for NASA on the feasibility of a space mission to return solar wind samples to Earth for study. Dr. Wiens wrote the first edition of this paper while in Pasadena. In 1997 he joined the Space and Atmospheric Sciences group at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he has been in charge of building and flying the payload for the solar-wind mission, as well as developing new instruments for other space missions. He has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.

31 posted on 09/27/2013 6:28:13 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Toad in the Hole Jan Bondeson examines the curious history – and enduring biological mystery – of living frogs and toads found entombed in rocks and stones. Photographic material from the author's collection. By Jan Bondeson June 2007

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/477/toad_in_the_hole.html

I expect evolutionist hate these stories, still even a dead toad (soft tissue) surviving millions of years (coal) is embarrassing..

32 posted on 09/27/2013 6:30:34 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: abclily

By legislating regulations for the Sun to follow.


33 posted on 09/27/2013 6:30:42 AM PDT by FreeperCell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Gasp - well how dare a conservative christian attempt to understand and explain science.

Mebbe you need to read up a little bit about the early scientists and their professed faith like say Sir Isaac Newton for starters and finish with Albert Einstien.

Here’s another scientist you’ve probably have zero or limited biased awareness of - Dr. Walt Brown PhD

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html


34 posted on 09/27/2013 6:31:49 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Thanks!!!

Theistic evolutionist!!

Claims to be Children of God while espousing evolution, does not compute.
(nor tauting an alphabet behind ones name make a genius and I have known one)

Dig Man?

(I will check out the article)

35 posted on 09/27/2013 6:35:53 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Dr Weins, despite his claim to Faith, is supporting long geological times, even though the fact that “apparent age” is just that, as Mt Saint Helens proves (when one dates the cap stone) IT does show how environment alters the results.
That being said, the assumption follows in that the parent material was not altered when formed. So the argument is a matter of bias.

“Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

The educational page hosted by the US Geological Society provides one recent example of the way radioactive dating is explained to the public. They focus on the technicalities of radioactive decay, etc. but don’t even mention the fact that we can’t measure the concentrations of isotopes in the past.

So, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologists do—they make up an assumed geological history for rock after the event, depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab that measures the isotopes in the rocks now. Dating secrets explains how this works in practice. Some real-life examples of how geologists change their assumptions after the event include the dating of Skull KNM-ER 1470 (see The pigs took it all) and of the Mungo skeletal remains, Australia”-Tas Walker


36 posted on 09/27/2013 7:14:29 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

careful, using PhD scientist to argue against PhD scientist is not allowed IF they are Creationist!!!!

How Dare You!!!!!

evolutionist cannot agree among themselves!


37 posted on 09/27/2013 7:16:34 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
The author is simply repeating claims made by Dr. David Wilkinson, Dr. Wilkinson seems to be a real scientist at least he got a BS and MS in science I was unable to see what studies he took for his PhD but I will assume Ecology since that seems to be his field.

Before I will believe the claim of 500+ million tons of methane a year from sauropods, I will need to see more proof and less speculation. I would think methane in high amount would leave behind some physical evidence. Also was not the Earth much warmer during the reign of the dinosaurs? Even thou the Sun was cooler then? Hmmm, maybe dino farts are why. lol

38 posted on 09/27/2013 7:47:08 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kimtom; BrandtMichaels
Please note that Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D. has his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. A Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT no less and while you can’t be stupid to get a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT, that makes him very qualified to speak to the subject of mechanical engineering, but that doesn’t make him an expert in all sciences, particularly in geology or biology.

I’ll put it to you this way. If I wanted someone to design or consult on a piece of machinery, a mechanical system, Dr. Brown might be a very good choice, but if I broke my leg or needed open heart surgery, I wouldn’t be calling “Dr”. Brown for a consult; I’d look for a very good MD, an orthopedic or thoracic surgeon. If I owned an oil drilling company and needed a geologist, I wouldn’t be calling Dr. Brown for a consult; I’d look for someone with a Ph.D. in geology. If I owned a cable company and wanted to launch and maintain a communications satellite, I wouldn’t be calling Dr. Brown for a consult; I’d look for someone with a Ph.D in satellite communications and one with a Ph.D. in rocket science. And if I needed new brakes for my car, while Dr. Brown is after all a mechanical engineer, I wouldn’t be ringing him up to work on my car.

Just because someone is bright and has a Ph.D. in a particular field, that doesn’t make them experts or knowledgeable in every other field.

I notice this quite a lot with creationist websites and articles; often some of the people writing these articles have doctorates or BA’s or MA’s but in areas totally unrelated to the area of science they are writing about and have no experience in that other field, no peer reviewed papers, no field work, just opinion pieces written for creationist websites or self published books. Or they have a BA in Bible Studies like the author of the article in this post. Creationist websites like to have people with initials behind their names to post articles because it lends an air of credibility. But often when you look at those initials and read their bios, they, much like Dr. Brown, are writing about fields well outside their area of expertise or they received their degrees from very low level schools 2 year or community colleges and immediately after graduation, go to work for orgs like Creation Research Institute or Answers in Genesis writing blog posts. I would also note that just because a person has a BA, MA or Ph.D. that doesn’t mean their research or conclusions are always correct even if within their field. That’s why science demands peer review and replication of results. And of course there are always cranks and kooks, even among seemingly smart and well educated people. This is why you have to look beyond jus the initials behind their names.

Creationists also like to quote actual scientific research and research papers but they often quote them totally out of context or make conclusions that are contrary to what the actual piece they are quoting from actually said – it’s called “cherry picking”.

Your post #25 - “Speaking of stench - Mary Schweitzer and her group noted that this particular dig site smelled like rotting flesh...” is a good example of this twisting of words or inventing things that are not there – nowhere in the link to the article you posted do the words “stench” or “rotting” or “smell” or “odor” ever appear. You and other creationists would like that to be there, you’d like to picture big chunks of red dino rotting smelly meat clinging to the bones but that is not what Mary Schweitzer and her team found.

And she doesn’t like you creationists high jacking and twisting her research. From the article you linked to and conveniently ignore:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “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.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

You might want to read this:

While the creationists are drooling and slobbering all over themselves, Schweitzer has a new paper in Bone (subscription needed), Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, which describes her discovery of “soft, transparent microstructures in dinosaur bone” and which explains how such DNA evidence (but not red meat, of course) has been preserved for so long.

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/dinosaur-fossils-found-with-hot-red-meat/

39 posted on 09/27/2013 7:49:11 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jpsb; exDemMom

Ooops, I just read the entire article, I posted my comment after only reading the first couple of paragraphs. I should know better then to do that by now. Sorry bout wasting your time.


40 posted on 09/27/2013 7:52:58 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Gaseous dinosaurs... Oh, this isn’t an article about congress. Who knew?


41 posted on 09/27/2013 8:14:26 AM PDT by Hoffer Rand (There ARE two Americas: "God's children" and the tax payers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

If you could be bothered to do any real research on Dr. Walt Brown I think you’d find that he does have many credentials beyond his PhD and he did indeed work in the field of ‘evolutionary’ science [left b/c he was highly disturbed by the amount of fabrication and outright lying by his peers].

Furthermore, once any scientist goes against the evo meme they will not be published nor peer-reviewed by the evo scientific periodical gate-keepers. Talk about close-minded - reminds me of the global warming accepters!

I did not re-read the article posted about Mary Schweitzer from some time ago and so if my memory failed me, sorry. But I do recall some other article regarding this same dig site being referred to as smelling of rotting flesh. Google it yourself.

Lastly, I’m not taking her research out of context. Rather she contradicts herself at the time of the article and later even invents a just-so story to try to describe how any soft tissue can remain intact for such a long time - an outright distortion of the truth to support a theory that deserved to die out long long ago. A method the evos use time and time again to explain away the problems inherent in long ages evolution.


42 posted on 09/27/2013 10:37:50 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Ever notice how the cherry-picking you accuse creation followers of doing can be shown historically [and still ongoing] thousands of times greater being done with the evolution hypocritical just-so story-telling?

Read ‘10 Icons of Evolution’ or better yet explain how honest and forthright evolution believers are being with panspermia or punctuated equilibrium? Or the Cambrian explosion, piltdown man, etc. - the list is ridculously long and never stops growing.


43 posted on 09/27/2013 10:45:56 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

I wonder how much we could improve the integrity and reliability of science if we remove all the funny money - federal, state, and university grants - rather let them use their own money and find their own private financiers.

Wonder if they see how the emperor’s clothing is quickly going thread-bare, wonder if they even care to bring back the integrity they are so sorely losing?


44 posted on 09/27/2013 10:51:04 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
If you could be bothered to do any real research on Dr. Walt Brown I think you’d find that he does have many credentials beyond his PhD and he did indeed work in the field of ‘evolutionary’ science [left b/c he was highly disturbed by the amount of fabrication and outright lying by his peers].

According to his biography on the Center for Scientific Creation website he did not, nor ever worked in the field of ‘evolutionary’ science unless you consider mechanical engineering, physics, mathematics, and computer science, as ‘evolutionary’ science and being a Director of Benét Laboratories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benét_Laboratories ). His bio states that he was ““an evolutionist” but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.” That sounds more like he took up a hobby after retiring from the military rather than leaving because he was highly disturbed by the amount of fabrication and outright lying by his peers. If you are going to lie, Brandt, at least make it a good lie and one that is not so easy to refute.

Furthermore, once any scientist goes against the evo meme they will not be published nor peer-reviewed by the evo scientific periodical gate-keepers. Talk about close-minded - reminds me of the global warming accepters!

Funny, astrologers and ancient alien theorists are not published in any serious peer reviewed astronomy journals and periodicals either. Damned those closed minded gate-keepers.

I did not re-read the article posted about Mary Schweitzer from some time ago and so if my memory failed me, sorry. But I do recall some other article regarding this same dig site being referred to as smelling of rotting flesh. Google it yourself.

No, Brandt, but you can Google it. Let us know what you find…

Lastly, I’m not taking her research out of context. Rather she contradicts herself at the time of the article and later even invents a just-so story to try to describe how any soft tissue can remain intact for such a long time - an outright distortion of the truth to support a theory that deserved to die out long long ago. A method the evos use time and time again to explain away the problems inherent in long ages evolution.

The only contradictions are those created by creationists when they quote out of context or make stuff up.

45 posted on 09/27/2013 11:36:24 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Whatever - trying to reason with people who think evolution is science is quite nearly impossible.

Just remember this one bub, science is not following the scientific method when it attempts to re-create history.

How would you ever duplicate thousands or millions or billions of years experimentally? Reasoning and logic go hand in hand with true science.


46 posted on 09/27/2013 11:44:01 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Whatever - trying to reason with people who think evolution is science is quite nearly impossible.

Whatever – trying to reason with people who think evolution and the geologic age of the earth is one and the same is quite nearly impossible.

47 posted on 09/27/2013 11:57:43 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Without long ages - which is quite impossible with or without dinosaur farts - evolution is impossible. In fact any mathematician worth his weight in salt could tell you trillions of years is not enough time for macro-evolution.


48 posted on 09/27/2013 12:44:15 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Your problem appears to be simple - pride. You believe only the way your authority figures dictate [in order to get your PhD but what about other PhDs - do all simply agree?] therefore all creation science must be bad, yet you still try to defend the Christian faith. Choose ye this day who ye will serve - mankind or God!

Clearly, I have chosen to serve God by observing and describing as accurately as possible the nature of His universe. I do not take the side of prideful charlatans who mock Christianity and would happily destroy it in order to sell a few books. Yes, they do drive people away from Christianity with their lies. And I will continue to pray for the people who fall for those charlatans, that they may one day realize the depth of the lies they have fallen for, and turn back to learning about the real and true universe that God has given us.

I believe that the devil is also known as the prince of lies. Since those creationist charlatans try to deceive you by telling you that a moral guide is actually a scientific discourse, I'll leave it to you to figure out who *they* are really working for.

49 posted on 09/27/2013 5:52:28 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kimtom
image of Christians as illiterate heathens?..”

so I am a illiterate am I?

You are scientifically illiterate. People like you do a great deal of harm to all of Christianity; kids these days mock Christians for being stupid, and promoting anti-science is not helping the situation at all.

Delineating Christianity by a NON-Christian is tripe

So, you have fallen for the lie that one cannot be both a Christian and a scientist? Tsk, tsk.

not even a true evolutionist would argue against established science fact.

You do realize that by comparing science to a religion the way you did by using the word "evolutionist", you reveal a lot about your feelings about religion. When people want to denigrate something, they generally compare it to something that they hold in contempt.

shall I quote only evolutionist journals then??? I can still prove my point.

Ah, another attempt to denigrate science by equating it with a religion. You should really think twice about doing that. Also, if you want to prove your point (whatever it is) by using scientific journals, that's great. But you can't cherry pick from those journals--you have to quote them in context and provide full references so that anyone can check that you are accurately representing what the journal said, and that the journal is a good quality journal.

so you support man made global warming then?

I'll discuss global warming in an appropriate thread. In fact, I have commented many times on global warming. Feel free to look through my old posts to find those comments.

50 posted on 09/27/2013 6:12:08 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson