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 ...
“... 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.
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.
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
Public;
Thanks for these facts you are right!! he is (more)qualified!!!
I would not have been so harsh...
Thanks!!!!
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.
Qualified to teach Sunday school perhaps. Espousing his misinformed and misguided opinions on science, well not so much.
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
“.. his misinformed and misguided opinions on science, well not so much...”
could you expound on his errors in science Please?
references accepted.
Thanks
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)
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!
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.
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..
By legislating regulations for the Sun to follow.
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
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)
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
careful, using PhD scientist to argue against PhD scientist is not allowed IF they are Creationist!!!!
How Dare You!!!!!
evolutionist cannot agree among themselves!
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
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/
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.
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.