Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[Right Wing Professor]

There are plenty of them on the creationscience site I listed which I much prefer over AIG (read that one too).

Oh, I see, you want me to present your case for you.

[2nsdammit]

You really aren't a student of history, are you?

Genocide, hatred, warfare, etc, have been around as long as we have recorded history, and probably before. Even your Bible talks about it.

[mlc9852]

Genesis.

[Spunky]

Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and in a black sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab,near a dinasaur.

[mlc9852]

What a nice, sincere post for a change.

[2nsdammit]

Actually, sheep will probably be less intelligent, if they are still domesticated. They don't need intelligence, if we are protecting them from predators.

[Mamzelle]

Text dump? Is that anything like spamming the same stuff over and over?

[BrandtMichaels]

No - and actually I apologize bc the creationscience site may not have much (if any) to say about radioisotopes. I would ask you but apparently you can't be bothered w/ research so I'll go and google it myself.

I'm almost certain their are assumptions (probably unstated at that) in radioisotope dating. After all, my hs and college teachers were all adamant that the speed of light is a constant. Even though that flys in the face of thermodynamics as well as the improved speed of light measurements that any can review.

I won't comment on whether Barry Setterfield's other work was discredited or not bc it is not really relevant. The simple question is: Is the speed of light decaying or a constant? And if it is concluded that it is decaying then please tell me how one would know if the decay was uniform over thousand, millions or billions of years? I know I know - this is probably all related to carbon-dating so off I go to read up on radioisotopes.

BTW before I was addicted to internet learning I was 'indoctrinated' in public schools 5-12 but also was an avid encyclopedia worm. The funny thing is how society defines 'experts' yet they all are still full of fallacy and error that far outweighs whatever true knowledge they have attained - wouldn't you agree Mr. RWP?

[2nsdammit]

OK, then I'll be less charitable.

Either he was deluded, or he was repeating folk tales he had heard, or he was deliberately telling lies to convince ignorant people of the truth of his story.

How's that?

[Spunky]

"I remember when capri's were clamdiggers and I thought that was prehistoric.

They were. Thats why my kids called them FLOODS.

[2nsdammit]

Ooh, wait, let me try this time...

"No it isn't! The Bible says you're wrong! Creationism is right!"

</sarc>

[whack!] ;-)

[2nsdammit]

I'll ask again: What does "better" mean? Better at surviving? They may have us beat hands down on that one - they haven't created nukes, after all... Cuter? I don't know - I've seen some pretty ugly people, and Guinea Pigs are kind of cute. Nicer smelling? Well, I think we win that one, by and large.

[Right Wing Professor]

After all, my hs and college teachers were all adamant that the speed of light is a constant. Even though that flys in the face of thermodynamics as well as the improved speed of light measurements that any can review.

Oh for heaven's sake.

I teach graduate thermodynamics and also optical spectroscopy. There is no conflict between a constant speed of light and thermodynamics. Nor is there any evidence the speed of light has changed with time. In fact, there's ample evidence none of the fundamental physical constants have.

BTW before I was addicted to internet learning I was 'indoctrinated' in public schools 5-12 but also was an avid encyclopedia worm.

One problem with internet learning is that every crank these days has an internet page, and unless you have a way between discriminating between credible sources and hooey, you can 'learn' a whole bunch of things that just aren't true.

The funny thing is how society defines 'experts' yet they all are still full of fallacy and error that far outweighs whatever true knowledge they have attained - wouldn't you agree Mr. RWP?

Now, I think that's utterly crazy. Experts can be wrong, sure, but they are far more likely to be right than wrong. That's why they're experts.

You said you were a computer programmer/analyst. Would you say your errors far outweigh what knowledge you've attained? If so, why is anyone employing you?

[2nsdammit]

Well, at least you're honest about it...

[Al Simmons]

"Answers in Genesis is a legitimate source."

Perhaps she meant to say "Luddite source"?

[BrandtMichaels]

You know what I truly find refreshing when I read the creation sites? How often they don't use the all-inclusive terms that I find litered throughout so much of the evolution threads and sites. Does anyone know of a good (yet humble) evolution site that is willing to stick to the facts w/o telling jumping to conclusions not supported by the data?

Your thread sounds like multiple evidences for the missing link but please tell me, show me. Also you probably realize that we are most likely looking for missing chains not links...

Then in the last 2 paragraphs you indicate just about everything the www.creationscience.com debunks. If it were truly just one or two anomolies than I would never bother posting replies to this crevo thread. Please re-read the scientific method and stick to things that can be presented truthfully - please.

[ahayes]

?? You assume there are assumptions when you apparently don't know how radiometric dating works and merely throw out a source when someone asks what assumptions there are, and then when he refuses to go look up what your objections might be you accuse him of not researching??

Your initial post is friendly on the face of it, but it's rather backhanded. Underneath are assumptions that evolution proponents are wrong and are too stupid/spiritually unenlightened to realize it.

Most modern dating methods are isochron dating methods. A lot of the sources of error that plagued more primitive methods have been removed. This page talks about isochron dating methods and their benefits and the means of detection of error. Enlighten yourself.

Now I will go respond to your other rude post.

[Al Simmons]

OK gang, I just thought of a funny:

"A Young-Earth Creationist understands evolution like the average American understands the IRS Tax Code."

[BrandtMichaels]

I think it bc I'm willing to find, admit and correct my errors - something that I'm not sure the education system is willing to do...

Also I've always found learning easier when someone wasn't speaking/writing to me in such a condescending manner as is evident throughout most of your replies.

[FourtySeven]

If so, is your GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

So if something isn't taken literally, all the time, then it's "inaccurate"? I think we've had this discussion before, but to re-iterate, (in case not), there are plenty of times when clearly Scripture shouldn't be taken as "literally true". No one can possibly say otherwise.

So, who decides when it's literally true and when it's not? You? All the YEC'ers/ID'ers? What makes their hermeneutic any better than mine?

Goodness. So many are so eager to say "you're not a real Christian if you believe in evolution" and the ultimate rationale is that their hermeneutical style is better than mine, iow, their opinion is better than mine, for no other reason than "it just is".

I've never said people who believe in a literal Creation aren't "real Christians". What ever happened to the notion of Christian charity? Or have we finally decided that there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture? If so, what Church is that?