Posted on 05/01/2009 8:25:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A dinosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells. The finding is important because it should resolve doubts about a previous report that also claimed to have extracted dino tissue from fossils...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
That Hitler thing. Good thing he had the advantage of that Catholic training or he would have been really nasty. Since he did have the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, he was just medium nasty, as opposed to those horrible atheist doctors doing heinous things like using the theory of evolution to develop vaccinations...
I am not a christian hater.
Most Christians that I know, believe evolution expresses the facts well. And me a graduate of Evangel College! (now Evangel University!)
I am grateful to them for the endless opportunity for amusement. I look to them for my quota of illogic, non sequiteurs, and justification for my decision to homeschool, since the schools aren’t doing much in the way of science education.
But your young earth creationists would deny me the benefits of their particular Heaven, wouldnt they?
And to them, their Heaven is as real as the medical and health benefits of evolutionary biology are to me.
I would not degrade the Christians to become monkeys. Rather I would promote them.
Man is the only animal that blushs. Or needs to.
They said when President Obama got elected that pigs would fly.
Now after only 100 days in office, swine flu.
Thanks for the consideration you gave my post. We will just have to “agree to disagree” (do you hate that cliche too?) on whether or not YEC is supported by this more than OEC/theistic evolution. I do not see why such a conclusion should necessarily be drawn, for the reasons stated previously. I don’t believe either theory is necessarily bolstered by the discovery.
However, in the spirit of the same charity you extended me, I can see why others may believe this, as it is clearly unusual to find the remains of soft tissue in bones allegedly millions of years old.
“That Hitler thing. Good thing he had the advantage of that Catholic training or he would have been really nasty. Since he did have the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, he was just medium nasty, as opposed to those horrible atheist doctors doing heinous things like using the theory of evolution to develop vaccinations...”
1. Is there some reason you guys think everyone who believes in Creation is Catholic or sympathetic enough to get upset when you slam it? Even if I were (and I ain’t) that little poke wouldn’t even tickle.
2. Ignorant assumption that the theory of evolution is used in the creation of vaccines.
3. Not all doctors are atheists (another ignorant assumption).
4. From here on out, I’m the only one allowed to make ignorant assumptions... I’m the stupid Creationist here!!!
a.) what is the beginning ratio of father / daughter elements?
b.) what conditions might account for increasing the decay rates?
Both are assumed by evolutionary thinking but has mankind not seen discrepancies aplenty? IIRC Mt. St. Helens showed some rather large radio-isotope dates immediately thereafter. Has science been able to duplicate the conditions of heat and pressure associated w/ volcanic eruptions?
This is exactly why creation science is so superior to idiot evolutionist "science". Evo science has no way of testing these assumptions, like the original ratio of decay elements, changes in the speed of light, etc. and when the radio-isotope tests are applied, 100% properly and as they were intended, to brand new formations (like at St. Helens), they give ages showing they're millions of years old.
What a crock. If the evo had any shame, they'd declare radiometry, and all the physics and geology that depends on it, as a total sham and consult with creation scientists at ICR, AiG, etc. who (obviously) have a much better handle on the science behind dating methods. But the evo has no shame, and doing so conflicts with their mission of poisoning the minds of young people against the Savior in so-called "science" classes.
The advances made by creation scientists over the last century, without the benefit of the 6-figure salaries given to the evo-scammers by their gubmint beneficiaries through their whole careers, are nothing short of amazing. Folks like Pitman (and Humphreys and Walt Brown and many others) have advanced the cause of true science in leaps and bounds working only in their spare time (while still financially taking care of their families), without the benefit of multi-million dollar lab equipment (most of which runs on materialistic assumptions of its own, but that's another story...)
He shows in airtight form that evolution couldn't have happened over trillions of years to produce the biodiversity we see today. Instead, we see variations within fixed, carefully delineated baramins, consisting of change from at most a few thousand "kinds" over the last couple thousand years since the Flood, preceded by a mixed fossil record that shows no discernible pattern whatsoever, despite the claims of "careful layering" asserted by the evo-scammers.
That the Lord could have so carefully planned and front-loaded the potential for change within the human baramin, ape baramin, cat baramin, lizard baramin, bacteria baramin, snake baramin, etc. etc. etc. to adapt to the aftermath of a worldwide cataclysm is yet another testament to His wisdom, foresight and creative power. Creation science is truly amazing.
Praise be to Him!
Oh dear... I see that you've fallen for the anti-science propaganda. Let's look at your claims one at a time and see how well they stand up, shall we?
Evo science has no way of testing these assumptions, like the original ratio of decay elements,
Actually, real science (what you call "evo science") does indeed have ways of testing original ratios of decay elements, and does routinely test them, which is why these are not mere "assumptions" as you incorrectly assume they are. See for example isochron dating methods. For a discussion about how carbon-dating specifically is verified and calibrated, see for example http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/929494/posts?page=247#247.
Sources which have told you that science can not and has not repeatedly verified its "assumptions" is bearing false witness to you. By their fruits you shall know them.
changes in the speed of light, etc.
Actually, real science (what you call "evo science") does indeed have ways of testing for changes in the speed of light, and does routinely test for it, which is why this is not mere "assumption" as you incorrectly assume they are. The speed of light is fundamental to numerous physical processes, and if it had ever changed this would have produced very obvious effects which would be unmistakable and impossible not to notice. For example, it would have resulted in the light spectrums from distant quasars to be different than they actually are, among countless other methods of detecting a non-constant speed of light. However, vast numbers of measurements which are dependent upon the speed of light at a given time all show that the speed of light has indeed remained constant throughout the life of the Universe.
Sources which have told you that science can not and has not repeatedly verified its "assumptions" is bearing false witness to you. By their fruits you shall know them.
Similarly, since I'm sure you'll try to bring it up next, real science (what you call "evo science") does indeed have ways of testing for changes in isotopic decay rates, and does routinely test for it, which is why this is not mere "assumption" either. Like a change in the speed of light, any past change in isotopic decay rates would have produced clear and unmistakable effects which would have been impossible to miss or overlook. These effects are not observed. The decay rates have not changed.
Real science is meticulous about examining and testing its premises. It does not just adopt an "assumption" and then never validate it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is bearing false witness. By their fruits you shall know them.
and when the radio-isotope tests are applied, 100% properly and as they were intended, to brand new formations (like at St. Helens), they give ages showing they're millions of years old.
Oh my, you fell for the false propaganda of the RATE project... No, sorry, they most certainly did *NOT* apply the tests "100% properly and as they were intended".
Here's a post I wrote about this on another thread:
Now, "WondrousCreation", I'm curious to know whether you've learned anything about the reliability and honest of "creation scientists" from this experience. And I'm curious to know if you're in any way upset that they lied to you.In layman’s terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were “scientifically” dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
No, in layman's terms Austin the creationist is either a fool or a charlatan (perhaps both).
"In layman's terms", here's what he did wrong (I'll leave it to you to decide whether he did so out of dishonesty or incompetence):
1. He chose an analysis lab which CLEARLY STATES that its analysis equipment is not sensitive enough to correctly measure samples less than two million years old. Read that again until it sinks in.
2. Austin then took the first set of measured results, WHICH INDICATED LESS THAN TWO MILLION YEARS OLD, and rather than doing what an honest scientist would have done (which is say, "ah, these results are below the lower bounds of the testing equipment, thus they're just reporting equipment noise"), instead Austin ran around in circles and tried to ridicule K/AR dating for giving him out-of-bounds results that made perfect sense.
3. As for the 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya sub-sample, Austin sort of "forgets" to inform the reader that almost without exception lava rock contains what are known as "inclusions", which are bits of older crystalline mineral mixed in with the fresh lava flow. A volcanic eruption is a violent and hardly "clean" event and pulverized (but unmelted) minerals are incorporated into the lava as it flows up and outward from the volcano. These inclusions will produce K/Ar dates older than the date of the lava flow because they are, indeed, *older* than the lava flow. A real scientist (unlike, say, Austin) will take a great deal of care to extract inclusions from his sample before sending it to a lab to determine the date when the lava itself flowed, and/or hand-pick a "clean" lava sample which has relatively few inclusions compared to the flow as a whole. That's because they *want* to get as valid a date as possible for the lava flow. Now, guess what Austin didn't do? Gee, now guess *why* he didn't do it? Can you say, "*trying* to get an apparently invalid date so as to have a cheap, dishonest excuse to allege that there's something 'wrong' with K/Ar dating"?
As the old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out" and Austin (unlike the honest scientists who *want* to produce valid dates) had no interest in getting a clean result -- the more "garbage" the result, the more he could claim a creationist "success". So he *submitted* garbage as his sample (i.e., a sample with inclusions, to a lab unable to date anything younger than roughly two million years).
As Henry Barwood notes, "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure)."
For more details, see: Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals.
Here is a link showing similar problems with the Rubidium-Strontium dating method. Where one set of rocks are dated much older than they are known to be.
Exact same issue (lava rock with inclusions) submitted by the exact same creationist "researcher" (Steven A. Austin). He appears to be a one-trick pony.
Whether such problems have been identified in all radiometric dating methods, I do not know.
"Such problems"? Yeah, if you submit "dirty" samples for testing, you get "dirty" results. So what else is new? Honest scientists clean their samples first. Creationist "scientists" don't, then try to discredit the testing methods when they get bogus results. Go figure.
But it certainly casts significant doubt on it.
The only thing it "certainly casts significant doubt on" is the honesty/competence of "creation scientists".
See also:
Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable DataRATE Project Turns to Deception
R.A.T.E.: More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research
What a crock.
Yes, false and slanderous attacks on valid science are indeed a crock. By their fruits you shall know them.
If the evo had any shame, they'd declare radiometry, and all the physics and geology that depends on it, as a total sham
Why should they aver such a lie? This is a very well established field of science, validated countless different ways using multiple independent cross-confirming methods, thousands of times over, based on mountains of evidence and vast numbers of experimental confirmations. Why do you want them to deny the facts?
and consult with creation scientists at ICR, AiG, etc. who (obviously) have a much better handle on the science behind dating methods.
Gee, do you really think that people who submit dirty samples to labs and then lie about what the results mean actually have a "much better handle on the science behind dating methods"? Or are they just charlatans who attack valid science using grossly dishonest methods? By their fruits you shall know them.
But the evo has no shame,
Yes, the "evo" has no shame because he's not the one using false propaganda and dishonest tricks to attempt to slander valid science -- that's the anti-evolutionists who are doing that, and here are hundreds of more examples of anti-evolutionist dishonesty. Anti-evolutionists shamelessly bear false witness as easily as most people breathe. BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM.
and doing so conflicts with their mission of poisoning the minds of young people against the Savior in so-called "science" classes.
I see no problem with the presentation of what Creation itself has to tell us, through the teaching of science and its findings. If you do, maybe your notion of the Creator is out of step with the reality of Creation itself. In any case, the ones who are clearly "poisoning the minds of young people" are the ones who are attempting to fill their heads with blatant falsehoods, like the folks who are constantly lying about what science does and doesn't actually do, who are constantly presenting false claims and fallacious arguments in a cheap attempt to undermine confidence in science.
I have spent over thirty years studying both science and all the material that the anti-evolutionists have attempted to marshall against it. The great majority of the science (yes, even in the field of evolutionary biology) is meticulously validated and solid, and without fail the anti-evolutionist material is shoddy, grossly dishonest, fallacious, and/or misrepresented. But when the facts aren't on your side, and you're not willing to face them, I guess you've got no choice but to start engaging in cheap propaganda.
“But your young earth creationists would deny me the benefits of their particular Heaven, wouldnt they?”
You do not know or understand the Bible or God or this question would not have been phrased this way. There is no Christian or any other person that could deny you or anyone else the benefits of heaven. The Word makes it crystal clear that God and His Son, Jesus wouldn’t wish to deny anyone the benefits of heaven but that we separated ourselves from God... all of us... by sinning. As a matter of fact Adam set the stage for all of us to be separated from God by being the first man to sin. I would be remiss not to tell you that you don’t have to be denied anything. All you have to do is choose to believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior... choose the permanent over the temporary.
I don’t for a minute think you are unaware of this, but I sincerely want to tell you just on the off chance you might take the time to listen and research it for yourself.
Thanks. GG
What a lovely post!
Thank you!
“What a lovely post!
Thank you!”
I love to spar... it’s fun. We all relate so much differently here than we would if we were to see each other face to face. I know I risk putting folks off by being too caustic at times and that’s not my intention. Unlike a lot of folks I believe what I believe and I’m serious about it but I also love to joke and poke fun. I know most of what you post is just your way of having a little fun too, but I’m deadly serious when it comes to my faith.
Again, I know you’re aware of all the things I said in the last post. It’s hard to talk about God without sounding preachy. I grew up without God so I know what it sounds like to your ears... I’m willing to take that risk and just hope the message gets through.
Is that way DM is so upset all the time, because he doesn’t believe he’s going to our “particular Heaven”? There’s only one cure for that, DM: get down on your knees, read John 3:16, accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal Savior, continue to read God’s Word daily, get plugged into a Bible-believing church...and then you will have peace, real peace...a peace that is not of this world, and defies all rational understanding.
Amen
no way.
And losing my rational understanding is not what this heathen is about. It is a path to death while living.
>>Evo science has no way of testing these assumptions, like the original ratio of decay elements, changes in the speed of light, etc. and when the radio-isotope tests are applied, 100% properly and as they were intended, to brand new formations (like at St. Helens), they give ages showing they’re millions of years old.<<
Then you would think profit driven corporations would waste their money on medicine and oil exploration etc based on developmental biology and geophysics and everything else that has to be ignored to disbelieve evolution.
We’ll know when creation science is real science when it becomes the avenue of building companies and thus the economy.
The way you rant and rave on this site, you seem about as peaceful as a cat at a vacuum-cleaner convention. Not only does your peace defy rational understanding; it defies rational observation, as well.
What do you think of cross-species migration of genetic material?
Thanks for your kind post, my brother in Christ.
First, the accuracy of radioisotope measurements is very high. Here's a mildly technical explanation, written by Christians, on the accuracy of radioisotope dating. Here are some quotes from another article, directed toward Christians who have been told that we cannot trust radioisotope dating.
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
As a conservative, Bible-believing Christian who is also a scientist, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of radioisotope dating. I also see no conflict with the Bible.
Have scientists occasionally wrongly calculated the date of a rock? Of course, there is always the opportunity for mismeasurement. Some automobiles have a faulty speedometer, but that is no reason to say that the whole science behind speedometers is wrong.
You mentioned increasing (I assume you mean decreasing) decay rates. First, there is no evidence for that. Second, you have to ask the common-sense question of what happens to an atom if it's decay right is increased by several orders of magnitude? It gives off a lot of heat.
If the decay rates of radioactive elements were orders of magnitude greater 6,000 years ago, the earth would have vaporized.
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.