Posted on 04/14/2007 10:18:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
I can’t speak for the first poster but I believe he/she may be thinking of carbon testing which is very innaccurate on samples of recent age but it’s accuracy increases dramatically when applied to samples of great antiquity.
Dinosaur bones and other fossils are dated by several methods of radiometric dating.
Living things, and once living things, up to an age of about 50,000 years, are dated by radiocarbon dating.
Do you have a citation for the radiocarbon date of 3,000 years for a living elephant?
I see you answered my question in another post.
Could you check the Hal Linsey book and see if he cites a source for this information?
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and would like to look up the original article.
They have found the missing link between the ape and civilized man.
It’s us.
|
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there Jim?
I have basically dropped out of these threads because trying to discuss the science of evolution with a 'The-Bible-is-100%-literally-true-young-earth-creationist" is an excercise in futility.
So read my tagline - its my ' message' to you.
Oh, and if you want to learn about my faith, do take the time to read my homepage.
Rokke, I believe you and I had an entirely pleasant exchange of emails some years ago wherein you educated me about the fact that TWA 800 was in fact not shot down, which I respected immensely and which changed my view of the incident. That is something that you clearly had both the background and the logical reasoning in to demonstrate to my satisfaction.
OTOH, your comment earlier lacked that same kind of logical analysis. I will only second the suggestion of another poster that you read the actual Scientific American (see earlier post) article if you'd like to discuss it. This article has had some very interesting commentary on it on the Dinosaur Mailing List to which I belong (though I am there mostly to learn from the paleontologists who discuss the latest developments in the filed). The link to the Archives of the mailing list is below - you can read the posts without having to join the list - but be forewarned if you do join - discussion of 'Creation Science' is off-limits. Its a serious scientific list, not a forum for verbal donnybrooks like FR. ;>).
Here is the link to the archives of the DML (the past week has seen a LOT of discussion of this article.)
http://dml.cmnh.org/
I do agree with you about the MSM spinning things for its ideological purposes. But the fact that the large majority of the TRex proteins identified so far match up to those of a probable 'living dinosaur' ie; a bird, IS significant. The fact that a couple match up to other critters is unremarkable (see my initial sentence above).
Surprise Jim! TRex, Raptors,and other carnivorous theropods DID HAVE HOLLOW BONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs/dn7459-bird-bones-offer-insights-to-dinosaur-sexing.html
http://www.dinosaur-world.com/tyrannosaurs/tarbosaurus_bataar.htm
No thanks, I'd rather have the two arms and teeth and the run of the area, rather than flitting around pecking at things with a beak, not having any arms and taking off at every noise I hear. Not that I don't love birds. ;)
Yeah, there are some antievolutionists who think Archaeopteryx fossils are faked, especially the feathers. But this is really dumb stuff, even for creationists.
These fossils were not found in anybody's "backyard". They come from the Solnhofen Limestone of Germany, which has been quarried extensively because of it's unique economic value (e.g. extremely fine-grained texture, used to be used for lithography).
There are 8 or 9 different Archaeopteryx fossils that would have had to have been "hoaxed". One was found before Darwin published, but only recognized (and the feather impressions noted) years later. Others came out of the ground long after the supposed "hoaxing".
The creationist hoax theory theory, however, does give is the interesting (but hardly unique) circumstance of some antievolutionists claiming that Archaeopteryx is 100% reptile, and nothing to do with birds; while other antievolutionists claim that it is 100% bird and not a reptile at all; both groups agreeing only that it is certainly not transitional between the two.
Really? As I stated at the very start of my very first comment on this thread, I have zero interest in an evolution/creationism debate. No offense, but I am certain I could not care less about what any Freeper thinks regarding evolution or creation. You can scan my entire posting record and note that I have never participated in any of the countless "debates" on this site on that topic. Instead, my comments were directed specifically at what I read in this AP article. Let me offer some highlights here...
"This allows you to get the chance to say, 'Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related.' We didn't get enough sequences to definitively say that, but what sequences we got support that idea."
" it "changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory."
"Three matched chickens, two matched several species including chickens, one matched a protein from a newt and the other from a frog."
So this AP article describes research that looked at seven fragments of protein and determined three matched chickens, two matched "several species" (ducks, whales, naked mole rats?!!?), one matched newts and one matched frogs. Short of them being all living creatures (assumed considering they are studying collagen) that is about as conclusive as grabbing seven items at random from a supermarket, discovering four contain chicken and declaring the supermarket is a chicken ranch. Even the scientist quoted in the article states they don't have enough data to definitively say anything. And this stunning breakthrough has raised the level of their work from hypothesis to theory. Which prompts one of the more ridiculous phrases I've read in a long time..."This allows you to get the chance to say...".
Soooo, I highlight in my first post that this absolute non-conclusion could hardly be more broad. For that comment I am labeled "a mouth breather", called "scarey", and accused of being afraid of scientific research. This, presumably from someone who considers himself well educated in these matters. I respond to that person and you accuse me of not understanding "scientific text" and being an unsafe pilot. And now you are lecturing me on "logical analysis"?!!?
If this thread was the result of someone posting an article from Scientific American, your comments might have some merit. But it isn't. If my comments were a statement for or against evolution or creationism, your comments might have some merit. But they weren't. Instead, your comments, and several others on this thread smack of a defensive knee jerk reaction related to a topic I clearly stated I had no interest in.
I'll read the link you sent me out of personal interest. But my comments regarding THIS article on THIS thread stand as posted.
That is a distortion of the information listed in the article. There were seven samples. Three matched chickens. Two matched "several species" including chickens (and who knows what else). And two matched creatures that couldn't be much different than chickens. Three samples out of seven matched a bird. Two were apparently inconclusive (or completely inclusive) and two certainly did not match a bird. That does not equal "a large majority" for any category. The fact that four out of seven samples were either inconclusive or pointed to something other than a bird cannot be considered insignificant by anyone not striving to support only one conclusion.
Significant is a good word. Idiological......dunno; but
words mean things these MSM writers seem to have forgotten.
You (Rokke) make good points in rebutal, but I think I gotta go along with "unremarkable".
Bear in mind that not only are these apparently short sequences, but this is a fairly unremarkable structural protein. It performs pretty much the same mechanical function in any creature. It's not likely to be as varied and unique from species to species or taxa to taxa as a protein that has a chemical function and/or that has to mesh into some complex biological pathways or functions.
[”TRex, Raptors,and other carnivorous theropods DID HAVE HOLLOW BONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”]
Like the bones of birds? That’s odd, I’ve never heard that before. Or do you mean “hollow” like our own bones, where our long bones, and some others have a center that is filled with marrow?
So is it your contention that the bones of dinosaurs were very close to the bones of birds?
It’s odd that this information hasn’t been more widely circulated.
I find it highly entertaining when someone demonstrates that their faith is so weak that it is threatened by something so innocuous as a West wind instead of an East wind.
Not odd that it hasn't been circulated in 'Creation Science' circles at all, I suppose.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/profiles/wedel_0609.php
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.