Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
tuopaolo:
It’s obvious to me that you are not interested in any actual discussion.

God bless and Mary protect you.
Click to expand...
Peace to you.

Tim
 
vern humphrey:
Carbon 14 dating is based on the half-life of Carbon 14 – a given sample will decay by half every 5,700 years or so. This limits Carbon 14 dating to about 50,000 years BP (Before Present.)

The decay is similar to an asymptotic function – approaching zero, but never quite getting there. While over an enourmous period of time, all Carbon 14 MAY decay to zero, we fall below our threshhold of detection long before then.

In addition, because of the probablistic nature of nuclear decay, as we go backwards in dating, the margin of error gets greater and greater.

The best we can really do with current radiometric dating technology is date the rocks in which the fossil was found.
Click to expand...
Without overlaying igneous rocks to process radiometrically, you would be hard pressed to determine the date of the sandstone. I am conjecturing that the fossil is within the limits of carbon 14 dating, that dinosaurs did exist with man, so prove me wrong with a carbon 14 testing.
 
40.png
catholic2:
Without overlaying igneous rocks to process radiometrically, you would be hard pressed to determine the date of the sandstone. I am conjecturing that the fossil is within the limits of carbon 14 dating, that dinosaurs did exist with man, so prove me wrong with a carbon 14 testing.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are many ways to date the finds – but you demand a test that **won’t **work in that range?

I’ll tell you what – we’ll make this a defining case – IF they find this specimen is less than say, 5 million years old, I’ll agree with you.

If not, you agree that Evolution is a fact.

Okay?
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Catholic2,

Did you finish the paper I referred you to?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
yup, twice. Parent/daughter/half lives/potassium-argon, etc all familiar terms now. Basic assumptions questioned still even if the site says it’s not. I’m gonna keep posting sites to balance this obviously biased and condescending site.
 
40.png
catholic2:
yup, twice. Parent/daughter/half lives/potassium-argon, etc all familiar terms now. Basic assumptions questioned still even if the site says it’s not. I’m gonna keep posting sites to balance this obviously biased and condescending site.
Click to expand...
Which site is condescending, this one or Dr. Wein’s?

Peace

Tim
 
vern humphrey:
Actually, there are many ways to date the finds – but you demand a test that **won’t **work in that range?

I’ll tell you what – we’ll make this a defining case – IF they find this specimen is less than say, 5 million years old, I’ll agree with you.

If not, you agree that Evolution is a fact.

Okay?
Click to expand...
I will consider this a unilateral agreement on your part. I am not discussing evolution in this particular instance, but when life began.

Better people than you and I disagree on evolution. I consider it an hypothesis while you consider it as a theory. I think it is not proven while you think it is. What both of us think won’t matter an iota in the whole scheme of things though, except to prove that we are little kids trying to win a bet.
 
40.png
catholic2:
I will consider this a unilateral agreement on your part. I am not discussing evolution in this particular instance, but when life began…
Click to expand...
Then you’re discussing it with yourself.
40.png
catholic2:
Better people than you and I disagree on evolution. I consider it an hypothesis while you consider it as a theory…
Click to expand...
And according to your understanding, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is . . . ?
40.png
catholic2:
I think it is not proven while you think it is.
Click to expand...
If you’re going to pretend to read my mind and know what I think, do me the courtesy of putting on a turban and gazing into a chrystal ball.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
catholic2:
This site is authored by a geologist.

uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/
Click to expand...
There was a Catholic priest who said that killing Teri Schiavo by depriving her of water for 13 days was okay with the Church, too.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

Note this guy starts with “Why Biblical Geology?” That ought to tell us he’s starting with a conclusion and working to find evidence for it.

As for being a geologist, he lists his educational credentials: "Educationally I have a Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Science with first class honours, a Bachelor of Engineering with first class honours in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering. "
 
40.png
catholic2:
This site is authored by a geologist.

uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/
Click to expand...
This site is a lot of fun! Please check it out. It’s not insulting to anyone and Tas Walker posts dissenting views in full.
many scientists today, including geologists, believe the Bible records true history. I would encourage him to read John Ashton’s new book ‘In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation’ (all of whom have PhDs in science).
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Why?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
While both Plaisted and Weins are biased, Weins certainly is more condescending with that air of superiority that comes from practically placing radiometrics on an unassailable pedestal. For example:
Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand …
Click to expand...
So now people who question his beloved radiometrics are doubters and tricksters. Almost like having a religion of radiometrics.

What do you think of the most recent link I posted by Tas Walker?
uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/
 
40.png
catholic2:
So now people who question his beloved radiometrics are doubters and tricksters. Almost like having a religion of radiometrics.
Click to expand...
No. Science is NOT religion.
40.png
catholic2:
What do you think of the most recent link I posted by Tas Walker?
uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/
Click to expand...
After I virtually wrestled myself to the ground resisting the temptation to say something uncharitable (but wickedly funny) about the Noahides, you ask me THAT?

Get thee behind me, Satan! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
40.png
CreosMary:
Denial of a six day creation - Apes learned to walk upright and became men, it is said, by using the Genesis ‘day’ figuratively as a long time. Yet in Genesis 1 the days are numbered. Nowhere in scripture is that done if it doesn’t mean a twenty-four hour period. The exposition in Genesis is very clear that all the world was made in six days, while evolution demands more time. The details of Adam’s creation contrasts strongly with the origin of the other creatures created ex nihilo, implying that God acted in a special way when he brought the first man into being. These two different views of origins cannot ever be reconciled.
Click to expand...
At the end of each ‘day’ in the first account of creation, the phrase “Evening came, and morning followed - the nth day”. Yet evening and morning are caused by rotation of the Earth around the sun, and the stars weren’t created until the fourth ‘day’. Right from the start the author of Genesis cannot be speaking entirely literally. Without the sun, evening and morning cannot exist as we know it. Therefore the evening and morning mentioned for the first three ‘days’ cannot be literal. If ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are not literal, why should ‘day’ be taken literally?
 
40.png
CreosMary:
Code: 
     All scientific arguments against evolution hold as       well for theistic evolution. A few of these are:

     1) The 2nd law of thermodynamics and overall       increase of entropy would have caused the heat death       of the universe over billions of years.
Click to expand...
The earth is not a closed system. Energy is continually being pumped into the earth (ie light from the sun, etc) and quite possibly leaving the earth. If you want to show that evolution violates the 2nd law, you need to take into account all of the energy in the universe, not just on earth. Quite an impossible task, if I do say so myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top