Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

Brother Tim,
presume not in haste let us have an open mind and see

You mean like presuming that I haven’t read all the posts in this thread?

Are you refering to my response to catholic2’s comment that he would like to see carbon dating performed on the newly discovered material? If so, an open mind won’t do much good. The science is what it is. C14 dating has a maximum range of about 50,000 years.

Peace

Tim

 

[catholic2]

Orogeny:

That material is way too old for carbon dating.

Peace

Tim

This is an example of looking at things with a bias. We got some soft tissue, blood corpuscules, and you discount it as too old. If it is too old, then there shouldn’t be any results on carbon dating should there? Why exclude the possibility of a more recent date?

 

[tuopaolo]

You make a very good point catholic2

 

[CreosMary]

Orogeny:

You mean like presuming that I haven’t read all the posts in this thread?

Are you refering to my response to catholic2’s comment that he would like to see carbon dating performed on the newly discovered material? If so, an open mind won’t do much good. The science is what it is. C14 dating has a maximum range of about 50,000 years.
Peace
Tim

Brother Tim,
I am suprised,
you have made up your mind without any proof.
Why do some believe without doubt in a science (thiestic and althiestic evolution) without question as to motives or agenda but not accept Church documents or try to pull them apart.
Sadly every human endeavour has people with agenda’s and for some scientists it is to disprove God, at any expense. I do not alledge that people work without good intention and, that hopefully, most scientists work with an open mind and real search for truth, but it is not always the case.
God bless

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

JP2’s address to scientists is NOT binding on the faithful!!!

What do you think of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It has the imprimatur of Cardinal Ratzinger and a introductory letter from the Pope.

As to your point “are you a heretic”. If you were to stand on a soapbox or appeal to the media or teach in a Catholic environment where you declared that you represent the Church, then if you proclaimed that the Church’s teachings on Genesis 2 is incorrect and that you have the true answer, then Yes you would be a heretic!

God Bless you both

What about Genesis 1? Do you discount that?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

catholic2:

This is an example of looking at things with a bias. We got some soft tissue, blood corpuscules, and you discount it as too old. If it is too old, then there shouldn’t be any results on carbon dating should there? Why exclude the possibility of a more recent date?

Sorry, but this is an example of science, not bias. Using an improper method to date any sample is bad science. It tends to give data such as that which you referenced earlier.

Peace

Tim

 

[CreosMary]

Brother Tim,
Now this is getting silly,
I have made no comment on any scripture except the ones quted by the Church and Leo XIII,
just trying to keep things in perspective and to the point of this thread.
Which is…Carbon or other dating of this ‘fossil’ may show that it is only 4-6000 years old, but I dont think the researchers would release thier findings UNLESS it is in line with thier agenda.
God Bless

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

Brother Tim,

I am suprised,
you have made up your mind without any proof.

Not true. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution. You may not accept it, but that does not invalidate it.

Why do some believe without doubt in a science (thiestic and althiestic evolution) without question as to motives or agenda but not accept Church documents or try to pull them apart.

See my post about the Catechism.

Sadly every human

endeavour has people with agenda’s and for some scientists it is to disprove God, at any expense.
While this is true for some scientists, it is not for this scientist. You should refrain from making such blanket statements.

I do not alledge that people work without good intention and, that hopefully, most scientists work with an open mind and real search for truth, but it is not always the case.

God bless

That’s good. It’s not what it sounds like in your posts, but I am glad, none the less, to read that.

Peace

Tim

 

[catholic2]

Orogeny:

Sorry, but this is an example of science, not bias. Using an improper method to date any sample is bad science. It tends to give data such as that which you referenced earlier.

Peace

Tim

So you won’t allow for any testing.
How do you know that the material is millions of years old?

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

Brother Tim,

Now this is getting silly,
I have made no comment on any scripture except the ones quted by the Church and Leo XIII,
just trying to keep things in perspective and to the point of this thread.Why not? Is Genesis 1 any less valid than Genesis 2 other than the sequence is different?

Which is…Carbon or other dating of this ‘fossil’ may show that it is only 4-6000 years old, but I dont think the researchers would release thier findings UNLESS it is in line with thier agenda.

God Bless
Please provide evidence of this claim.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

catholic2:

So you won’t allow for any testing.
How do you know that the material is millions of years old?

Just curious, how much do you know about radiometric dating?

Peace

Tim

 

[CreosMary]

Dear Brothers,
I have to fly into town for an appt, please feel free to email me or chat on messenger later today.
My email is at my signature.
Brother Tim,
Take it easy my friend, lets see if they will try to date it…?
tuapaolo, thanks again
God bless you all

 

[Orogeny]

Creos,

Peace and be safe on your trip.

Peace

Tim

 

[catholic2]

Orogeny:

Just curious, how much do you know about radiometric dating?

Peace

Tim

Only that it is not accurate. I let the real experts battle it out. But we can logically come up, if one is honest, with results. One of which is that it is wildly inaccurate and quite arbitrary. What do you know about radiometric dating? Just curious.

 

[Orogeny]

catholic2:

Only that it is not accurate. I let the real experts battle it out. But we can logically come up, if one is honest, with results. One of which is that it is wildly inaccurate and quite arbitrary. What do you know about radiometric dating? Just curious.

I’m a geologist.

How do you know they are “wildly inaccurate and quite arbitrary” if you don’t really understand how it works?

Peace

Tim

ps - the “real experts” aren’t battling it out, they understand and accept the science behind radiometric dating.

 

[catholic2]

Orogeny:

I’m a geologist.

How do you know they are “wildly inaccurate and quite arbitrary” if you don’t really understand how it works?

Peace

Tim

ps - the “real experts” aren’t battling it out, they understand and accept the science behind radiometric dating.

Ha Ha. Well, my degree is in Sociology which in my estimation puts me on a par with you. I love Durkheim’s theory on suicide, don’t you?

 

[Orogeny]

catholic2:

Ha Ha. Well, my degree is in Sociology which in my estimation puts me on a par with you. I love Durkheim’s theory on suicide, don’t you?

I’ve not a clue what you are talking about.

Peace

Tim

 

[chemcatholic]

tuopaolo:

But how can you believe in creationism while not at the same time opposing evolution? If you believe in creationism you will naturally believe evolution is false.

Creationism holds that God created all matter in existence. Evolution holds that the genetic makeup of living creatures varies over time. How are these two incompatible?

I think your beef is not with the theory of evolution but with scientists and others who apply the theory of evolution in ways that you believe contradict the teaching of the Church, ie origin of man. Well, you can rest easy - man does not have to be descended from another lifeform in order for genetic variation of species to occur.

Peace

 

[catholic2]

Orogeny:

I’ve not a clue what you are talking about.

Peace

Tim

Neither do I.

This site I just googled under radiometrics: creationtheory.org/youngearth

Shows the wildly divergent dates given by Radiometrics on a particular item . Now you go and argue with them. It’s way beyond my expertise, but I can argue that there is no real concensus among the experts because of arguments such that on the site.

 

[Orogeny]

catholic2:

Neither do I.

This site I just googled under radiometrics: creationtheory.org/youngearth

Shows the wildly divergent dates given by Radiometrics on a particular item . Now you go and argue with them. It’s way beyond my expertise, but I can argue that there is no real concensus among the experts because of arguments such that on the site.

I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll look at your link if you promise to look at this link asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html .

Peace

Tim

edit: your link doesn’t work.