T-Rex only a few thousand years old?

[BrianC]

Scientists uncovered a T-Rex that had not completely fossilized and still had some soft tissue and red blood cells left. Scientists say that even if this T-Rex were frozen with liquid nitrogen in a lab, he would break down completely after a million years, so what they've found shows that T-Rex is not old at all, apparently, if you can still find soft tissue that hasn't broken down yet.

Answers in Genesis Article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

MSNBC Article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Being that it's impossible for soft tissue and blood to survive millions of years without fossilizing or breaking down, T-Rex is most likely only thousands of years old. This kills the whole "dinosaurs are millions of years old" theory.

[exlude]

Unfortunately, you and Dr Carl Wieland (MD, not research), are in the minority in believing that "it is impossible for soft tissue and blood to survive millions of years". This isn't the first time we have found very old tissue samples.

Note that long list of references from AiG?

[BrianC]

Unfortunately, you and Dr Carl Wieland (MD, not research), are in the minority in believing that "it is impossible for soft tissue and blood to survive millions of years". This isn't the first time we have found very old tissue samples.

Note that long list of references from AiG?

Note that MSNBC is the one that wrote a similar article.

And please show me where else we've found soft tissue. This one came as a surprize to all scientists as far as I could tell, because the creationists jump all over this stuff, yet they claim this is the first discovery like this.

And no, we do not believe soft tissue can last over millions of years, because we can track how quickly soft tissue breaks down when frozen with liquid nitrogen in a lab, and no one has seen slow enough break down to account for millions of years. If you have other information, please, by all means, post it up. Otherwise, it's just something you probably came up with off the top of your head. Proof please!

[Muffrazr]

I saw this on Discovery the other day. It was regarding whether or not we could possibly clone something from all of this. I beleive they have made some chickens grow a dinosaur type tail as well. It was quite interesting.


On a side note, the 3000 year old mummies found near China had a very small amount of red tissue left behind. Scientists feel that the extremely dry area allowed the mummification process to happen in near perfect conditions. I would imagine with such a large specimen as a dinosaur that tissue would last a little longer, but millions of years, I doubt it. It does immediately bring the question of how old the bones are though.

[FSON]

Say we did find the exact date of the dinasaur(s) and when the universe was born, what will that tell you, buster?

[White trash wagon]

The MSNBC article is titled "70 million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels". Not a single word about the T-Rex being only "a few thousand years old.

BrianC when some obscure scientists states anything supporting your beliefs, it's THE truth, but when a major scientific organization states anything counter to your beliefs, it's wrong or unverifiable. Could your views be any more slanted & biased?

Maybe the demons that were in your living room planted "fake" T-Rex fossils in the soil?

Scott

[jones4stangs]

Note that MSNBC is the one that wrote a similar article.

And please show me where else we've found soft tissue. This one came as a surprize to all scientists as far as I could tell, because the creationists jump all over this stuff, yet they claim this is the first discovery like this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.


And no, we do not believe soft tissue can last over millions of years, because we can track how quickly soft tissue breaks down when frozen with liquid nitrogen in a lab, and no one has seen slow enough break down to account for millions of years. If you have other information, please, by all means, post it up. Otherwise, it's just something you probably came up with off the top of your head. Proof please!

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=MOR+1125&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0325scipak.shtml

Tissues other than bone can be preserved in the fossil record, but it's usually difficult to determine their original form and composition in fossils more than a few million years old. These findings show that soft tissues can be clearly preserved for much longer, since this T. rex specimen, known as MOR 1125, is roughly 70 million years old.

The exquisite preservation of this tissue, which does not challenge the timing of dinosaur evolution, may open up avenues for studying dinosaur physiology and perhaps some aspects of their biochemistry, especially if researchers can identify soft tissues in other fossils as well.

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/762538t13072m341/

Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence of still-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought.


You might want to re-evaluate your conclusions and statements.

[BP]

What self respecting scientist would ever say something is impossible?

[svtaaron]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.




http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=MOR+1125&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0325scipak.shtml

Tissues other than bone can be preserved in the fossil record, but it's usually difficult to determine their original form and composition in fossils more than a few million years old. These findings show that soft tissues can be clearly preserved for much longer, since this T. rex specimen, known as MOR 1125, is roughly 70 million years old.

The exquisite preservation of this tissue, which does not challenge the timing of dinosaur evolution, may open up avenues for studying dinosaur physiology and perhaps some aspects of their biochemistry, especially if researchers can identify soft tissues in other fossils as well.

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/762538t13072m341/

Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence of still-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought.


You might want to re-evaluate your conclusions and statements.

seems that it is based off of their hypothesis of the t-rex and its age... in short" well there has to be a multitude of explanations for soft-elements being found, they last longer than what we previously thought" their overall outlook is based on the bias of the "known" age of the dinasour. anything that disputes the age of the dinasour is thrown by the wayside or explained away. the same can be said for rocks that dont quite add up to the "known" age of the earth, some older and some younger but evidence is available that disputes the scientific timeline of the globe and thus throws a kink in the theory of evolution. whatever doesnt add up to the scientific belief of the two, age of the earth and process of evolution is ignored.

[Mr Majestyk]

It is always entertaining to see self-described geniuses come into the Theology Corner and demand proof of God, and when similarly challenged to prove certain concepts of evolutionary theory fall flat on their puffed-up faces. After all, if science is on their side, what's the big problem with proving it. Waffle words like "the evidence shows" are not proof, and are better suited to politicians who need such words to make up for their lack of concrete substance in their arguments.

[FSON]

I'm waiting for the dancing ladies to come on stage.

[Mr Majestyk]

In T-Rex outfits?

[Muffrazr]

I'm picturing Wilma Flintstone giving me a lap dance now. Thanks guys.

[FSON]

I prefer Betty Rubble, yow!

http://sports.espn.go.com/media/pg2/2001/1030/photo/brubble_sp.gif

[Muffrazr]

Yeah, I'd BAM BAM her.

[BrianC]

We propose a [U]possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation.[/COLOR]
soft tissues can be clearly preserved for much longer, since this T. rex specimen, known as MOR 1125, is roughly 70 million years old.


You might want to re-evaluate your conclusions and statements.

I find it humorous you believe their statements which have absolutely no facts to back them up. It's just their opinion. I thought scientists were supposed to use facts to prove stuff, not opinion. :) Until I see proof, this is just a bunch of BS to me, because the scientists don't want their theory to be disproven. If my paycheck depended on my theory being correct, I'd probably want to throw up every opinion I could so the theory wouldn't be disproven.

[BrianC]

The MSNBC article is titled "70 million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels". Not a single word about the T-Rex being only "a few thousand years old.

BrianC when some obscure scientists states anything supporting your beliefs, it's THE truth, but when a major scientific organization states anything counter to your beliefs, it's wrong or unverifiable. Could your views be any more slanted & biased?

Maybe the demons that were in your living room planted "fake" T-Rex fossils in the soil?

Scott

I wanted to give both sides of the argument. The fact that scientists say they could not perserve this material in a lab under the best possible conditions for millions of years seems pretty credible to me being that they can track soft tissue degredation in a perserved state. But hey, what do I know, because apparently I'm just some religious nutjob. I'm not the one operating on the opinion of a scientist with absolutely no facts to back up my opinion. You're the one simply taking it on faith here... Good job.

[BrianC]

Say we did find the exact date of the dinasaur(s) and when the universe was born, what will that tell you, buster?

I'd say that would depend on the date they came up with. lol Otherwise, this statement is kind of pointless, don't you think?

[exlude]

You know, I want to correct every fallacy BrianC throws out there and try to mend all the holes in his logic...but know no matter how many ways I go about it, he won't change his beliefs. So, I might as well save my breath.

It's a fundamental contempt for and misunderstanding of the scientific process.

[exlude]

I find it humorous you believe their statements which have absolutely no facts to back them up.

Wrong.

[jones4stangs]

I find it humorous you believe their statements which have absolutely no facts to back them up. It's just their opinion. I thought scientists were supposed to use facts to prove stuff, not opinion. :) Until I see proof, this is just a bunch of BS to me, because the scientists don't want their theory to be disproven. If my paycheck depended on my theory being correct, I'd probably want to throw up every opinion I could so the theory wouldn't be disproven.
You know, not only are you a jerk your also a jackass.

You started this thread with all these absolute statements, with obvious flaws.
1. “he would break down completely after a million years”
2. “it's impossible for soft tissue and blood to survive millions of years without fossilizing or breaking down”
3. “This one came as a surprize to all scientists as far as I could tell”
4. “no one has seen slow enough break down to account for millions of years”

You challenged anyone to provide answers:
1. “And please show me where else we've found soft tissue.”
2. “If you have other information, please, by all means, post it up.”

I hadn't even heard of this dinosaur find, back in 2005, but within 5 minuites I was able to find some good answers to your questions. I used information from a source you provided, as well as 3 additional sources. Two of the sources are articles in scientific journals done by scientist who actually experimented on the tissue samples, MOR 1125.

I pulled out a few passages, with I think reasonably show your assertions are probably wrong and provided evidence that preservation can be understood.


Now, what did you do with what I provided? Did you read it? Did you follow the links? Did you see the sources? Did you even respond to the information post?

NO. Instead you busted out with that response. You want evidence; well you've provided me with some good stuff. Evidence that you’re a jackass!

[Zarathustra]

It is always entertaining to see self-described geniuses come into the Theology Corner and demand proof of God, and when similarly challenged to prove certain concepts of evolutionary theory fall flat on their puffed-up faces. After all, if science is on their side, what's the big problem with proving it. Waffle words like "the evidence shows" are not proof, and are better suited to politicians who need such words to make up for their lack of concrete substance in their arguments.

Yea you've got years of learning in front of you, child. You're a long way off, but you'll get there. Keep working at it, son.

[Zarathustra]

You know, I want to correct every fallacy BrianC throws out there and try to mend all the holes in his logic...but know no matter how many ways I go about it, he won't change his beliefs. So, I might as well save my breath.

It's a fundamental contempt for and misunderstanding of the scientific
process.

I'll agree, reason evidently ventured into the abstract world of mysticism. Thank you, Aristotle :cool:

[BrianC]

You know, not only are you a jerk your also a jackass.

You started this thread with all these absolute statements, with obvious flaws.
1. “he would break down completely after a million years”
2. “it's impossible for soft tissue and blood to survive millions of years without fossilizing or breaking down”
3. “This one came as a surprize to all scientists as far as I could tell”
4. “no one has seen slow enough break down to account for millions of years”

You challenged anyone to provide answers:
1. “And please show me where else we've found soft tissue.”
2. “If you have other information, please, by all means, post it up.”

I hadn't even heard of this dinosaur find, back in 2005, but within 5 minuites I was able to find some good answers to your questions. I used information from a source you provided, as well as 3 additional sources. Two of the sources are articles in scientific journals done by scientist who actually experimented on the tissue samples, MOR 1125.

I pulled out a few passages, with I think reasonably show your assertions are probably wrong and provided evidence that preservation can be understood.


Now, what did you do with what I provided? Did you read it? Did you follow the links? Did you see the sources? Did you even respond to the information post?

NO. Instead you busted out with that response. You want evidence; well you've provided me with some good stuff. Evidence that you’re a jackass!


I asked for proof, not opinion. You gave me scientific OPINION. Sorry, but I go on proof, and that's a pretty smart thing to do. You showed absolutely no proof. I'm a "jackass" because you couldn't provide proof and I pointed it out. Good job.

[BrianC]

You know, I want to correct every fallacy BrianC throws out there and try to mend all the holes in his logic...but know no matter how many ways I go about it, he won't change his beliefs. So, I might as well save my breath.

It's a fundamental contempt for and misunderstanding of the scientific process.

Then show me some facts. Haven't seen any yet. Just opinion...

[BrianC]

Wrong.

Again, you say I'm wrong when I say those are opinions with no facts to back them up. SHOW ME THE FACTS! "Wrong" doesn't suffice. Where are the facts?

[Mr Majestyk]

Yea you've got years of learning in front of you, child. You're a long way off, but you'll get there. Keep working at it, son.

The reference to "geniuses" excluded you, FudgePecker, being the abomination of a fag that you are. Some of these guys arguing the side of evolution have some modicum of intelligence on their side. You, 'Pecker, are not among them.

[5.0LiterRiceEater]

I asked for proof, not opinion. You gave me scientific OPINION. Sorry, but I go on proof, and that's a pretty smart thing to do. You showed absolutely no proof. I'm a "jackass" because you couldn't provide proof and I pointed it out. Good job.

For a man that belives so much in God your statment confuses me.

[flashstang04]

The reference to "geniuses" excluded you, FudgePecker, being the abomination of a fag that you are. Some of these guys arguing the side of evolution have some modicum of intelligence on their side. You, 'Pecker, are not among them.

x 1278563487612

[exlude]

Then show me some facts. Haven't seen any yet. Just opinion...

The problem is, when I have shown you facts in the past...you have flat out ignored them. You just plain don't address them and keep lying about your opinion.

I'm going to take a guess and say that you didn't read the journal entries. I make this guess because, had you read the entries, you would have seen their evidence towards their "opinions", as you call them. These evidences are facts, making there "opinions" not quite "opinions".

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

I asked for proof, not opinion. You gave me scientific OPINION. Sorry, but I go on proof, and that's a pretty smart thing to do. You showed absolutely no proof. I'm a "jackass" because you couldn't provide proof and I pointed it out. Good job.

says the man the believes in god


....and that asthma is caused by demons

[Quick '91 GT]

"I've spent a bit too much time on this forum, so this will be one of my last few posts. It's been fun." -from the post about atheists-
__________________
- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO

Man I was hoping that was your last post. Maybe you can take that silly-ass Majestyk with you when you go. He is about as retarded as you are. Lol....you talk about "proof"? Prove God exists...and don't mention the book written by man. Definitive and solid proof that he exists......don't worry, i'll wait. :D

[Zarathustra]

x 1278563487612

follower.

[flashstang04]

follower.


Shill...

What have you brought intellectually to this forum at all?

Oh that's right..nothing.

[BrianC]

The reference to "geniuses" excluded you, FudgePecker, being the abomination of a fag that you are. Some of these guys arguing the side of evolution have some modicum of intelligence on their side. You, 'Pecker, are not among them.

As Christians, we're not supposed to alienate people or put them down. No where in the Bible does it say to be cruel to those that sin. I'm sure you have told a lie before, and God says that all sins are the same to Him. It's just sin. All of us sin. You cannot help someone by telling them they're horrible because they sin, especially when you also sin. You gotta' love everyone, no matter how much you may disagree with what they do. I debate on here, but it's just all in good fun. I don't hate anyone here. They can believe what they want. Doesn't matter to me. It's just fun to debate them.

[BrianC]

"I've spent a bit too much time on this forum, so this will be one of my last few posts. It's been fun." -from the post about atheists-
__________________
- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO

Man I was hoping that was your last post. Maybe you can take that silly-ass Majestyk with you when you go. He is about as retarded as you are. Lol....you talk about "proof"? Prove God exists...and don't mention the book written by man. Definitive and solid proof that he exists......don't worry, i'll wait. :D

I was asked to come back and post about a few things. So I did... Now that I know it annoys you, I'm actually kind of thinking about sticking around. hehehehehehe :D

[Pennywise]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_BRZoXjOmI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_BRZoXjOmI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[BrianC]

You know, not only are you a jerk your also a jackass.

You started this thread with all these absolute statements, with obvious flaws.
1. “he would break down completely after a million years”
2. “it's impossible for soft tissue and blood to survive millions of years without fossilizing or breaking down”
3. “This one came as a surprize to all scientists as far as I could tell”
4. “no one has seen slow enough break down to account for millions of years”

You challenged anyone to provide answers:
1. “And please show me where else we've found soft tissue.”
2. “If you have other information, please, by all means, post it up.”

I hadn't even heard of this dinosaur find, back in 2005, but within 5 minuites I was able to find some good answers to your questions. I used information from a source you provided, as well as 3 additional sources. Two of the sources are articles in scientific journals done by scientist who actually experimented on the tissue samples, MOR 1125.

I pulled out a few passages, with I think reasonably show your assertions are probably wrong and provided evidence that preservation can be understood.


Now, what did you do with what I provided? Did you read it? Did you follow the links? Did you see the sources? Did you even respond to the information post?

NO. Instead you busted out with that response. You want evidence; well you've provided me with some good stuff. Evidence that you’re a jackass!

I did read your articles. Just so you can have some proof of this, here are some entertaining bits of them:

Excerpt:
The exquisite preservation of this tissue, which does not challenge the timing of dinosaur evolution, may open up avenues for studying dinosaur physiology and perhaps some aspects of their biochemistry, especially if researchers can identify soft tissues in other fossils as well.

LOL Immediately, this researcher wants to make sure that this does not disprove the theory! But she has no facts to back up this statement. None whatsoever. It's just opinion, because her funding depends on it.

And I'll post up the part you posted up from one:

These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought.

Again, there's no proof in any of these statements! Just opinion, which is exactly what I said before!! What, did you think I was a dupe like you that just believes what scientists say when they give their opinion? lol No, I actually will read their research and data results and make a decision for myself without anyone slanting it. Just because I don't agree with what they say because there's no proof to back their opinions up makes me stupid and a jackass? Well, gee... last time I checked, people that read research for themselves and make decisions on their own without blindly trusting someone else's unproven opinion are less likely to be duped, and smarter for not allowing themselves to be duped by opinion. lol Call me a jackass all you want, but you're just upset because your links proved nothing and I didn't agree with you.

[BrianC]

Pennywise:

In response to the comedian's statements:

1. Fossils disprove a seven day creation.

Incorrect. I have seen fossilized car keys, a fossilized human finger, and a fossilized wooden stake. Only took the wooden stake 7 years of being buried in shallow dirt to fossilized/petrify it. I read a new article last year where scientists buried a dead bird in mud outside their offices two years before, and dug him up two years later (why, I don't know, but scientists are weird like that I guess). They said, "We were surprized to find that this bird was fossilized exactly like a pteradon." So, what scientists say takes millions of years actually can be done quickly.

You know the trees that were blown down when Mt. Saint Helens erupted in the 80's? Those trees went into water and then were covered in mud. They are fossilized/petrified today. Scientists say that layers got laid down in the water from the ash, and it was the equivalent of 300,000+ years of sediment layers, but they knew it only took a few years to lay those layers down. They said the trees were sticking up through lots of those layers.

Scientists tell you that fossilization is dependent on two factors: pressure and time. That's a lie. The main factor in fossilization is water/moisture. While something is buried, the moisture passes through it and carries away parts of it and deposits sediments in their place. Eventually, you get a completely fossilized object. Metal objects even fossilize, depending on how hard the metal is. So, if something is buried in a much more moist soil or sediment, it will fossilize much more quickly than something buried in dry soil or sediments.

If there were a world wide flood, you'd see layers of sediments everywhere, world wide, and you'd see tons of fossilized things, which is exactly what we see. It doesn't take millions of years to fossilize something...

2. Dinosaurs and man did not live at the same time.

Yes, they did, and if you ever come down here to Dallas, Texas, you can go visit the creation museum in Glen Rose, Texas, a couple of hours away, and see the human and dinosaur footprints that are not only in the same layer, but some human footprints step on dinosaur footprints, and some dinosaur footprints step on human footprints. This alone shows that humans and dinosaurs existed together. What I thought was wildly entertaining is that Nova came out and said, "Oh, we see nothing here that threatens evolution theory. This was clearly a dinosaur that had human like feet." LOL What he doesn't explain is that humans have body structures that cause a specific type of footprint to occur. You can tell a woman's footprint from a man's footprint, even though their bodies are just slightly different. So if there were a dinosaur with human feet, he also had a human body, and male and female bodies on top of that... How do we know this? Because they examined the layers of mud underneath the footprints and found that the mud spread patterns were consistant with a human stepping into mud. Darwin said that if it were ever shown that humans and dinosaurs existed contemporaneously, it would destroy his theory. Well, there ya' go...

3. Fossils are the devil's work.

This is one of the stupidest theories I've ever heard. It's the Gap Theory. Christians that don't understand or believe in a young earth, believe that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is a gap of billions of years. They think Satan fell back then and created dinosaurs on the earth and then God wiped it all out with a flood in verse 2, and created mankind a few days later. This is a ridiculous theory and scripture disproves it. Ezekeil 28 says Satan was perfect while in the garden of Eden, and that kills their theory. Also Jesus says "Did you not read that in the beginning He made them male and female?" In the beginning would mean the first six days, but if there were billions of years before Adam and Eve were created, it would not be the beginning at which He created them. This is the only beginning talked about in scripture and therefore it is not a different beginning. So that kills that theory. Those Christians are just uninformed or stupid. And yes, there are plenty of uninformed stupid Christians out there (no offense to them, they just need to pick up a book and read once in a while, but they refuse to do so, which probably has something to do with them being STUPID)... The Bible says "My people suffer for lack of knowledge." Yeah, because a lot of them are stupid and don't care to learn anything.... Oh well...

[Mr Majestyk]

Shill...

What have you brought intellectually to this forum at all?

Oh that's right..nothing.

FudgePecker's lack of intelligence shines through in the Theology Corner even more so than in the political arena. Must be because the comparitively more intelligent and literate SS isn't here for him to follow behind like the pathetic mongrel dog he is.

[exlude]

Pennywise:

In response to the comedian's statements:

1. Fossils disprove a seven day creation.

Incorrect. I have seen fossilized car keys, a fossilized human finger, and a fossilized wooden stake. Only took the wooden stake 7 years of being buried in shallow dirt to fossilized/petrify it. I read a new article last year where scientists buried a dead bird in mud outside their offices two years before, and dug him up two years later (why, I don't know, but scientists are weird like that I guess). They said, "We were surprized to find that this bird was fossilized exactly like a pteradon." So, what scientists say takes millions of years actually can be done quickly.

You know the trees that were blown down when Mt. Saint Helens erupted in the 80's? Those trees went into water and then were covered in mud. They are fossilized/petrified today. Scientists say that layers got laid down in the water from the ash, and it was the equivalent of 300,000+ years of sediment layers, but they knew it only took a few years to lay those layers down. They said the trees were sticking up through lots of those layers.

Scientists tell you that fossilization is dependent on two factors: pressure and time. That's a lie. The main factor in fossilization is water/moisture. While something is buried, the moisture passes through it and carries away parts of it and deposits sediments in their place. Eventually, you get a completely fossilized object. Metal objects even fossilize, depending on how hard the metal is. So, if something is buried in a much more moist soil or sediment, it will fossilize much more quickly than something buried in dry soil or sediments.

If there were a world wide flood, you'd see layers of sediments everywhere, world wide, and you'd see tons of fossilized things, which is exactly what we see. It doesn't take millions of years to fossilize something...

2. Dinosaurs and man did not live at the same time.

Yes, they did, and if you ever come down here to Dallas, Texas, you can go visit the creation museum in Glen Rose, Texas, a couple of hours away, and see the human and dinosaur footprints that are not only in the same layer, but some human footprints step on dinosaur footprints, and some dinosaur footprints step on human footprints. This alone shows that humans and dinosaurs existed together. What I thought was wildly entertaining is that Nova came out and said, "Oh, we see nothing here that threatens evolution theory. This was clearly a dinosaur that had human like feet." LOL What he doesn't explain is that humans have body structures that cause a specific type of footprint to occur. You can tell a woman's footprint from a man's footprint, even though their bodies are just slightly different. So if there were a dinosaur with human feet, he also had a human body, and male and female bodies on top of that... How do we know this? Because they examined the layers of mud underneath the footprints and found that the mud spread patterns were consistant with a human stepping into mud. Darwin said that if it were ever shown that humans and dinosaurs existed contemporaneously, it would destroy his theory. Well, there ya' go...



Good grief, do I even go into this pile of shit?

[exlude]

I did read your articles. Just so you can have some proof of this, here are some entertaining bits of them:

Excerpt:
The exquisite preservation of this tissue, which does not challenge the timing of dinosaur evolution, may open up avenues for studying dinosaur physiology and perhaps some aspects of their biochemistry, especially if researchers can identify soft tissues in other fossils as well.

LOL Immediately, this researcher wants to make sure that this does not disprove the theory! But she has no facts to back up this statement. None whatsoever. It's just opinion, because her funding depends on it.

And I'll post up the part you posted up from one:

These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought.

Again, there's no proof in any of these statements! Just opinion, which is exactly what I said before!! What, did you think I was a dupe like you that just believes what scientists say when they give their opinion? lol No, I actually will read their research and data results and make a decision for myself without anyone slanting it. Just because I don't agree with what they say because there's no proof to back their opinions up makes me stupid and a jackass? Well, gee... last time I checked, people that read research for themselves and make decisions on their own without blindly trusting someone else's unproven opinion are less likely to be duped, and smarter for not allowing themselves to be duped by opinion. lol Call me a jackass all you want, but you're just upset because your links proved nothing and I didn't agree with you.

Since you have already come to a conclusion, I'm guessing that you must have read those journal entries. So tell me, what were their "research and data" results? I hope you're not just reading the abstract...you may not know this due to your inexperience with these type of articles, but the abstract does not normally include the research and data.

You talk a whole fucking lot for never providing any sources on your own. "Blah blah blah, Darwin said this, blah blah blah, I once heard about some scientists doing this." Good grief, you rarely produce anything tangible (go figure, right?).

[Casper]

The problem is, when I have shown you facts in the past...you have flat out ignored them. You just plain don't address them and keep lying about your opinion.

I'm going to take a guess and say that you didn't read the journal entries. I make this guess because, had you read the entries, you would have seen their evidence towards their "opinions", as you call them. These evidences are facts, making there "opinions" not quite "opinions".

Be careful, you'll be acused of broken record syndrome :rolleyes:

I saw the special on microraptor and it really piqued my interest. regarding taxonomy, I came away with a few things I'd love to hear you comments on:

1) There is only fringe support for an arboreal route straight from crocodilians. That implies a much later divergence on the tree. Is this really decided so univerasally?

2) The link between 4-winged and 2-winged proto-birds is tenous. There was not much more than mention of a dual emergence scenario, which gives us a different branch as upposed to sub-branches on the trunk. I'd like to hear more.

3) regardless of the above, there was still conjecture concerning an arboreal or a terrestrial origin of wings. i assume non-featherd wings were never a route to feathered wings. This was never mentioned. Is this pretty much dead or is it maybe a sidepath? What is the implication on the scales to feathers idea?

4) Is there anything that clearly shows a separation between a living skin with subcutaneous respiration (like our ancient freind the frog) and "movie dinosaurs with a similar appearance? In other words, did Trex have feathers? Allosaurus?

[Pennywise]

Pennywise:

In response to the comedian's statements:

1. Fossils disprove a seven day creation.

Incorrect. I have seen fossilized car keys, a fossilized human finger, and a fossilized wooden stake. Only took the wooden stake 7 years of being buried in shallow dirt to fossilized/petrify it. I read a new article last year where scientists buried a dead bird in mud outside their offices two years before, and dug him up two years later (why, I don't know, but scientists are weird like that I guess). They said, "We were surprized to find that this bird was fossilized exactly like a pteradon." So, what scientists say takes millions of years actually can be done quickly.

You know the trees that were blown down when Mt. Saint Helens erupted in the 80's? Those trees went into water and then were covered in mud. They are fossilized/petrified today. Scientists say that layers got laid down in the water from the ash, and it was the equivalent of 300,000+ years of sediment layers, but they knew it only took a few years to lay those layers down. They said the trees were sticking up through lots of those layers.

Scientists tell you that fossilization is dependent on two factors: pressure and time. That's a lie. The main factor in fossilization is water/moisture. While something is buried, the moisture passes through it and carries away parts of it and deposits sediments in their place. Eventually, you get a completely fossilized object. Metal objects even fossilize, depending on how hard the metal is. So, if something is buried in a much more moist soil or sediment, it will fossilize much more quickly than something buried in dry soil or sediments.

If there were a world wide flood, you'd see layers of sediments everywhere, world wide, and you'd see tons of fossilized things, which is exactly what we see. It doesn't take millions of years to fossilize something...

2. Dinosaurs and man did not live at the same time.

Yes, they did, and if you ever come down here to Dallas, Texas, you can go visit the creation museum in Glen Rose, Texas, a couple of hours away, and see the human and dinosaur footprints that are not only in the same layer, but some human footprints step on dinosaur footprints, and some dinosaur footprints step on human footprints. This alone shows that humans and dinosaurs existed together. What I thought was wildly entertaining is that Nova came out and said, "Oh, we see nothing here that threatens evolution theory. This was clearly a dinosaur that had human like feet." LOL What he doesn't explain is that humans have body structures that cause a specific type of footprint to occur. You can tell a woman's footprint from a man's footprint, even though their bodies are just slightly different. So if there were a dinosaur with human feet, he also had a human body, and male and female bodies on top of that... How do we know this? Because they examined the layers of mud underneath the footprints and found that the mud spread patterns were consistant with a human stepping into mud. Darwin said that if it were ever shown that humans and dinosaurs existed contemporaneously, it would destroy his theory. Well, there ya' go...

3. Fossils are the devil's work.

This is one of the stupidest theories I've ever heard. It's the Gap Theory. Christians that don't understand or believe in a young earth, believe that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is a gap of billions of years. They think Satan fell back then and created dinosaurs on the earth and then God wiped it all out with a flood in verse 2, and created mankind a few days later. This is a ridiculous theory and scripture disproves it. Ezekeil 28 says Satan was perfect while in the garden of Eden, and that kills their theory. Also Jesus says "Did you not read that in the beginning He made them male and female?" In the beginning would mean the first six days, but if there were billions of years before Adam and Eve were created, it would not be the beginning at which He created them. This is the only beginning talked about in scripture and therefore it is not a different beginning. So that kills that theory. Those Christians are just uninformed or stupid. And yes, there are plenty of uninformed stupid Christians out there (no offense to them, they just need to pick up a book and read once in a while, but they refuse to do so, which probably has something to do with them being STUPID)... The Bible says "My people suffer for lack of knowledge." Yeah, because a lot of them are stupid and don't care to learn anything.... Oh well...


I can't believe you spent that much time replying only to further everyones point that you're a complete idiot. You win the prize!

[Muffrazr]

I saw this on Discovery the other day. It was regarding whether or not we could possibly clone something from all of this. I beleive they have made some chickens grow a dinosaur type tail as well. It was quite interesting.


On a side note, the 3000 year old mummies found near China had a very small amount of red tissue left behind. Scientists feel that the extremely dry area allowed the mummification process to happen in near perfect conditions. I would imagine with such a large specimen as a dinosaur that tissue would last a little longer, but millions of years, I doubt it. It does immediately bring the question of how old the bones are though.


Goodness. I blame this post on the painkillers from getting my wisdom teeth ripped out.

I'm really surprised noone called me out on it, but the episode in which they showed the T-rex bone and living tissue showed on Discovery again. The tissue had to go thru an acid bath to rid the specimen of mineral build up. Then they were able to see vessels and other intricate tissue samples.

I don't doubt the age of the bones either.

[BrianC]

Since you have already come to a conclusion, I'm guessing that you must have read those journal entries. So tell me, what were their "research and data" results? I hope you're not just reading the abstract...you may not know this due to your inexperience with these type of articles, but the abstract does not normally include the research and data.

You talk a whole fucking lot for never providing any sources on your own. "Blah blah blah, Darwin said this, blah blah blah, I once heard about some scientists doing this." Good grief, you rarely produce anything tangible (go figure, right?).

They had no research to backup their opinions. They even used words like "this may mean..." I had no research data to look up. And not kidding their abstracts don't include research data you dimwitted idiot! What a moron!

The reason I don't post up links much is because one, I hate referencing. It's a big waste of time when people like you can't understand that the truth is half the time, nor do you care to find it. And secondly, you can find just about any opinion on the internet, to which anyone will just say, "Oh, you can find any opinion on the internet." When I reference things, many times it will be research data. And to find the research data, it takes forever to search through the invisible web, as it is called:

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/InvisibleWeb.html

Did you know about this research tool? Probably not... Only people that actually read research data us this thing, and I doubt you read it. You're a bit too dense to read that type of stuff, or come to conclusions on your own without first getting the opinion of the biased scientists.

You know, if a person grows up believing and being taught that the world is very old and that's a fact, they will interpret everything that way, and so that biases them heavily. I used to think everything was old, and then I discovered another theory I'd never heard before, and I researched it and found it made much more sense. I have the ability to look at research data from both perspectives now, which is something a scientists never does. It's all old to them. I do this because I always try to fit everything into both frameworks. Then I can see which makes more sense. What's interesting to me is that the young earth creation model fits every evidence and fact perfectly into itself, and evolution and an old earth only fit some evidences into itself.

Then again, that means nothing to you, because you just see me as a religious zealot, and because I don't care to waste research time on you, I don't care to post up references for you. You're really not worth my time.

[BrianC]

I can't believe you spent that much time replying only to further everyones point that you're a complete idiot. You win the prize!

So, you posted up a commedian that knows a little bit about science. And you used this to make fun of those people who believe in creation. And I took his three points and showed how he's an idiot and those points are useless, and that makes me an idiot? Somehow, I think it makes you and that guy idiots, actually. But then again, I'm not a complete moron either, so I tend to see the truth in matters such as this. :)

[FSON]

I'd say that would depend on the date they came up with. lol Otherwise, this statement is kind of pointless, don't you think?
Yes.

[jluv]

Owned again. This isn't the first time BrianC has posted up shit to try to prove his point just to have the very link/info he posted prove him wrong.

[BrianC]

Owned again. This isn't the first time BrianC has posted up shit to try to prove his point just to have the very link/info he posted prove him wrong.

Not one post has proved me wrong in this thread. Please show me which post in this thread proved me wrong.

[jluv]

Not one post has proved me wrong in this thread. Please show me which post in this thread proved me wrong.


Post #1. YOUR POST!!! You included a link in that post to the MSNBC article which clearly states several times that the T-Rex found is 70 million years old.

[BrianC]

Post #1. YOUR POST!!! You included a link in that post to the MSNBC article which clearly states several times that the T-Rex found is 70 million years old.

No, you dim-whit, that's not proof! They didn't test this T-Rex and prove he's 70 million years old. That is the OPINION. It comes from the THEORY of evolution. Don't you know anything about the THEORY of evolution. They have never proven T-Rex is millions of years old. They have no dating methods that are accurate or able to date things, especially things that old. Carbon dating, which goes on the basis that carbon levels never change (which they do, and we know that for a fact), can't even date past 45,000 years. lol I wish they had carbon dated that soft tissue and gotten a reading off of it. That'd kill their theory right there...

Anyway, you find me one research study with data included that proves T-Rex is 70 million years old, and then you'll have a point. Until then, you're just an imbicil that hasn't a clue how to distiguish between theory and facts. Good job, moron.

[Casper]

There are several techniques of absolute dating:

Archaeomagnetism
Astronomical Dating
Dendrochronology
Electron Spin Resonance
Fission Track
Optically Stimulated Luminescence
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR)
Potassium- Argon Dating
Racemization
Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14)
Thermoluminescence Dating
Uranium-Thorium Dating

Then there are relative techniques, which when combined with the absolute techniques and the general concept of uniformitarianism provide a pretty good dating scheme.

[jluv]

No, you dim-whit, that's not proof! They didn't test this T-Rex and prove he's 70 million years old. That is the OPINION. It comes from the THEORY of evolution. Don't you know anything about the THEORY of evolution. They have never proven T-Rex is millions of years old. They have no dating methods that are accurate or able to date things, especially things that old. Carbon dating, which goes on the basis that carbon levels never change (which they do, and we know that for a fact), can't even date past 45,000 years. lol I wish they had carbon dated that soft tissue and gotten a reading off of it. That'd kill their theory right there...

Anyway, you find me one research study with data included that proves T-Rex is 70 million years old, and then you'll have a point. Until then, you're just an imbicil that hasn't a clue how to distiguish between theory and facts. Good job, moron.


You are only further proving my point. Please, by all means continue.

[jones4stangs]

No, you dim-whit, that's not proof! They didn't test this T-Rex and prove he's 70 million years old. That is the OPINION. It comes from the THEORY of evolution. Don't you know anything about the THEORY of evolution. They have never proven T-Rex is millions of years old. They have no dating methods that are accurate or able to date things, especially things that old. Carbon dating, which goes on the basis that carbon levels never change (which they do, and we know that for a fact), can't even date past 45,000 years. lol I wish they had carbon dated that soft tissue and gotten a reading off of it. That'd kill their theory right there...

Anyway, you find me one research study with data included that proves T-Rex is 70 million years old, and then you'll have a point. Until then, you're just an imbicil that hasn't a clue how to distiguish between theory and facts. Good job, moron.
More crazy absolute statements:
1. They have never proven T-Rex is millions of years old.
2. They have no dating methods that are accurate or able to date things

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE1aAtomicclocks.shtml

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/bracketing.gif

So in order to date most older fossils, scientists look for layers of igneous rock or volcanic ash above and below the fossil. Scientists date igneous rock using elements that are slow to decay, such as uranium and potassium. By dating these surrounding layers, they can figure out the youngest and oldest that the fossil might be; this is known as “bracketing” the age of the sedimentary layer in which the fossils occur.

Let's take a trip to a museum
http://museumvictoria.com.au/prehistoric/what/fossilage.html#absolute

There are two methods by which we can estimate the age of rocks and the fossils contained in them:

Relative Dating is based on the study of rock strata and the order of appearance of the fossils contained in them.

Absolute (Radiometric) Dating is based on the rate of decay of radioactive elements in rocks.


What to go more high tech:
single crystal laser fusion
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg13117884.900-rock-of-ages--cleft-by-laser-if-you-want-to-date-a-rockget-a-laser-thats-the-message-for-geologists-interested-in-the-preciseageof-anything-from-moon-rocks-to-hominid-fossils-.html

[BrianC]

More crazy absolute statements:
1. They have never proven T-Rex is millions of years old.
2. They have no dating methods that are accurate or able to date things

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE1aAtomicclocks.shtml

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/bracketing.gif

So in order to date most older fossils, scientists look for layers of igneous rock or volcanic ash above and below the fossil. Scientists date igneous rock using elements that are slow to decay, such as uranium and potassium. By dating these surrounding layers, they can figure out the youngest and oldest that the fossil might be; this is known as “bracketing” the age of the sedimentary layer in which the fossils occur.

Let's take a trip to a museum
http://museumvictoria.com.au/prehistoric/what/fossilage.html#absolute

There are two methods by which we can estimate the age of rocks and the fossils contained in them:

Relative Dating is based on the study of rock strata and the order of appearance of the fossils contained in them.

Absolute (Radiometric) Dating is based on the rate of decay of radioactive elements in rocks.


What to go more high tech:
single crystal laser fusion
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg13117884.900-rock-of-ages--cleft-by-laser-if-you-want-to-date-a-rockget-a-laser-thats-the-message-for-geologists-interested-in-the-preciseageof-anything-from-moon-rocks-to-hominid-fossils-.html

If you had actually taken time to learn about this dating method of using the elements in rocks, you'd also know that in order to get an exact date, you'd have to know that this rock has never been touched, ever, by any elements and nothing has ever changed with it. If any elements have been altered at all by outside elements like lead or uranium, it will change the dating completely. Also, you must know the exact amount of lead that started out in these elements, and the amount of uranium too if I'm not mistaken. It's been a while since I looked into this. I'll have to look it up again. This is by NO means a valid dating method. I'll spend some time tomorrow looking for the explanations of each method and how they're all completely useless for dating.

[BrianC]

There are several techniques of absolute dating:

Archaeomagnetism
Astronomical Dating
Dendrochronology
Electron Spin Resonance
Fission Track
Optically Stimulated Luminescence
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR)
Potassium- Argon Dating
Racemization
Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14)
Thermoluminescence Dating
Uranium-Thorium Dating

Then there are relative techniques, which when combined with the absolute techniques and the general concept of uniformitarianism provide a pretty good dating scheme.

Thanks for the list. I'll look them all up tomorrow and the arguments with each one that shows they're all completely useless for dating. I've read the shortcomings before, but I'll go find them again...

And I can't believe you just listed carbon dating. lol Did I not just show you how that is dependent on the amount of carbon in the air during the life of the animal and is based on the idea that carbon levels never change, which has been disproven, especially since the whole global warming crap has come up which claims we are putting even more carbon into the air and causing it? Dude, you should read posts better. Carbon dating is completely useless. I'll link you to pages tomorrow that disprove all of these methods as accurate or even usefull. They break each method down by how it works and then shows what parts cause each method to be completely inaccurate....

[FSON]

So, dudes, what are you all talken about?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Couple thousand, couple million, who cares? At least we know dinosaurs exist(ed), and they are old. Do christian people doubt scientists? Do they not have faith?




Any luck finding those Jesus bones?

[jones4stangs]

If you had actually taken time to learn about this dating method of using the elements in rocks, you'd also know that in order to get an exact date, you'd have to know that this rock has never been touched, ever, by any elements and nothing has ever changed with it. If any elements have been altered at all by outside elements like lead or uranium, it will change the dating completely. Also, you must know the exact amount of lead that started out in these elements, and the amount of uranium too if I'm not mistaken. It's been a while since I looked into this. I'll have to look it up again. This is by NO means a valid dating method. I'll spend some time tomorrow looking for the explanations of each method and how they're all completely useless for dating.
Good luck with your research. You've got great natural insight into science. Please share more of your wisdom with us uneducated folks. :rolleyes:

[jluv]

Jesus just called (I was on the other line with an important phone call) and left a message saying that BrianC is full of doodoo.

[Brain_Mach1]

Couple thousand, couple million, who cares? At least we know dinosaurs exist(ed), and they are old. Do christian people doubt scientists? Do they not have faith?Don't lump all Christians together. It is only a certain group who holds the belief of a 6000 year old Earth.
Any luck finding those Jesus bones?
Believers say he was assumed into heaven.

Non-beleivers say he never existed.

In both cases, there would be no bones.

[BrianC]

There are several techniques of absolute dating:

Archaeomagnetism/Paleomagnetism
Fussion Track
Potassium- Argon Dating
Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14)
Uranium-Thorium Dating


All of these dating methods are discussed in this article which debunks them. I will find an article that better explains how carbond dating works and why it is BS, even though I've explained it already...


Astronomical Dating

I don't even know why you brought this up. Astronomical chronology is a technical method of dating events or artifacts that are associated with accounts of astronomical phenomena. The success of this method depends on the reliability of the written sources and the precision of their accounts of astronomical phenomena. Attempts to date literary texts astronomically, which may use astronomical events as metaphors often lead researchers to erroneous conclusions. (That's from Wikipedia) We're not talking about dating written history here. We're talking about dating bones. What, did you just look up a list of all of the dating methods and cut and paste them here to look intelligent like you understand this stuff? If not, then why the hell did you bother posting this one? Oh, I bet you thought this was talking about dating how old stars are... yeah, no... That's not what this is, but nice try. :D


Dendrochronology

This is a dating method for trees. How the heck does this have anything to do with dating bones or things that are prehistorical? Oh, you must be thinking about the one supposed proof that evolutionists use where a tree is supposedly like 8000+ years old. Yeah, sorry, but scientists have clearly shown that that's two trees that their trunks grew together, and so when you take a sample across the two trunks, you get nearly double the actual age of the tree. Now, that is assuming that there is only one ring per year produced, which any tree farmer will tell you is ridiculous.

We have a tree farmer here in DFW and if you want to go ask him, he's over almost at the SW corner of 635 and I35E. When you're going East on 635 toward I35E, you'll see his tree farm to your right, right before the warehouses. It's where the races take place around here on the weekends. You may have been there before. If you ask that guy, he'll tell you that those are not annual rings, they're growth rings. What happens is if a tree gets a lot of good sunlight and water and good soil, it will produce as many as 7 GROWTH rings in one year. If it gets mediocre water, sunlight and soil, then it will produce maybe one ring per year, if that. Rainforest trees produce a lot of rings. So scientists have a ridiculous method here that a typical tree farmer can disprove with one sample. Again, useless for proving the earth is old.


Ice core dating...


You forgot this one, so I added it. Please allow me to show you to different articles. One is an article about how many feet of ice were found on top of some WWII airplanes in Greenland after only about 30 or so years of ice accumulation. The next one shows how supposedly each little bitty ring of ice is a year. One is a theory, and the other is real world data, and the real world data disproves the theory that a year is one ring.

Planes buried in 250 feet of ice, approximately, since 1942.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/plane.asp

Check out the Dating Cores part of this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores

Notice how a 19cm core is supposed to represent 11 years. So, I guess we can do the math and get a rough estimate of what 250 feet of ice would be. 7.5 inches of ice is 19cms. So, 250 feet would be about 4,400 years old. We had some really smart Greenlanders back then, apparently...

Notice that the core sample is a GISP core from Greenland, so the accumulation should be similar. There are websites that do their best to debunk this supposed "mishap" of ice ring accumulation. And to be fair, the planes had moved due to glacial movement, so there were extra layers. But even if you cut the layers in half, you still get 2,200 years which is way off. Here, I'll post up a comment from some imbicils that don't even realize they have disproven their own "annual" ring theory in their attempt to disprove the ice ring accumulation on these planes:

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers.

So, they admit that a layer is melted everytime the sun comes out, and that's where ice layers come from. Which means anytime you try to date anything using ice rings, all you're doing is dating how many times the sun has come out between freezes! It's utterly useless.

Again, completely useless form of dating....


Electron Spin Resonance
Optically Stimulated Luminescence
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR)
Racemization
Thermoluminescence Dating

I still have these left to address... I'll do that when I get time...


Then there are relative techniques, which when combined with the absolute techniques and the general concept of uniformitarianism provide a pretty good dating scheme.

I'm so glad you mentioned uniformitarianism, because that's exactly the basis of carbon dating, and without it, carbon dating is useless. And the uniformitarianism basis of carbon dating says that carbon levels have no been rising or falling in our atmosphere in history, ever, but rather they just stay the same. We know this is completely false due to global warming research that states carbon levels are fluxuating all the time, and over a long period of time, carbon levels are rising. Therefore, the uniformitarianism of carbon dating completely destroys it's basis and makes it useless. Thanks for helping me prove my point. Have a wonderful day! :D

[jones4stangs]

Don't lump all Christians together. It is only a certain group who holds the belief of a 6000 year old Earth.
Case in point.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

1. There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

2. 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!

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

[jones4stangs]

All of these dating methods are discussed in this article which debunks them.
You might want to provide this article.

[svtaaron]

Case in point.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

1. There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

2. 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!

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

there is a number of volcanos that have been dated, all known blasts were eyewitnessed and the dating was innacurate (anywhere from 2mya to 200 mya) my question is, if they cant accurately date rocks they have witnessed the formation of, how is it that dates can be set on rocks that they have not witnessed the formation of? if the scientists dating these rocks had not been corrected because of the known time of the blast, how is the dating then accurate for blasts "unknown" besides the final dating of the rock?

[jones4stangs]

there is a number of volcanos that have been dated, all known blasts were eyewitnessed and the dating was innacurate (anywhere from 2mya to 200 mya) my question is, if they cant accurately date rocks they have witnessed the formation of, how is it that dates can be set on rocks that they have not witnessed the formation of? if the scientists dating these rocks had not been corrected because of the known time of the blast, how is the dating then accurate for blasts "unknown" besides the final dating of the rock?
If you provide more detailed information or a web link, then I could try to find some specific answers for you.

However, I bet this one comes pretty close. It's also from the same article I posted earlier today.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods

14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.


Speaking of that web site, I've liked what I've seen from them so far.

http://www.asa3.org/
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

[svtaaron]

close .. although that was one on my mind, this is another good one. AND its older than 30 yrs. there are actually a number of them throughout the globe.

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

i have an old reply in another forum that lists several instances, since it has been a few months i have since lost them, i will do what i can to reash that thread in order to give you a chance to dispute the findings.

[svtaaron]

this one is interesting aswell. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

[Pennywise]

But then again, I'm not a complete moron either,





Define complete?

[jones4stangs]

close .. although that was one on my mind, this is another good one. AND its older than 30 yrs. there are actually a number of them throughout the globe.

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

i have an old reply in another forum that lists several instances, since it has been a few months i have since lost them, i will do what i can to reash that thread in order to give you a chance to dispute the findings.
I looked around the web for a while. There's a lot of controversy with this particular web site, Andrew A. Snelling, and the Institute for Creation Research. I'm not in a position to evaluate or debate the details of these individual findings. I think I've already sufficiently addressed the overall topic.

I'm comfortable with the abundant amount of information supporting the dating methods currently accepted by the scientific community as a whole.

[Casper]

Carbon dating is completely useless.

:rolleyes:

[Casper]

Astronomical chronology is a technical method of dating events or artifacts that are associated with accounts of astronomical phenomena. The success of this method depends on the reliability of the written sources and the precision of their accounts of astronomical phenomena. Attempts to date literary texts astronomically, which may use astronomical events as metaphors often lead researchers to erroneous conclusions. (That's from Wikipedia)


You might want to dig up something a little more scholarly than wiki. This method has been used to evaluate Mayan historical records, Persian historical records and Chinese historical records, indicating a high degree of accuracy in their observations. True, it doesn't extend longer-term timelines directly, but it allows for pretty good estimations of structure dates and civilization footprints which destroy any support for a world-wide flood. They also allow considerable calibration for other methods. We aren't talking about mythology like the three wise men following a star around in a circle. We are talking about alignment of menhirs in Durrington Walls, eclipse observation in Bam, conjunction data in Tikal. Extra credit; do you even know where these places are without using the net? Double credit if you've been there.


We're not talking about dating written history here. We're talking about dating bones. What, did you just look up a list of all of the dating methods and cut and paste them here to look intelligent like you understand this stuff? If not, then why the hell did you bother posting this one? Oh, I bet you thought this was talking about dating how old stars are... yeah, no... That's not what this is, but nice try. :D


I provided a list of absolute techniques, which build off of one another and are supplemented by relative techniques. If you don't understand how they interact then you have just shot yourself in the foot. Try something more precise than AIG. To know how old something is often depends on evidence of how young it cannot be.


This is a dating method for trees. How the heck does this have anything to do with dating bones or things that are prehistorical? Oh, you must be thinking about the one supposed proof that evolutionists use where a tree is supposedly like 8000+ years old. Yeah, sorry, but scientists have clearly shown that that's two trees that their trunks grew together, and so when you take a sample across the two trunks, you get nearly double the actual age of the tree. Now, that is assuming that there is only one ring per year produced, which any tree farmer will tell you is ridiculous.


You have a very weak grasp of the concept. I see you went for driver's ed instead of biology. Do you know how dendrochronology ties in with forms of radiometric dating? Go ask your farmer how many of those trees will respond in exactly the same way each year? Another layer of uniformitarianism.


You forgot this one, so I added it. Please allow me to show you to different articles. One is an article about how many feet of ice were found on top of some WWII airplanes in Greenland after only about 30 or so years of ice accumulation. The next one shows how supposedly each little bitty ring of ice is a year. One is a theory, and the other is real world data, and the real world data disproves the theory that a year is one ring.


In my studies of climate I have never come across any peer-reviewed conclusion like you put forth. Ice core dating is, like dendrochronology, another proxy for climate, not heliocentricity.


I'm so glad you mentioned uniformitarianism, because that's exactly the basis of carbon dating, and without it, carbon dating is useless. And the uniformitarianism basis of carbon dating says that carbon levels have no been rising or falling in our atmosphere in history, ever, but rather they just stay the same.

You have no idea what you are talking about; are you making this up as you go? I would venture to say I've forgotton more about climatology and UV fluctuation than you could dream of. Obviously you don't even understand the theory behind the practice of any of these methods.

Go ahead and rant though, maybe you can get a slot at the discovery institute. They like to regurgitate straw men onto the web. I hear they are supplementing their catalog with a minor in computer science. They have a new iMac in the "research lab".

[jluv]

Smells like ownage to me!

[DarkWolf]

Carbon dating, which goes on the basis that carbon levels never change (which they do, and we know that for a fact), can't even date past 45,000 years.

This right here proves you have absolutely no idea how carbon dating works. I've proven you wrong on this NUMEROUS times in other threads. Stop trying.

Carbon dating DOES account for variations in carbon levels. However, that doesn't affect the rate of DECAY. C-14 dating checks the rate of decay of the carbon-14 isotope. That is a fixed rate, it has been identical for the past 60 some odd years that we've been testing it (and the levels of carbon in the atmosphere have increased significantly in the past 30 years, which proves the amount of carbon has no bearing on the rate of decay of the isotope).

At least you're close in the length of it's dating accuracy, which is about 50,000 - 60,000 years.

And, because of that, we don't rely on C-14 dating alone! Imagine that! We have discovered other ways to do radiometric dating WITHOUT carbon. Such as Uranium-238, and Potassium-Argon (and numerous others). Isotopes that have a much longer half-life than carbon-14, and are thus able to date things much much older.

I see I'm late to the party on this, and you've been thoroughly rebutted, so I'll just leave it at this for now. I've been busy all week moving, and this is the first chance I've had to sit down and catch up.

[AL P]

LMAO at BrianC thinking the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has to do with isotope decay.

If I need comedy, I can just come in here and open one of his threads, it is like a science train wreck every time.

[Casper]

... it is like a science train wreck every time.

Train wreck on a treadmill!

[exlude]

I havn't forgotten your questions Scott, been busy with moving and midterms. I'll sit down to give you a good answer in the coming days :p

[Shorty]

http://www.sirlin.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/jesus_dinosaur.JPG

[Badass2000gt]

So are they going to get the DNA from the blood cell and combined it with a frog DNA and have a real live Jurassic Park? :D :rolleyes:

[svtaaron]

I looked around the web for a while. There's a lot of controversy with this particular web site, Andrew A. Snelling, and the Institute for Creation Research. I'm not in a position to evaluate or debate the details of these individual findings. I think I've already sufficiently addressed the overall topic.

I'm comfortable with the abundant amount of information supporting the dating methods currently accepted by the scientific community as a whole.

and i have looked over the site you provided aswell, there is an alot of information contained within it, so giving it a really good look other than jst a skim would take days. so i will look more in depth on it in the coming days/weeks, i appreciate the link and as christians, we should search for truth and unwillingness to do so is a lack of love for the truth. anyway, again thanks.

[FSON]

I hope G#d is made up of part carbon, because, by golly, we will need to carbon date that old man.

[BrianC]

Case in point.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

1. There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

2. 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!

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

What part of "we know carbon levels are constantly changing" and "carbon levels never changing is the basis of carbon dating" didn't you understand? I swear... Do you ever look into things for yourself instead of believing the opinions of otheres? You're just a dupe that likes to repeat scientist's opinions on things. Sorry. I don't listen to dupes. I like to see things for myself and come to my own conclusions rather than have some atheistic scientists give me his very biased opinion that has no fact to back it up.

[BrianC]

LMAO at BrianC thinking the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has to do with isotope decay.

If I need comedy, I can just come in here and open one of his threads, it is like a science train wreck every time.

Once again, evidence that you haven't a clue how carbon dating works. I never said that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has to do with isotope decay. What I said is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at the time the creature is living will directly affect the amount of carbon a creature stores up in his system. The more carbon found in a specimen, the younger a creature appears when carbon dated. Less carbon found in the specimen will show an older creature. Dinosaur fossils have no carbon in them at all. Scientists assumed that this meant they were millions of years old because the carbon had already completely broken down. Bad assumption on their part...

[BrianC]

This right here proves you have absolutely no idea how carbon dating works. I've proven you wrong on this NUMEROUS times in other threads. Stop trying.

Carbon dating DOES account for variations in carbon levels. However, that doesn't affect the rate of DECAY. C-14 dating checks the rate of decay of the carbon-14 isotope. That is a fixed rate, it has been identical for the past 60 some odd years that we've been testing it (and the levels of carbon in the atmosphere have increased significantly in the past 30 years, which proves the amount of carbon has no bearing on the rate of decay of the isotope).

At least you're close in the length of it's dating accuracy, which is about 50,000 - 60,000 years.

And, because of that, we don't rely on C-14 dating alone! Imagine that! We have discovered other ways to do radiometric dating WITHOUT carbon. Such as Uranium-238, and Potassium-Argon (and numerous others). Isotopes that have a much longer half-life than carbon-14, and are thus able to date things much much older.

I see I'm late to the party on this, and you've been thoroughly rebutted, so I'll just leave it at this for now. I've been busy all week moving, and this is the first chance I've had to sit down and catch up.

Once again, I never said it affects decay. Please look at my response above. You've simply shown your lack of understanding of carbon dating.

[BrianC]

You might want to dig up something a little more scholarly than wiki. This method has been used to evaluate Mayan historical records, Persian historical records and Chinese historical records, indicating a high degree of accuracy in their observations. True, it doesn't extend longer-term timelines directly, but it allows for pretty good estimations of structure dates and civilization footprints which destroy any support for a world-wide flood. They also allow considerable calibration for other methods. We aren't talking about mythology like the three wise men following a star around in a circle. We are talking about alignment of menhirs in Durrington Walls, eclipse observation in Bam, conjunction data in Tikal. Extra credit; do you even know where these places are without using the net? Double credit if you've been there.



I provided a list of absolute techniques, which build off of one another and are supplemented by relative techniques. If you don't understand how they interact then you have just shot yourself in the foot. Try something more precise than AIG. To know how old something is often depends on evidence of how young it cannot be.



You have a very weak grasp of the concept. I see you went for driver's ed instead of biology. Do you know how dendrochronology ties in with forms of radiometric dating? Go ask your farmer how many of those trees will respond in exactly the same way each year? Another layer of uniformitarianism.



In my studies of climate I have never come across any peer-reviewed conclusion like you put forth. Ice core dating is, like dendrochronology, another proxy for climate, not heliocentricity.



You have no idea what you are talking about; are you making this up as you go? I would venture to say I've forgotton more about climatology and UV fluctuation than you could dream of. Obviously you don't even understand the theory behind the practice of any of these methods.

Go ahead and rant though, maybe you can get a slot at the discovery institute. They like to regurgitate straw men onto the web. I hear they are supplementing their catalog with a minor in computer science. They have a new iMac in the "research lab".

Oh, that's just sheer entertainment. Yes, I'll take your word over the word of a tree farmer. Sure.... Nice job, there. Yet again, a dupe...

And now, astronomical dating is hardly accurate since it depends on the accuracy of statements. Duped again!

As for unimformitarianism, we know that carbon levels change in the atmosphere, yet you swear up and down that carbon dating is accurate and doesn't depend on the carbon intake of an animal while living. Hmmmmm.... yeah, uniformitarianism sure works great doesn't it?

This is exactly why I don't bother posting opinions from the internet, because you can get any random opinion and supposedly "good argument" from anywhere. It doesn't prove a thing until you show real world data, something you have yet to produce, and something I never said I cared to produce for you on the internet. Everything is left up to opinion and interpretation of the data. Evolutionists used the same data as creationists. They simply interpret it differently.

Answer me one thing: How is it that evolution theory constantly has to change to appear somewhat correct when new evidences are found, yet the creation model and theory never change no matter what evidences are found because they always fit into the theory perfectly? Gee, sounds like one theory is much more accurate than the other...

[BrianC]

Ok, once again, I'm spending too much of my time on here, and it's like the special olympics here. Even if you win an argument, you're still retarded. lol So I'm not going to waste my time on people that couldn't care less about actually looking up real word data for themselves. I have no interest in listening to dupes that just parrot other people's opinions. Just a big waste of time...

[Casper]

Ok, once again, I'm spending too much of my time on here, and it's like the special olympics here. Even if you win an argument, you're still retarded. lol So I'm not going to waste my time on people that couldn't care less about actually looking up real word data for themselves. I have no interest in listening to dupes that just parrot other people's opinions. Just a big waste of time...

You keep saying that but somehow you end up fibbing. Hope that little sin doesn't get the asthma demons riled up.

I have no sins myself, but don't tell my boss, because I'm taking every damn one of my sick days.

[Pennywise]

Awwww, he didn't respond to my quote but everyone else got a novel. I'm so upset...

[Casper]

I'm sure he meant to. After all he's not a complete moron.

[jones4stangs]

Awwww, he didn't respond to my quote but everyone else got a novel. I'm so upset...
ahhhh hahahaha

[NeedleSharp]

...especially since the whole global warming crap has come up which claims we are putting even more carbon into the air and causing it? ...

did i hear global warming??

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x149/Surgardaddy4life/ManBearPig.jpg

[FSON]

There is no time.
Repeat, there is no time.
Now, continue the conversation with that in mind.

[Pennywise]

I'm sure he meant to. After all he's not a complete moron.




I just don't understand. He is so quick to give definitions to everyone else, yet he just skips me all together. I feel so left out.

[Mr Majestyk]

Maybe he's got you on ignore. Some people in this very thread do run and hide their heads in the sand.

[flashstang04]

He said he was not a "complete moron" and you replied with this......

Define complete?

And you are wondering why you didn't get a response...pff go away..

[jones4stangs]

What part of "we know carbon levels are constantly changing" and "carbon levels never changing is the basis of carbon dating" didn't you understand? I swear... Do you ever look into things for yourself instead of believing the opinions of otheres? You're just a dupe that likes to repeat scientist's opinions on things. Sorry. I don't listen to dupes. I like to see things for myself and come to my own conclusions rather than have some atheistic scientists give me his very biased opinion that has no fact to back it up.
Nothing I've posted this the thread addresses or relies on carbon dating. Carbon dating and dinosaurs is a dead issue. The rest of your post in an ignorant rant. But since this is all we’re left with, I’ll add a rank of my own.

You repeatedly say that you investigate things for yourself and you ask questions to gain further understanding. You've shown that to be a complete lie. Your ability to study a topic is adolescent at best. Your lack of supportable knowledge in religion, history, and especially science has become laughable. All your views are consistently shown to be incredibility limited and supported by false information.

How many more times must you state your assumptions as fact? How many more times must your make unsupportable statements? How more times will you ignore credible evidence in order to support your assumptions?

[Zarathustra]

There is no time.
Repeat, there is no time.
Now, continue the conversation with that in mind.

Nice.

[Casper]

Nothing I've posted this the thread addresses or relies on carbon dating. Carbon dating and dinosaurs is a dead issue. The rest of your post in an ignorant rant. But since this is all we’re left with, I’ll add a rank of my own.

You repeatedly say that you investigate things for yourself and you ask questions to gain further understanding. You've shown that to be a complete lie. Your ability to study a topic is adolescent at best. Your lack of supportable knowledge in religion, history, and especially science has become laughable. All your views are consistently shown to be incredibility limited and supported by false information.

How many more times must you state your assumptions as fact? How many more times must your make unsupportable statements? How more times will you ignore credible evidence in order to support your assumptions?

Its a lost cause. He'll claim what he said is not what you quoted, then claim you said something you didn't without quoting. Its scary that this is the mind of someone who claims so much success as a "counselor". You have to wonder what really goes on in those "sessions".

http://www.deathreference.com/images/medd_01_img0078.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/David_Koresh.jpg

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/images/geuu_01_img0206.jpg

[DarkWolf]

The more carbon found in a specimen, the younger a creature appears when carbon dated. Less carbon found in the specimen will show an older creature.

Wrong.

The amount of carbon present has no effect on the rate of decay. Stop being a moron.

[DarkWolf]

Its scary that this is the mind of someone who claims so much success as a "counselor".

I was going to say, it sure seems like he's gotten even more irrational (if that's even possible) since "coming back" from his first "I'm not posting here anymore" statement.

He's fallen firmly into the raving lunatic catagory.

[Casper]

I was going to say, it sure seems like he's gotten even more irrational (if that's even possible) since "coming back" from his first "I'm not posting here anymore" statement.

He's fallen firmly into the raving lunatic catagory.

He's not alone:

...PEOPLE WERE REFRESHED AND THE LORD SPOKE TO US. THERE WAS HEALING OF SOME TWO LADIES MIRACULOUSLY. ONE HAD AN ASTHMA DEMON AND ANOTHER ONE HAD A NECK ROLLED AROUND BY DEMONS BUT WAS RESTORED. ...
Link#1 (http://groups.msn.com/CHRISTIANCOUNSELINGONLINE/letshearfromu.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=33310&LastModified=4675658222832805832)

I have to share this with you all. My daughter recently had prayer to be heal from asthma a few weeks ago when a traveling evangelist was in town. We were believing God that she was healed, then a couple of days ago she started coughing and my wife pointed it out as usual. Men, sometimes we are a little slow. Praise The Lord!!

Well, anyway. I laid my hands on her and started to pray and instead of saying a little nice prayer. I came against a spirit of asthma. I commanded it to come out of her in the name of Jesus. That spirit of asthma quickly manifested with crying, coughing up flim, etc. and it was cast out of my SAVED 12 year old daughter.

By the way the coughing ceased after the spirit was cast out!! Here we have an example of what I'm trying to communicate. Why I hadn't done this up to this point I don't know, she's been diagnosed with asthma for years.


Link #2 (http://www.gospelflava.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=14078&mesg_id=14664&page=4)

[DarkWolf]

He's not alone:


Link#1 (http://groups.msn.com/CHRISTIANCOUNSELINGONLINE/letshearfromu.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=33310&LastModified=4675658222832805832)


Link #2 (http://www.gospelflava.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=14078&mesg_id=14664&page=4)

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif

[flashstang04]

The belief that demons can cause maladies is not new, and even biblical. I don't know why you guys are so surprised.

[BLAKE]

The belief that demons can cause maladies is not new, and even biblical. I don't know why you guys are so surprised.


It being "new" has nothing to do with anything. The fact that this day and age, people still believe that kind of horse hockey... that is the scary part.

[Casper]

The syphillis demon was entirely immune to the word of God, and it took an atheist to create the avenging angel known as penicillin to rebuke it.

:D

[flashstang04]

The syphillis demon was entirely immune to the word of God, and it took an atheist to create the avenging angel known as penicillin to rebuke it.

:D

Well aren't you the lucky one.. :D

[Casper]

Well aren't you the lucky one.. :D

LOL!

Nice

[FSON]

The old man in the grey beard will punish those in his own way. Sooner or later, they will toe the line.

[Pennywise]

The old man in the grey beard will punish those in his own way. Sooner or later, they will toe the line.




Making the huge assumption that god does exsist, what gives you the quantum nerve to assume he worries himself with what we do?

[Mr Majestyk]

He sent His Son Jesus Christ to us, thus you might say he "worries" himself with what we do.

[Pennywise]

He sent His Son Jesus Christ to us, thus you might say he "worries" himself with what we do.




Well, if you really believe tripe like that, but personally I don't see what would make Jesuses claim any more compelling than David Koresh. If you believe in god, you really have to look at him from a management point of view. You've got 6 billion idiots all wanting different things that they all think is right, all in total opposite of the other 5.9999 billion idiots. Would you really send your son to work in a mess like that and expect results, assuming you really are a superior all knowing being? Come on now.

[Mr Majestyk]

Your understanding is restricted to human terms, and shows an inability to comprehend that anything exists beyond what your senses and your logical reasoning tell you, just like "6 billion other idiots" LOL. If you, and they, are satisfied with that tripe, more power to you.

[Pennywise]

Your understanding is restricted to human terms, and shows an inability to comprehend that anything exists beyond what your senses and your logical reasoning tell you, just like "6 billion other idiots" LOL. If you, and they, are satisfied with that tripe, more power to you.



Your understanding isn't restricted to human terms? Explain that one to me. But type fast, there is a dragon standing right behind you!

[Mr Majestyk]

Simple. There is eternal life beyound death. Can your "human" understanding, using your sensory perception, deductive reasoning, or external scientific methods, explain that to your satisfaction? Faith allows me to accept it.

[Pennywise]

Simple. There is eternal life beyound death. Can your "human" understanding, using your sensory perception, deductive reasoning, or external scientific methods, explain that to your satisfaction? Faith allows me to accept it.



Faith isn't a human trait?

[Mr Majestyk]

Faith, in the case of Christian Faith, is a spiritual gift from God which gives the recipient the unshakeable conviction that God has kept and will keep all of His promises. It allows one to subrogate his own well being to the benefit of others, knowing that God will provide for his needs as promised. Faith allows us to transcend the human traits of selfishness, greed, and worry. Faith allowed Jesus to resist temptation, and to take on the role of servant rather than master. In short, Christian Faith serves to keep our human traits in check.

[Pennywise]

Faith, in the case of Christian Faith, is a spiritual gift from God which gives the recipient the unshakeable conviction that God has kept and will keep all of His promises. It allows one to subrogate his own well being to the benefit of others, knowing that God will provide for his needs as promised. Faith allows us to transcend the human traits of selfishness, greed, and worry. Faith allowed Jesus to resist temptation, and to take on the role of servant rather than master. In short, Christian Faith serves to keep our human traits in check.



The Christian faith that was invented by humans?

[Mr Majestyk]

Re-read, the Christian Faith is a spiritual gift from God. Humans did not and could not ever "invent" such a gift; they can however advance it.

[flashstang04]

"God has dealt to each one a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3)

[8mpg]

I read the first page.... well, here is my reply for Brian C

Will you please take a bone from today and in 1 million years see if there is any soft tissue and please prove this theory wrong.

Also, please prove (with evidence) that God has created Earth.

Please provide evidence of Jesus and the gang, Noahs Ark, the family tree of all the animals that produced the MILLIONS of animals on our planet now. Did God create dinosaurs? Obviously we have some evidence of that...so in what year range would you say that dinosaurs roamed the Earth? Were there humans that God created during this time? Can you please explain black people (Im not trying to be racist) but why did God create different color skins? Did Adam and Eve have a black child?

I believe carbon 14 dating, potassium/nitrogen dating and other dating types hold much more evidence than a book. Maybe the numbers are a bit off, but atleast there is research and evidence of the theories.


Where did that thread go where someone claimed that Trex was a vegetarian?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Your understanding is restricted to human terms, and shows an inability to comprehend that anything exists beyond what your senses and your logical reasoning tell you, just like "6 billion other idiots" LOL. If you, and they, are satisfied with that tripe, more power to you.

No wonder you can't help but to feel superior to everyone else here. You believe you think higher than human standards, like some kind of deity. LOL. I bet there isn't much asthma in your family.

[FSON]

Making the huge assumption that god does exsist, what gives you the quantum nerve to assume he worries himself with what we do?
Hmm, I'll think about that.

[Mr Majestyk]

No wonder you can't help but to feel superior to everyone else here. You believe you think higher than human standards, like some kind of deity. LOL. I bet there isn't much asthma in your family.

I don't know about everyone else here, that's your words. You must find me superior to you however, based on the way you follow my posts around like a stray dog.

If you wish to consider me a deity, do whatever floats your boat. No asthma in my family....we are truly blessed.

[Pennywise]

Re-read, the Christian Faith is a spiritual gift from God. Humans did not and could not ever "invent" such a gift; they can however advance it.



If someone gave me Christianity as a gift I'd hope they included a gift recipt. I guess this is the type of answer I could expect from someone who bases their entire life off a 2000 year old game of "Telephone."

[Mr Majestyk]

"Someone" didn't give it to me. I guess that is the type of statement though that I could expect from someone you chooses not to comprehend what he reads.

[Pennywise]

"Someone" didn't give it to me. I guess that is the type of statement though that I could expect from someone you chooses not to comprehend what he reads.



LOL @ a christian comprehending what he reads.

[Mr Majestyk]

LOL @ the car forum "wanna-be someone relevant"

[flashstang04]

LOL @ the car forum "wanna-be someone relevant"


LOL @ Mr.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

I don't know about everyone else here, that's your words. You must find me superior to you however, based on the way you follow my posts around like a stray dog.

If you wish to consider me a deity, do whatever floats your boat. No asthma in my family....we are truly blessed.

wow

[Mr Majestyk]

Gee whiz

[DarkWolf]

I don't know about everyone else here, that's your words. You must find me superior to you however, based on the way you follow my posts around like a stray dog.

wow

Yeah, he's obviously got some delusion going on. Apparently anyone that has anything to say in contrast to anything he claims is "following [his] posts around like a stray dog."

Narcissism at it's finest! http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Mr Majestyk]

Now you are too I see. Sticking your little head up from the sand for a look? Go back down, it's better with you out of sight LOL

[flashstang04]

Now you are too I see. Sticking your little head up from the sand for a look? Go back down, it's better with you out of sight LOL



It must be your aftershave... I can't figure it out either...

[Casper]

It must be your aftershave... I can't figure it out either...

There's something about an aqua velva man...

[DarkWolf]

Now you are too I see. Sticking your little head up from the sand for a look? Go back down, it's better with you out of sight LOL

Unfortunately putting you on ignore doesn't block when others quote you. You know this. I've explained it before.

That you feel you're the center of the universe is quite a narcissistic trait. I hate to burst your thin little bubble, but people aren't "following you like stray dogs"... you just happen to have this incessant need to stick your nose into every conversation, often bearing no value to the discussion at hand, just to get yourself involved. Presumably so you don't feel "left out"... another narcissistic trait.

You're typically ignored until you actually do manage to say something that would warrant a response. And then magically those that respond are "following you like stray dogs".

You're a sad little child. You lash out with the full force of your immaturity whenever you don't get your way. Your ego is gargantuan.

Grow up. The world does not revolve around you.

[FSON]

Experts at argumentum ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

[Mr Majestyk]

I hate to burst your thin little bubble, but people aren't "following you like stray dogs"...

People aren't, but you are. Case in point ^^^^^

Your complete lack of knowledge concerning anything theological continues to shine through. Don't feel too butthurt though, just keep telling yourself this is only a car forum and that your irrelevance to this thread is really of no consequence.

[flashstang04]

People aren't, but you are. Case in point ^^^^^

Your complete lack of knowledge concerning anything theological continues to shine through. Don't feel too butthurt though, just keep telling yourself this is only a car forum and that your irrelevance to this thread is really of no consequence.

.

[FSON]

Ya, but my daddy can beat up your daddy, so there.

[Mr Majestyk]

^^^^^ speaking of irrelevance.....

[DarkWolf]

.

Speaking of following someone around like a dog...

Why exactly do you feel it necessary to quote everything he regurgitates?

I put him on ignore because I don't want to see his incessant idiocy. You're making that nigh impossible. I could rectify that by ignoring you as well, but you have valid arguments at times, and I'd prefer to not have you on ignore.

[Mr Majestyk]

Could you be much more of a whining-ass bitch??? Come on, give it a try. We know you can.

Good job flash. I can tell it's making her get her panties in a wad LOL

[FSON]

Speaking of following someone around like a dog...

Why exactly do you feel it necessary to quote everything he regurgitates?

I put him on ignore because I don't want to see his incessant idiocy. You're making that nigh impossible. I could rectify that by ignoring you as well, but you have valid arguments at times, and I'd prefer to not have you on ignore.


I don't see you, speak to the hand...

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/25819DG~Speak-To-The-Hand-Posters.jpg

[notchnate]

freaking awesome I want a pet Trex

[flashstang04]

Speaking of following someone around like a dog...

Why exactly do you feel it necessary to quote everything he regurgitates?

I put him on ignore because I don't want to see his incessant idiocy. You're making that nigh impossible. I could rectify that by ignoring you as well, but you have valid arguments at times, and I'd prefer to not have you on ignore.

Nobody says that you have to read them. That is your choice. I have nothing to do with your free will..ahh but that is another thread.

[Zarathustra]

It being "new" has nothing to do with anything. The fact that this day and age, people still believe that kind of horse hockey... that is the scary part.

nice, horse hockey.

[Zarathustra]

...Some people are just anti-reason.

[DarkWolf]

Nobody says that you have to read them. That is your choice. I have nothing to do with your free will..ahh but that is another thread.

This is true. However, quoting him with a "." as your response is quite blatant.

If somehow miraculously he's made a valid statement, and you want to expand upon it, be my guest. But quoting him, simply so that it shows up, is childish.

[flashstang04]

This is true. However, quoting him with a "." as your response is quite blatant.

If somehow miraculously he's made a valid statement, and you want to expand upon it, be my guest. But quoting him, simply so that it shows up, is childish.


Perhaps I was suggesting alternate punctuation. Don't assume too much.

[DarkWolf]

Perhaps I was suggesting alternate punctuation. Don't assume too much.

No assumption needed when it's blatantly obvious. Wit is not you're forte.

[Casper]

This lead me into another review of the cambrian explosion and I'll be damned I had an epiphone. It makes so much sense now. You take infinitesimal odds and add a constant and BAM! those odds shrink down several orders of magnitude.

Mutation alone just makes a mess. Constraints alone do nothing by themselves.

Together they comprise a very powerful means of selection.

[Mr Majestyk]

This is true. However, quoting him with a "." as your response is quite blatant.

If somehow miraculously he's made a valid statement, and you want to expand upon it, be my guest. But quoting him, simply so that it shows up, is childish.

I can forget about a thread like this for several days, and then come back to it and one thing never changes...poor little DarkHorse remains the quintessential whining-ass bitch.

[flashstang04]

No assumption needed when it's blatantly obvious. Wit is not you're forte.


:rolleyes:
"blatantly obvious" is an opinion and therefore a qualitative statement based on environment and upbringing/experience. Therefore, what you think is obvious it is not applicable, and really doesn't matter. Good attempt however.