T-Rex only a few thousand years old? - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:02 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
T-Rex only a few thousand years old?

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/docs...ino_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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:24 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
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?
exlude is offline  
post #3 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:46 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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!

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
 
post #4 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 10:07 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Say we did find the exact date of the dinasaur(s) and when the universe was born, what will that tell you, buster?
FSON is offline  
post #5 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 11:02 AM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
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
White trash wagon is offline  
post #6 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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/conten...urcetype=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/con...538t13072m341/

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.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #7 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 11:12 AM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
What self respecting scientist would ever say something is impossible?
BP is offline  
post #8 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 11:31 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: irving
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
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/conten...urcetype=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/con...538t13072m341/

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.
svtaaron is offline  
post #9 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 12:24 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
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.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #10 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 12:39 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
I'm waiting for the dancing ladies to come on stage.
FSON is offline  
post #11 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 12:42 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
In T-Rex outfits?
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #12 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 12:56 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
I prefer Betty Rubble, yow!

FSON is offline  
post #13 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 02:36 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
[URL=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/] We propose a 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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #14 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 02:40 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #15 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 02:41 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
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?

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #16 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 03:24 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
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 is offline  
post #17 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 03:28 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
I find it humorous you believe their statements which have absolutely no facts to back them up.
Wrong.
exlude is offline  
post #18 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 04:45 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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!

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #19 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 07:28 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #20 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 07:30 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I'll agree, reason evidently ventured into the abstract world of mysticism. Thank you, Aristotle

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #21 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 06:00 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #22 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 06:02 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Then show me some facts. Haven't seen any yet. Just opinion...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #23 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 06:02 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
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?

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #24 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 08:28 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
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.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #25 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 01:54 PM
blank
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Air
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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.
5.0LiterRiceEater is offline  
post #26 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 02:00 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
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

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #27 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 03:00 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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".
exlude is offline  
post #28 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 04:10 PM
lol, this place sucks now
 
ClockwrkOrangeS4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DFWMustangs.net
Posts: 13,422
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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
ClockwrkOrangeS4 is offline  
post #29 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 07:37 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 596
"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.

[<a href="http://s582.photobucket.com/albums/ss264/spdrcrv6tt/?action=view&current=mustang011-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss264/spdrcrv6tt/mustang011-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Quick '91 GT is offline  
post #30 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 07:47 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
x 1278563487612
follower.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #31 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 10:52 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
follower.

Shill...

What have you brought intellectually to this forum at all?

Oh that's right..nothing.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #32 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 06:52 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #33 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 06:53 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #34 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 07:11 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Got a red car with the blue taillights, shiney red seats with the piping in white. Leapord skin dash and a louvered hood, she goes pop-pop-pop-pop-pop when she's running good.
Posts: 948

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLilPony
or would you rather me sit my big ass on your face?
Pennywise is offline  
post #35 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 07:13 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #36 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 08:11 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
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...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #37 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
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.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #38 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 12:38 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
Good grief, do I even go into this pile of shit?
exlude is offline  
post #39 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 12:47 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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?).
exlude is offline  
post #40 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 12:57 PM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
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

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?
Casper is offline  
post #41 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-02-2008, 03:05 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Got a red car with the blue taillights, shiney red seats with the piping in white. Leapord skin dash and a louvered hood, she goes pop-pop-pop-pop-pop when she's running good.
Posts: 948
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLilPony
or would you rather me sit my big ass on your face?
Pennywise is offline  
post #42 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 06:34 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
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/Teaching...isibleWeb.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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #43 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 06:36 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennywise
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #44 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 11:06 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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.
FSON is offline  
post #45 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 12:08 PM
yes, jluv
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 17,073
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.
jluv is offline  
post #46 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 01:22 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Not one post has proved me wrong in this thread. Please show me which post in this thread proved me wrong.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #47 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 01:57 PM
yes, jluv
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 17,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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.
jluv is offline  
post #48 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 02:25 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluv
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #49 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 02:41 PM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
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.
Casper is offline  
post #50 of 154 (permalink) Old 03-03-2008, 02:48 PM
yes, jluv
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 17,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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.
jluv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome