Evidence for a young Earth

[Jorge]

Well Jorge - there are many possibilities. Based on the weight of the evidence these fossils are very, very old.

Yeah, six- to ten thousand years is very, very old, indeed!

So, to overturn that weight of the evidence, the potential alternatives need to be eliminated. It would in fact be very hard to undermine the weight of the evidence for the age of the fossil. Sort of like what it would take to undermine the weight of the evidence the Earth orbits the Sun. So they will not start there. They will start with other more likely possibilities until basically the only thing that could possibly be left is that this is original protein from the dinosaur. And then that would need to be reconciled with the measured age of the dinosaur.

The age has already been taken as a "given". They will invoke ANY auxiliary
hypothesis in order to salvage the gigayears that are "known" to be "fact".
One of the videos in the OP shows these people staring at the evidence and
avoiding the one obvious possibility because it goes against their beliefs.
Go and take a look at it - it's the first one that says PBS ... quite revealing.

That is just how science works. Only people like you that irrationally disregard the weight of the evidence for the age of the Earth and the rocks containing the fossil are going to begin with "there is protein here so the bone must be<10,000 years old".

There's the ancient "if you only knew how science works" BS again!

If it were only one or just a few samples then maybe you could say that.
But by now they've got dozens of cases and, frankly, they don't talk
about them too much because it throws a monkey wrench into their
gigagears.

Follow the evidence, kiddo ... follow the evidence!

Jorge

[Tiggy]

Follow the evidence, kiddo ... follow the evidence!

We do. That's why we know the planet is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

It's impossible to follow evidence for a young Earth when you've refused to provide any despite more than a year of clucking and posturing.

- T

[Tiggy]

A recent ICR article is relevant here :

http://www.icr.org/article/7520/

In that article, Thomas voices what I have personally stated here on TWeb
numerous times, namely, when the evidence doesn't fit the gigayear model,
it is simply ignored or some auxiliary hypothesis is invoked to save the day
for Evolution.

In this case, the invoked hypothesis is the ol' "it was contaminated" schtick.

Thomas writes,

" But secularists who do at least look at the soft tissue fossil reports deploy another tactic. In response to the recent discovery of original protein inside tiny dinosaur bones from China, Smithsonian Institution paleontologist Hans-Deiter Sues cited contamination. Supposedly, the proteins in question recently "snuck into the fossils" from some source other than the fossilized animal.

He told Science NOW, "You can never really totally rule out contamination." "

See, YOU JUST CAN'T WIN with these people.
Contamination is an 'ace' up their sleeve - invoked whenever needed.
If the observation agrees with their beliefs then "it's valid ... it' okay".
If it disagrees then, "it's not valid ... it's contaminated."

Heads, we win; tails, you lose.
That is the "honest science" that 'these' people practice.

Be sure to study the graph and answer the question,
"What are the odds that contamination infected so many
varied fossil proteins from so many different places?"

I'm not holding my breath waiting for an answer.

It should be noted here that Thomas is deliberately misrepresenting what Hans-Deiter Sues actually said. Sues didn't reject the finds due to contamination. He simply cautioned that the finds haven't been verified and that more research is needed.

But the real surprise that the bones contained didn't reveal itself until the researchers subjected them to the powerful x-rays produced by a synchrotron in Taiwan. When they did, they noticed traces of what they suspect is organic matter inside the bones. "Organic remains [of dinosaurs] have been found before, but this is by far the oldest," Reisz says. If the bones do, in fact, contain complex proteins, he hopes to compare them with proteins in living organisms to learn more about the biology of dinosaurs. Such a possibility "really opens up a new avenue of research for paleontology," he says.

Other researchers are more cautious. "Almost every example of such organic material is hotly disputed," and this one will likely be no different, points out Hans-Dieter Sues, a vertebrate paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study. "You can never really totally rule out contamination."

original source

Gee, a YEC quote-mining and lying about what a scientist actually said. Who'da thunk?

Also, even if these turn out to be actual organic traces that doesn't in any way shape or form cast doubt on the age of the specimen. It merely means there are certain previously unknown conditions where such traces can be preserved for much longer than thought.

How thinks this helps establish that the Earth itself is young still beggars belief.

- T

[Jorge]

[QUOTE=Tiggy;3586855]

Also, even if these turn out to be actual organic traces that doesn't in any way shape or form cast doubt on the age of the specimen. It merely means there are certain previously unknown conditions where such traces can be preserved for much longer than thought.

- T

I can always count on Tiggsy-Pooh to confirm my
position. I guess the polite thing to do is say thanks!

I had written:

"See, YOU JUST CAN'T WIN with these people.
Contamination is an 'ace' up their sleeve - invoked whenever needed.
If the observation agrees with their beliefs then "it's valid ... it' okay".
If it disagrees then, "it's not valid ... it's contaminated."

Heads, we win; tails, you lose.
That is the "honest science" that 'these' people practice. "


Note what Tiggsy-Pooh has done - he has
added yet another dishonest escape hatch!!!

Yup, maybe it's not contamination. Maybe, and I quote, "It merely means
there are certain previously unknown conditions where such traces can be
preserved for much longer than thought."

Never mind the fact that 'real' scientists - scoring much higher than 92% on a
science test for young teenagers - REFUSED TO BELIEVE the results because
physics, chemistry and biology said that it was NOT POSSIBLE. So what did
they do? Well, they tossed out the previous state of knowledge in physics,
chemistry and biology and concocted Tiggsy-Pooh's statement above.

Ask yourself, how do you defeat an adversary like that -- an adversary
that will whip out of thin air WHATEVER explanation is needed so as
to retain their position?

I'll answer that. You don't defeat them - you can't defeat them.
They are invincible. Why? Because human imagination is
always capable of fabricating something even if it means tossing
aside the present state of physics, chemistry and biology.

THAT is one of the reasons why what these people practice is
anything BUT science. It is religion practiced with a fanaticism
that would make Baal worshipers envious. And specimens like
Tiggsy-Pooh are twirling the baton at the head of that parade.

EDITED TO ADD:

Dorko (a.k.a. Tiggy) asks : "How Jorge thinks this helps
establish that the Earth itself is young still beggars belief. "

The answer is quite simple (except for people that are too stupid or too dishonest).
If you know - because science has proven the fact - that something CANNOT last
for millions of years, and you find some of that something, then - by simple logic -
you can deduce that it can't be millions of years old. A trivial result, actually.


Jorge

[Wally]

I'll answer that. You don't defeat them - you can't defeat them.
They are invincible. Why?

The simple answer is, we're right and you're nuts.

[Tiggy]

Tiggy asks : "How Jorge thinks this helps
establish that the Earth itself is young still beggars belief. "

The answer is quite simple (except for people that are too stupid or too dishonest).
If you know - because science has proven the fact - that something CANNOT last
for millions of years, and you find some of that something, then - by simple logic -
you can deduce that it can't be millions of years old. A trivial result, actually.

Speaking of stupid and dishonest...

Science established the fact that the EARTH is 4.5 billion years old, NOT that trace organic materials can't last for millions of years under rare conditions.

Finding trace organics in fossils even if they were only 6K years old does not establish an age for the Earth.

Face it , you really screwed up big time on this one.

- T

[Jorge]

The simple answer is, we're right and you're nuts.

Good job!

Keep it up - you're giving Tiggy some real competition in
the contest for Most Dishonest Out-of-Context Quoting.

Nonetheless, in the title of HARDEST WORKER, you are in a class all by yourself!

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
~Benjamin Franklin

Jorge

[Jorge]

Speaking of stupid and dishonest...

Science established the fact that the EARTH is 4.5 billion years old, NOT that trace organic materials can't last for millions of years under rare conditions.

Finding trace organics in fossils even if they were only 6K years old does not establish an age for the Earth.

Face it , you really screwed up big time on this one.

- T

All I can say is, stop stuffing those spotted mushrooms into your smoking pipe!

Jorge