Evidence for a young Earth

[USIncognito]

I got'ta run (I'm in Oregon right now). I'll try to respond to the other 'silly' posts in this thread
later this evening (from Twin Falls, Idaho).

Trying to keep a step ahead of the process servers?

[Tiggy]

Do you know how silly that sounds?

We cannot date these samples because we know how old they are.

Sigh.

Magellan

1) The samples have already been reliably dated.

2) C14 testing is destructive of the sample. Why should science destroy an incredibly rare and invaluable sample to satisfy the demands of a few scientifically ignorant Creationist clowns?

- T

[lilpixieofterror]

Do you know how silly that sounds?

We cannot date these samples because we know how old they are.

Sigh.

Magellan

Problem is mags, if dinosaurs, mammoths, saber tooth cats, etc were all killed during the flood, we would expect to find them jumbled together, in the same layers. Yet, we do not see this at all. We see dinosaurs in layers that keep testing to millions of years old and not one that shows otherwise. Dinosaurs continue to show abundance in the fossil record from the beginning of the Triassic at about 250 million years ago to the end of the Cretaceous at 65 million years ago. In addition to this, we find less advance dinosaurs in older layers and more advanced ones in newer layers. If the flood event killed them all, again we should expect to find them all sitting at about the same point, yet do we see this? Nope. That is some pretty strong evidence against the idea that dinosaurs and other animals were killed by a massive flood.

[oxmixmudd]

1) The samples have already been reliably dated.

2) C14 testing is destructive of the sample. Why should science destroy an incredibly rare and invaluable sample to satisfy the demands of a few scientifically ignorant Creationist clowns?

- T

Not to mention the fact that unless you go to great lengths to isolate the sample from the surrounding environment, it will pick up some small part of c14 just from having been exposed to that environment. This is another reason why c14 dating of samples that are much older than 50,000 years is problematic. C14 is generated naturally and present everywhere. Contamination with small amounts that would trigger a 'date' in the 50-80,000 range that is theoretically detectable are hard to avoid when one must manipulate the materials in the fossil to the extent one must manipulate them to extract the soft tissue.


Jim

[JonF]

Good point, Jim. The samples we have are already irretrievably contaminated. Perhaps an expedition could be mounted to collect samples that could possibly be carbon dated, using extreme care and techniques to prevent contamination, and then the samples could be subjected to 14C dating.

Of course, the sponsor of such an expedition would have to convince somebody with money that it's worthwhile to carry out such an exercise when we already have so much evidence that it would be a fool's errand. It wouldn't be cheap.

How 'bout it, Jorge? Maybe the ICR? Templeton Institute? AIG? If you want carbon dating, it's up to you to drive the bus.

[Omega Red]

Not to mention the fact that unless you go to great lengths to isolate the sample from the surrounding environment, it will pick up some small part of c14 just from having been exposed to that environment. This is another reason why c14 dating of samples that are much older than 50,000 years is problematic. C14 is generated naturally and present everywhere. Contamination with small amounts that would trigger a 'date' in the 50-80,000 range that is theoretically detectable are hard to avoid when one must manipulate the materials in the fossil to the extent one must manipulate them to extract the soft tissue.


Jim

Jorge knows this. He has been told this. And his reasons for rejecting this possibility are either:

1. There is a scientific flaw with this reason and will now discuss the evidence...

2. We must accept that certain YEC scientists were very, very, very careful in isolating samples so as to avoid contamination and we must believe them.

or

3. It is Biblically wrong to have life older than 6-12,000 years and therefore one must reject any and all defence of radiometric dating for longer time periods.

No doubt there will be a blustering claim to 1 whilst exercising 2 and 3 (not forgetting the insults and smilies), then he'll leave a little AiG deposit on the carpet as though that deals with the issue, before disappearing. Standard MO for Jorge, but maybe, just maybe we'll get option 1.

[rogue06]

How 'bout it, Jorge? Maybe the ICR? Templeton Institute? AIG? If you want carbon dating, it's up to you to drive the bus.

I for one would never equate the Templeton Inst. with AiG or ICR

[phank]

I for one would never equate the Templeton Inst. with AiG or ICR

Although the head of the Templeton Institute (along with his wife) just contributed over $400,000 to anti-gay organizations. So pick your poison.

[Jorge]

Jorge--
I totally agree with you, instead of acknowledging issues with various theories, there seems to be no open-ness to re-evaluating the actual facts and evidence. People are all too eager to bend facts and tweak theories to fit thier pre-concieved notions..

*******************************************************

Correct! The funny thing is that they often post a caricature of "science" following the "facts"
to arrive at an "objective conclusion" while we "dumb, blind Creationists" start with the conclusion
and then "twist" the facts to make them fit. That is the MOTHER of all "pot-kettle-black" stories.

These people are too ignorant, blind and brainwashed to realize that they are as UNscientific as a
person can possibly be while deluding themselves to believe that they are the epitome of "objectivity".

Bwahahahahaha ........ they crack me up every time ...
I place the time I spend with such people in the "Entertainment" category.
The tragic part is that this is such an important topic with serious consequences.

Jorge

[Jorge]

By golly, do I detect a sock puppet? A total of ONE post? Which agrees with Jorge despite all the evidence?

But at least now I understand Jorge's argument, which goes as follows:
1) Atoms, molecules, structures, or whatever these are must be new. Jorge said so.
2) Dating methods ALL put these samples at 80-150 million years old. All these methods are wrong.
3) Not ONE researcher in any of these links has any doubt about these ages.They must all be stupid or ideologists.
4) The ignoramus who collected and presented these without understanding a single one needa no knowledge or honesty, he has TRUTH instead,.
5) Therefore, everyone who knows anything is wrong.

Oh, and I love this part:

Yes, Jorge, this is why dating methods TOTALLY inappropriate for a sample, should not be applied to such samples. What you get is meaningless, nonsensical readings. Get it? Uh, on second thought, nevermind.

*******************************************************************

I'm skipping the first part of your post (it's just the rantings of a raving lunatic).
Come to think of it, the same applies to the second part of your post.
But here is something anyway ...............................................

NO C14 should be measurable IF (IF!!!) these tissue samples are 65-150 million years old.
But they DO get measurable C14 amounts - get it?
Try thinking on that for at least a few months before you spout your ignorance.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

NO C14 should be measurable IF (IF!!!) these tissue samples are 65-150 million years old.
But they DO get measurable C14 amounts - get it?
Try thinking on that for at least a few months before you spout your ignorance.

Jorge

No they don't Jorge. Only in certain rare instances with demonstrable external contamination do we get any readings above the background noise floor.

Now before you cowardly flap away again , please explain why, if the post-FLUD world is less than 5K years old, why we don't get above noise floor readings on EVERY biological sample that is tested.

- T　

[lilpixieofterror]

No they don't Jorge. Only in certain rare instances with demonstrable external contamination do we get any readings above the background noise floor.

Now before you cowardly flap away again , please explain why, if the post-FLUD world is less than 5K years old, why we don't get above noise floor readings on EVERY biological sample that is tested.

- T　

I personally would like him to explain why we don't find bones of dinosaurs mixed in with the bones of Mammoths, apes, humans etc, but find them all in separate layers that correspond to them not being killed in some massive flood. Jorge wants us to ignore evidence again...

[lilpixieofterror]

*******************************************************************

I'm skipping the first part of your post (it's just the rantings of a raving lunatic).
Come to think of it, the same applies to the second part of your post.
But here is something anyway ...............................................

NO C14 should be measurable IF (IF!!!) these tissue samples are 65-150 million years old.
But they DO get measurable C14 amounts - get it?
Try thinking on that for at least a few months before you spout your ignorance.

Jorge

Why? Cause you said so even then, this still doesn't explain why we do not find the bones of dinosaurs mixed in with the bones of apes, humans, elephants, etc if they were all killed in the same event. It is interesting that the flood laid them all down in layers that just happened to correspond with evidence that these creatures never lived together, eh?

[Wally]

I personally would like him to explain why we don't find bones of dinosaurs mixed in with the bones of Mammoths, apes, humans etc, but find them all in separate layers that correspond to them not being killed in some massive flood. Jorge wants us to ignore evidence again...

Intelligent sorting.

[Cerebrum123]

I personally would like him to explain why we don't find bones of dinosaurs mixed in with the bones of Mammoths, apes, humans etc, but find them all in separate layers that correspond to them not being killed in some massive flood. Jorge wants us to ignore evidence again...

First I would like YOU to explain why we don't find fossils of Coelecanths mixed in with human fossils, even though we KNOW that they DO live at the same time. After all they were supposed to have gone extinct millions of years ago, but here they are, and not a single noticeable difference between the modern and fossil versions. Also the pattern in which fossils are laid down CAN be explained by a global flood. You base it on habitat, movement speed, intelligence level etc. Even under the BEST preservative conditions there is no way for the dino tissue to last millions of years, actually even for me it's a stretch to believe thousands of years. More recently they found a salamander with muscle tissue still attached, there isn't a way for these tissues to last the presumed ages. All of the evolutionist explanations for these finds reek of circular reasoning, and a "science of the gaps" (kind of the opposite of the "God of the gaps" argument) type thinking. Also the fossil record is CONSTANTLY having organism found in places where they "shouldn't be". Often extending the range of a creatures existence by several million years. This often leaves far less time for said creature to "evolve". If anything it appears that YOU are wanting to explain away the evidence.