Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

    .
    .
    ... or is it?

    Nah, of course not! When any such evidence is found the Evo-Faithful merely re-interpret it to support their faith-based conclusions. That way, "Heads, Evos win; tails, biblical Creationists lose."

    In the latest round, here's their re-interpretation:

    "Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years..." [emphasis mine]

    Source: Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil
    https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/


    You see boys and girls, before these things were discovered any scientist even suggesting that blood vessels and soft tissue could last for tens of millions of years would have been laughed out of his/her position, probably had their tenure and/or their degree revoked and probably have been tar-and-feathered in public for even suggesting such outright imbecility that opposes not just common sense but basic physics and chemistry.

    But, (drum roll please) ... after the evidence is found, and given that Evolution MUST be upheld at ALL costs, they simply move the goalposts back into the next county and continue with their mantra as if nothing had happened.

    HEAVEN FORBID that any of them should entertain - let alone suggest - the notion that, "Hey, perhaps these finding are NOT tens of millions of years old ... maybe there's truth to the biblical time frame."

    Never happen! Paychecks, job security and professional recognition are far too important to step out on a limb like that. They'll propose anything, even advanced alien civilizations or blood vessels lasting for 80 million years, before accepting the biblical time history.

    Oh well ... dumbos will be dumbos will be dumbos!

    Jorge

  • #2
    Bless your heart.
    "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

    Navin R. Johnson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Wally View Post
      Bless your heart.
      He will need it!

      Comment


      • #4

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          First off, I'm a theistic evolutionist, I believe that's where the evidence leads. Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.

          However, I think Jorge makes an important point. It almost seems as though evolution can't be wrong, at least in the eyes of some people.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            First off, I'm a theistic evolutionist, I believe that's where the evidence leads. Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.

            However, I think Jorge makes an important point. It almost seems as though evolution can't be wrong, at least in the eyes of some people.
            The problem for Jorge is, evolution could be completely wrong, and it would have no affect on the evidence for the age of the earth.
            "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

            Navin R. Johnson

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by psstein View Post
              First off, I'm a theistic evolutionist, I believe that's where the evidence leads. Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.

              However, I think Jorge makes an important point. It almost seems as though evolution can't be wrong, at least in the eyes of some people.
              Careful with 'seems,' among layman many things can 'seem' to be, but among scientists, evolution and other related disciplines of the geology of the earth can be wrong at times as our evolution of knowledge changes over time just like other sciences, but the foundation knowledge of Geology and the Life Sciences has accumulated to the point that the basic concepts of evolution and the history of our earth and universe will not change much if any at all. The earth will remain ~4.8 billion years old, and life evolved from primitive non-life forms beginning ~4 billion years ago.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yet *more* repetitive drive-by poop-flinging from Jorge.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  .
                  .
                  ... or is it?

                  Nah, of course not! When any such evidence is found the Evo-Faithful merely re-interpret it to support their faith-based conclusions. That way, "Heads, Evos win; tails, biblical Creationists lose."

                  In the latest round, here's their re-interpretation:

                  "Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years..." [emphasis mine]

                  Source: Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil
                  https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/

                  ...

                  Jorge
                  This research is connected to Mary Schweitzer, who is a co-author of the paper that Jorge links to. I highly recommend the interview with her published by BioLogos a few months ago. Here are a few excerpts:

                  Source: Mary Schweitzer in BioLogos

                  young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  (emphasis mine, for Jorge's benefit)

                  The upshot of this research is simple and straightforward. Paleontologists were wrong in assuming that these structures could not survive for millions of years. The evidence says that they can survive for this long. This new realization violates no known laws of science.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by psstein View Post
                    Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.
                    That is only a problem for YECs who also believe in YUC, Young Universe Creation. Most who hold this view believe that the statement that God placed lights in the sky on the fourth day means that he created the bodies that produced the lights on that day. That isn't necessarily the case. The fact that there were three days each consisting of a day and a night before this shows that the sun already existed; apparently the atmosphere of the earth was so cloudy that although the light from the sun reached the earth the sun itself couldn't be seen. On the fourth day God removed the clouds so that the sun, moon, and stars were visible from the earth.

                    Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                    Paleontologists were wrong in assuming that these structures could not survive for millions of years. The evidence says that they can survive for this long. This new realization violates no known laws of science.
                    Or they were right but the fossils simply aren't as old as they say they are.
                    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
                    Leonard Ravenhill

                    https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      This research is connected to Mary Schweitzer, who is a co-author of the paper that Jorge links to. I highly recommend the interview with her published by BioLogos a few months ago. Here are a few excerpts:

                      Source: Mary Schweitzer in BioLogos

                      young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data.

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      (emphasis mine, for Jorge's benefit)

                      The upshot of this research is simple and straightforward. Paleontologists were wrong in assuming that these structures could not survive for millions of years. The evidence says that they can survive for this long. This new realization violates no known laws of science.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Not just this dated 80 million year old find . But the vast majority of such geological finds the specific methodology used to give the cited age is not given.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          Not just this dated 80 million year old find . But the vast majority of such geological finds the specific methodology used to give the cited age is not given.
                          Not true. If you read the layman's literature the methodology may not be provided in detail, but I you read the actual technical research articles the dating methodology is provided in detail.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Not just this dated 80 million year old find . But the vast majority of such geological finds the specific methodology used to give the cited age is not given.
                            That's not true. You just have to know how to follow the data in the paper. This specimen was found embedded in the lower Judith River Formation near Malta, Montana. Radiometic dating places the Judith River deposition occurring over a 5MY span around 79 MYA.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              That's not true. You just have to know how to follow the data in the paper. This specimen was found embedded in the lower Judith River Formation near Malta, Montana. Radiometic dating places the Judith River deposition occurring over a 5MY span around 79 MYA.
                              Every paper published in a science journal, that I can recall reading, describing a fossil lists how the age range for the discovery was determined.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
                              59 responses
                              192 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
                              41 responses
                              167 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X