Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Harsh86_Patel

Did man and dinosaur co-exist?

478 posts in this topic

Soft tissue found on dinosaur bones ..................any opinions?

Rare to find because soft tissue usually decays before fossilisation can take place - but under exceptional circumstances, even soft tissue can - and does - fossilise. Hence why we have found fossilised soft tissue. Simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rare to find because soft tissue usually decays before fossilisation can take place - but under exceptional circumstances, even soft tissue can - and does - fossilise. Hence why we have found fossilised soft tissue. Simple really.

Scientist Mary Schweitzer and her team had placed a fossilized T. rex bone fragment in an acidic demineralizing bath to study its components and let the process take its full course. If the fossil had been nothing but rock, the bath would have dissolved absolutely everything. Instead, the process left behind soft tissue. When analyzed, the tissue appeared to be the blood vessels, bone matrix and osteocytes (the cells that build bone) of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. For a full account of the study and the controversy that followed, read How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils?

The soft tissue hadn't fossilised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rare to find because soft tissue usually decays before fossilisation can take place - but under exceptional circumstances, even soft tissue can - and does - fossilise. Hence why we have found fossilised soft tissue. Simple really.

Ain't seen ye 'round these parts lately, have we?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have established that the soft tissue found on the fossilsed Dino bone had not itself fossilised. Any opinions on the occurrence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have established that the soft tissue found on the fossilsed Dino bone had not itself fossilised. Any opinions on the occurrence?

I don't think the occurrence is yet well understood, from what I've read.

But I doubt I'm the only one who can see where you're trying to take this. No, this animal did not die anytime recently. The bone itself was fossilized—replaced by mineral deposition—which takes a great deal of time to do. This will not help the creationist agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have established that the soft tissue found on the fossilsed Dino bone had not itself fossilised. Any opinions on the occurrence?

In a round-about manner only, we have soft tissue inside a fossilized T-rex bone. Soft Tissue which only apparently becomes apparent, when an acidic demineralizing bath is utilized to dissolve the rock. We don't know what their state was prior to the bath and we don't know what chemical reaction exactly happened. Things are clearly more complicated than one would think.

And I concur with Kmt, this is not proof that this is an animal that died "recently", so to speak, because from the same article :

But to another group, Schweitzer's findings make perfect sense. In the view of young-Earth creationists, soft tissue is proof that fossils aren't as old as scientists report. After all, according to scientific estimates, T. rex fossils are 65 million years old. Soft tissue and amino acids should last only a fraction of that time. Someone who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old may see Schweitzer's find as compelling evidence for a young Earth rather than a cause to re-examine the nature of fossilization. However, analysis using radiometric dating -- the method scientists use to determine the age of fossils -- conflicts with the idea of a 10,000-year-old Earth.

However, lets consider the find itself, this is an amazing occurrence of something never seen before. And lo and behold, nobody is trying to hide it, there is no science conspiracy or otherwise. Better even, scientists are trying to recreate this with other fossilized bones too, when you read the excerpt of the NOVA program with Schweitzer herself, she says so.

Edited by TheSearcher
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the occurrence is yet well understood, from what I've read.

But I doubt I'm the only one who can see where you're trying to take this. No, this animal did not die anytime recently. The bone itself was fossilized—replaced by mineral deposition—which takes a great deal of time to do. This will not help the creationist agenda.

Omg Bigotry?.

Bones can fossilise at a very fast pace Fossilisation can happen within short periods of time depending on conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, lets consider the find itself, this is an amazing occurrence of something never seen before. And lo and behold, nobody is trying to hide it, there is no science conspiracy or otherwise. Better even, scientists are trying to recreate this with other fossilized bones too, when you read the excerpt of the NOVA program with Schweitzer herself, she says so.

Excellent point. :tu:

We should point these sorts of things out more often for the eduification of the "Scientists are in on a vast conspiracy to hide the truth from us" crowd.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg Bigotry?.

To have a view point that differs from yours is not bigoted.

Arguably to make personal attacks on those that have a different view to you IS.

Please debate on a civil, grown up way and cut out the name calling. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg Bigotry?.

Bones can fossilise at a very fast pace Fossilisation can happen within short periods of time depending on conditions.

Please explain how fast fossilization can happen, because in my book it does not happen within 10.000 years, not to the level that the T-rex bones we discuss were fossilized. Also, please source the answer. You'll understand that I'll not take your word alone for it, sorry.

Excellent point. :tu:

We should point these sorts of things out more often for the eduification of the "Scientists are in on a vast conspiracy to hide the truth from us" crowd.

Harte

I try, I try, but it's not always evident to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg Bigotry?.

...

Well, Harsh, it seems you've learned a new word as of late: bigotry.

That's fine. But please, learn what it means before you go tossing it all over the forum like a spilled bag of potato chips.

And while you're at it, properly learn about how fossilization occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To have a view point that differs from yours is not bigoted.

Arguably to make personal attacks on those that have a different view to you IS.

Please debate on a civil, grown up way and cut out the name calling. Thank you.

And thank you. I can't tell you how many exploratory conversations have been completely shut down by someone saying "bigot"!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To have a view point that differs from yours is not bigoted.

Arguably to make personal attacks on those that have a different view to you IS.

Please debate on a civil, grown up way and cut out the name calling. Thank you.

Why does giving credible and empirical evidence that Dinosaur and man could have coexisted considered as a 'creationist agenda'? Isn't labelling any debate in this direction as a creationist agenda,a form of bigotry?

I can tolerate all opinions from any person and i sincerely acknowledge the right of every individual to have his/her own opinion whether it concurs with my own or not,since i am tolerant i expect the same from others and don't like to be called names for the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Harsh, it seems you've learned a new word as of late: bigotry.

That's fine. But please, learn what it means before you go tossing it all over the forum like a spilled bag of potato chips.

And while you're at it, properly learn about how fossilization occurs.

Throwing a word around is a crime that you are also guilty of,ever since my debate with Spartan you started accusing me with bigotry i am just following suite.

I have learned how fossilisation occurs why don't you check out the minimum time needed for fossilisation for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we all stop the discussion about bigotry and we go back to topic. Maybe answer the questions you are asked.

Please explain how fast fossilization can happen, because in my book it does not happen within 10.000 years, not to the level that the T-rex bones we discuss were fossilized. Also, please source the answer. You'll understand that I'll not take your word alone for it, sorry.

I try, I try, but it's not always evident to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we all stop the discussion about bigotry and we go back to topic. Maybe answer the questions you are asked.

I will answer your question in a manner which is more relevant to the topic.

Ref extracts:

"This find calls into question not only the nature of the fossilization process, but also the age of these fossils. How such soft tissue preservation and detail could be realized after 68 million years is more than miraculous - - It is unbelievable! Schweitzer herself comments that, "We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think . . .” 31 Now, if that is not an understatement I'm not sure what is."

"Many different kinds of intact proteins are being found in "ancient" fossils that are not completely fossilized. Some scientists seem to have found intact hemoglobin molecules in the bones of 65 million-year-old T. rex fossils! How fairly large portions of such a seemingly delicate molecule could survive intact over many millions of years is quite a mystery.

"The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, 'You've got red blood cells. You've got red blood cells!'. It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" 13,14

This account was given by Mary Schweitzer, a PhD student at the time, from Montana State University. A well preservedTyrannosaurus rex skeleton had been found in 1990 and brought for analysis too Montana State University. During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains, it was noted that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone. Upon closer examination it was noted that within the vascular system of this bone were what appeared to be red blood cells (note retained nucleus in the center of the apparent RBCs and the fact that reptiles and bird generally retain the RBC nucleus while mammals, like humans, do not). Of course, this did not seem possible since the survival of intact red blood cells for some 65-million years seems very unlikely if not downright impossible. "

http://naturalselect...silizeddna.html

Now the entire reason i put up this topic for debate and views is demonstrated by the assertions above. After this find either we need to reassess the fossilization process and the time periods involved or to acknowledge that Man and Dinosaur may have co-existed. The possibility of soft tissue and a large chain protein molecule surviving intact with a partially fossilised dino bone for a period of 65 million years is next to impossible.

P.S.--- i do not have a creationist agenda because i am not one.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point Schweitzer is making is that apparently we do not know everything about the fossilization process.

But this has no consequence for the dating of the fossils because that is done by dating the layers they are found in.

And that is NOT by radiocarbon dating, btw.

+++

EDIT:

Another thing is 'subfossils', bones that have not completely fossilized, either because they are not old enough, or because the conditions were not right for complete fossilization.

If no air or microbes were able to enter the insides of the bones, then maybe it's possible some of the soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point Schweitzer is making is that apparently we do not know everything about the fossilization process.

But this has no consequence for the dating of the fossils because that is done by dating the layers they are found in.

And that is NOT by radiocarbon dating, btw.

+++

EDIT:

Another thing is 'subfossils', bones that have not completely fossilized, either because they are not old enough, or because the conditions were not right for complete fossilization.

If no air or microbes were able to enter the insides of the bones, then maybe it's possible some of the soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years.

.

What i gather is that you are talking about Index fossils used in dating the age of other fossils. But the index fossil method seems like circular reasoning.

Secondly if you talk about reanalysis of our understanding of the process of fossilization with respect to the time periods involved which again tenamounts to putting a date on the fossil. The probability of finding intact soft tissues with long chain proteins intact after millions of years in a partially fossilised bone is next to impossible,the scientific community never had a inkling of doubt that soft tissue can survive for so long and hence they never even dared to check for it until Schweitzer broke the circle.

Also if you are willing to take that small chance that the soft tissue was preserved under one off circumstances for 65 million years then i don't think you will also deny the possibility that probably a few T-rexs were alive till very recently maybe under the tag of Dragons etc.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am talking about other ways of dating, not by means of index fossils.

Geologists can also give precise absolute dates to geologic events. These dates are useful on their own, and can also be used in conjunction with relative dating methods or to calibrate relative dating methods.[22]

A large advance in geology in the advent of the 20th century was the ability to give precise absolute dates to geologic events through radioactive isotopes and other methods. The advent of radiometric dating changed the understanding of geologic time. Before, geologists could only use fossils to date sections of rock relative to one another. With isotopic dates, absolute dating became possible, and these absolute dates could be applied fossil sequences in which there was datable material, converting the old relative ages into new absolute ages.

For many geologic applications, isotope ratios are measured in minerals that give the amount of time that has passed since a rock passed through its particular closure temperature, the point at which different radiometric isotopes stop diffusing into and out of the crystal lattice.[23][24] These are used in geochronologic and thermochronologic studies. Common methods include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating and argon-argon dating, and uranium-thorium dating. These methods are used for a variety of applications. Dating of lavas and ash layers can help to date stratigraphy and calibrate relative dating techniques. These methods can also be used to determine ages of pluton emplacement. Thermochemical techniques can be used to determine temperature profiles within the crust, the uplift of mountain ranges, and paleotopography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology#Absolute_dating

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason these soft tissues were never found is because no one thought of dissolving these fossils in acid.

It takes a tremendous amount of work to extract these fossils from the rock they are embedded in, so no one is willing to completely destroy these bones by dissolving them in acid.

But now Schweitzer did it anyway do we know that some soft tissue can be preserved and by that learn something new about the fossilization process.

Soft tissue or not, these fossils are still found in rock layers of which the age is determined by means of the methods I mentioned in my former post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am talking about other ways of dating, not by means of index fossils.

Geologists can also give precise absolute dates to geologic events. These dates are useful on their own, and can also be used in conjunction with relative dating methods or to calibrate relative dating methods.[22]

A large advance in geology in the advent of the 20th century was the ability to give precise absolute dates to geologic events through radioactive isotopes and other methods. The advent of radiometric dating changed the understanding of geologic time. Before, geologists could only use fossils to date sections of rock relative to one another. With isotopic dates, absolute dating became possible, and these absolute dates could be applied fossil sequences in which there was datable material, converting the old relative ages into new absolute ages.

For many geologic applications, isotope ratios are measured in minerals that give the amount of time that has passed since a rock passed through its particular closure temperature, the point at which different radiometric isotopes stop diffusing into and out of the crystal lattice.[23][24] These are used in geochronologic and thermochronologic studies. Common methods include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating and argon-argon dating, and uranium-thorium dating. These methods are used for a variety of applications. Dating of lavas and ash layers can help to date stratigraphy and calibrate relative dating techniques. These methods can also be used to determine ages of pluton emplacement. Thermochemical techniques can be used to determine temperature profiles within the crust, the uplift of mountain ranges, and paleotopography.

http://en.wikipedia....Absolute_dating

There are no absolute dating methods even the radioisotope methods as all dating curves are caliberated by assuming ages of samples also by assuming the radio active decay rate to be constant in all conditions.

Thought the methods you mention are scientific the interpretations of the results are based on certain fundamental assumptions which may be wrong.

Thermochemical techniques cannot be used for dating.

The sample used for uranium-lead dating etc from the geological layers may not be a accurate representative of the actual age of that layer.

Here are a few supporting observations for what i have said above,some of them are a little technical but can be followed with some effort.(Please don't criticise the source without reading the information provided)

Extract:

Let me suggest how these processes could influence uranium-lead and thorium-lead dates:

The following is a quote from The Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology by Tarbuck & Lutgens, pp. 55-57, (1987).

"For example, at the stage when about 50 percent of the magma has solidified, the melt will be greatly depleted in iron, magnesium, and calcium, because these elements are found in the earliest formed minerals. But at the same time, it will be enriched in the elements contained in the later forming minerals, namely sodium and potassium."

A geologist writes:

"Uranium and thorium ARE strongly fractionated during magmatic processes and tend to be concentrated in the silicic/felsic part of a magma hence granites and rhyolites tend to have a much higher average uranium and thorium concentration (3-5 ppm U) compared to basalts (less than 1 ppm U)."

From the above quotes and references, uranium is concentrated in granite, which is depleted in magnesium and iron. The magnesium and iron rich minerals come from the mantle (subducted oceanic plates), while granite comes from continental sediments (crustal rock). The mantle part solidifies first, and is rich in magnesium, iron, and calcium. The silicic/felsic part of a magma typically becomes granite and solidifies later, enriched in uranium, thorium, sodium, and potassium. So it is reasonable to expect that initially, the magma is rich in iron, magnesium, and calcium and poor in uranium, thorium, sodium, and potassium. Later on the magma is poor in iron, magnesium, and calcium and rich in uranium, thorium, sodium, and potassium. It doesn't say which class lead is in. But lead is a metal, and to me it looks more likely that lead would concentrate along with the iron. If this is so, the magma would initially be poor in thorium and uranium and rich in lead, and as it cooled it would become rich in thorium and uranium and poor in lead. Thus its radiometric age would tend to decrease rapidly with time, and lava emitted later would tend to look younger.

Another point is that of time. Suppose that the uranium does come to the top by whatever reason. Perhaps magma that is uranium rich tends to be lighter than other magma. Or maybe the uranium poor rocks crystallize out first and the remaining magma is enriched in uranium. Would this cause trouble for our explanation? Not necessarily. It depends how fast it happened. If it happened slowly with respect to the flood or whatever, then the uranium concentration could be rising with time, and this would tend to make the newer magma look younger since its U/Pb ratio would be higher.

Some information from the book Uranium Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Geology provided by Jon Covey gives us evidence that fractionation processes are making radiometric dates much, much too old. Geology contributing author Massimo Cortini cites a very interesting anomaly regarding the U 238 decay chain, which is U-238, U-234, Th-230, Ra-226, Rn-222, Po-218 Po-214, Po-210, Pb-210, Bi-210, Pb-206. The half life of U-238 is 4.47 x 10^9 years and that of Ra-226 is 1.6 x 10^3 years. Thus radium is decaying 3 million times as fast as U-238. At equilibrium, which should be attained in 500,000 years for this decay series, we should expect to have 3 million times as much U-238 as radium to equalize the amount of daughter produced. Cortini says geologists discovered that ten times more Ra-226 than the equilibrium value was present in rocks from Vesuvius. They found similar excess radium at Mount St. Helens, Vulcanello, and Lipari and other volcanic sites. The only place where radioactive equilibrium of the U-238 series exists in zero age lavas is in Hawiian rocks. Thus instead of having 1/(3 million) as much radium as uranium, which we should expect, there is ten times as much, or 1/(300,000) times as much radium as uranium.

We need to consider the implications of this for radiometric dating. How is this excess of radium being produced? This radium cannot be the result of decay of uranium, since there is far too much of it. Either it is the result of an unknown decay process, or it is the result of fractionation which is greatly increasing the concentration of radium or greatly decreasing the concentration of uranium. Thus only a small fraction of the radium present in the lava (at most 10 percent) is the result of decay of the uranium in the lava.

This is interesting because both radium and lead are daughter products of uranium. If similar fractionation processes are operating for lead, this would mean that only a small fraction of the lead is the result of decay from the parent uranium, implying that the U-Pb radiometric dates are much, much too old. Cortini, in an article appearing in the Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research also suggests this possibility. He says:

"The invalidity of the Th-230 dating method is a consequence of the open-system behaviour of U and Th. By analogy with the behaviour of Ra, Th and U it can be suggested that Pb, owing to its large mobility, was also fed to the magma by fluids. This can and must be tested. The open-system behaviour of Pb, if true, would have dramatic consequences...." J Vol Geotherm Res 14 (1982) 247-260.

On the other hand, even if such a process is not operating for lead, the extra radium will decay rapidly to lead, and so in either case we have much too much lead in the lava and radiometric dates that are much, much too ancient! So this is a clue that something is not right with U-238/Pb-206 radiometric dates. It is also a convincing proof that some kind of drastic fractionation is taking place, or else an unknown process is responsible. Since most lavas have excess radium today, it is reasonable to assume this has always been true, and that all U-238/Pb-206 radiometric dates are much, much too old. Cortini says high Ra-226/U-238 ratios are a common feature of primitive magmas, which magma-generating processes produce. He says this is inexplicable in a closed-system framework and certainly invalidates the Th-230 dating method. And it is also possible that something similar is happening in the U-235 decay chain, invalidating U-235 based radiometric dates as well.

In fact, U-235 and Th-232 both have isotopes of radium in their decay chains with half lives of a week or two, and 6.7 years, respectively. Any process that is concentrating one isotope of radium will probably concentrate the others as well and invalidate these dating methods, too. Radium 226 has a low melting point (973 degrees K) which may account for its concentration at the top of magma chambers.

What radiometric dating needs to do to show its reliability is to demonstrate that no such fractionation could take place. Can this be done? With so many unknowns I

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Extract:

So how can the youngest basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon, whose eruption was possibly witnessed only thousands of years ago, yield the same radioactive rubidium-strontium age of 1.1 billion years as some of the oldest basalt lava flows at the bottom of the Canyon? Answer: The molten rock that produced the young basalt lava flows came from deep inside the earth, from what geologists call the earth’s mantle; so these lavas have inherited this rubidium-strontium composition from their mantle source. That is, their rubidium-strontium composition has nothing to do with their age, but everything to do with their source!

However, the molten rock that produced the “ancient” Cardenas Basalt lavas also came from the same region of the earth’s mantle beneath the Grand Canyon. Therefore, it could be equally argued that the same rubidium-strontium composition of the Cardenas Basalt lavas was also inherited from the same mantle source and thus has nothing to do with their age! Of course, some radioactive decay could have occurred in the mantle source region of both these basalt lavas, but again, such radioactive decay there in the mantle would not provide the basis for calculating any date for when these basalt lavas flowed out onto the earth’s surface.

So whichever way we look at it, these radioactive dating methods which are based on the biased assumptions of secular geologists completely fail to “date” these basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon. How can we be sure radioactive decay has always occurred at the rates we measure today? And how can we know how much radioactive decay occurred in their mantle source before these lavas erupted? If the youngest lavas inherited all of their supposed radioactive decay age, then so could the “ancient” lavas. After all, we know the true age of the young lavas because their eruption was possibly witnessed within human history. Where there is an independent cross-check, these radioactive dating methods fail completely. So because of these fallacies, why should they be trusted to give ages for any rock?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

Extract:

This crustal migration of 40Ar* is known to cause grave problems in regional geochronology studies. For example, in the Middle Proterozoic Musgrave Block (northern South Australia), a wide scatter of K-Ar mineral "ages" was found, ranging from 343Ma to 4493Ma due to inherited (excess) 40Ar*, so no meaningful interpretation could be drawn from the rocks.11 Of the diabase dikes which gave anomalous "ages," it was concluded that the basic magmas probably formed in or passed through zones containing a high partial pressure of 40Ar*, permitting inclusion of the gas in the crystallizing minerals. Likewise, when Ar "dating" was attempted on Proterozoic granulite-facies rocks in the Fraser Range (western Australia) and Strangways Range (central Australia), it was found that garnet, sapphirine, and quartz contained excess40Ar* that rendered the Ar dating useless because of "ages" higher than expected.12The excess 40Ar* was probably incorporated at the time of the formation of the minerals, and calculations suggested a partial pressure of ~0.1 atm Ar in the Proterozoic lower crust of Australia, which extends over half the continent.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason these soft tissues were never found is because no one thought of dissolving these fossils in acid.

It takes a tremendous amount of work to extract these fossils from the rock they are embedded in, so no one is willing to completely destroy these bones by dissolving them in acid.

But now Schweitzer did it anyway do we know that some soft tissue can be preserved and by that learn something new about the fossilization process.

Soft tissue or not, these fossils are still found in rock layers of which the age is determined by means of the methods I mentioned in my former post.

The reason these soft tissues were not found was because they never expected for soft tissues to exist for such long time periods,this belief further stemmed from the assumption that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Dissolving in acid is to figure out if there is any soft tissue,

Though this incident is a very good lesson for us to not assume that we know everything and that none of our beliefs are beyond challenge.Imagine how many more avenues of knowledge are still lost to us due to the rigidity and bigotry of the mainstream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason these soft tissues were not found was because they never expected for soft tissues to exist for such long time periods,this belief further stemmed from the assumption that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Dissolving in acid is to figure out if there is any soft tissue,

Though this incident is a very good lesson for us to not assume that we know everything and that none of our beliefs are beyond challenge.Imagine how many more avenues of knowledge are still lost to us due to the rigidity and bigotry of the mainstream.

Indeed, they never expected it, but also no one was really willing to dissolve a rare find in acid. I think it started when someone thought to see blood cells in a fossil.

"the rigidity and bigotry of the mainstream."

You use that phrase for scientists, but you can use it as well for those who use their 'fossilized' holy books as a bases for how to deal with science.

In your former post you quoted from a creationists' site (about radiometric dating methods) for the x-th time, though you say you are not a creationist. Let me tell you: these people DO have an agenda: their 'holy book' must be true. They are not out for the truth, they are out for confirmation.

And here's a link to another site about radiometric dating methods:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, they never expected it, but also no one was really willing to dissolve a rare find in acid. I think it started when someone thought to see blood cells in a fossil.

"the rigidity and bigotry of the mainstream."

You use that phrase for scientists, but you can use it as well for those who use their 'fossilized' holy books as a bases for how to deal with science.

In your former post you quoted from a creationists' site (about radiometric dating methods) for the x-th time, though you say you are not a creationist. Let me tell you: these people DO have an agenda: their 'holy book' must be true. They are not out for the truth, they are out for confirmation.

And here's a link to another site about radiometric dating methods:

http://www.gate.net/...s/AgeEarth.html

I don't care what agenda these people have. I don't believe bible is the literal word of God. I am just focussing on the information provided. Please read the arguments they provide,they are practical real life observations.

They would like to use this as negative proof for their belief, i don't....but it doesn't change the fact that the information they are providing is true and accurate.Please go through the info and point out the errors if you feel there are any.

I believe that even if they are not right about their conclusions the points they bring to the table are valid. They should stop insisting that the world is only 6000 years old and instead should just insist that dating techniques are faulty since they have put up ample proof for the later.

The mainstream is equally prejudiced as any religious fundamentalist. The mainstream is also out for confirmation and not for knowledge.There are predispositions in both camps,hence the reason no one checked for soft tissue in fossils till so long,or people heralded pilt-down man as the missing link though it was a Hoax.

Now my next question would you ignore or falsify any information provided by a catholic/creationist based only on the fact that they are catholic/creationist??

Even if you ignore the creationist sources,do you concur with the faults that i pointed out with dating techniques? or you do not see any merit in them.

I will list them down again for you:

1.Dating curves for all dating techniques are caliberated using samples whose age is assumed.

2.Radioactive decay rates are taken to be fixed under all circumstances which is not a good assumption.

3.The sample used for dating might not represent the actual age of the layer from where it is collected.(due to geological events like volcanoes earthquakes etc)

4.Series of wrong dates for samples whose age is confirmed.

5.The predominant method of discard the sample that doesn't concur with the expected age.

I will also post a link where a author frivously tries to debunk these issues.The explanations are retarded and don't make any sense. You can go through them,see if they satisfy the critical thinker in you.They don't satisfy me.The defence mainly consists of questioning the sampling procedure or answering the assertion with 'this is wrong' lol or saying that the method chosen was wrong.Mind you most of the issues are raised by mainstream scientists themselves.Though creationist use this information to further their agenda,doesn't make the information wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mainstream is out for confirmation of some theory too. yes., but when people keep finding proof against that theory, eventually that theory will be discarded, as we know from history.

That will never happen with 'theories' based on some ancient holy book.

"Now my next question would you ignore or falsify any information provided by a catholic/creationist based only on the fact that they are catholic/creationist??"

I don't know what Catholics have to do with this because I know Jesuits, for instance, support the evolution theory and the age of the earth according to science, but I do know Creationists will promote anything they find as proof of their theory, and fight what contradicts their literal interpretation of their holy book.

Did you check the link in my former post? It is refuting the claims made by creationists concerning faults in radiometric dating methods.

+++

EDIT:

Btw, I think it's best to speak about Young Earth Creationists:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis.

http://en.wikipedia....rth_creationism

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.