That does not make sense. The clock starts when the bone is completely mineralized? That seems suspicious to me in light of the fact that dinosaur remains have been found which were never fossilized. They had been frozen but not turned to stone. Soft tissues are not mineralized and soft tissues are turning up everywhere in hot dry ground today. Can soft tissues survive 65 million years? Nobody believed it possible until new finds in the last decade forced the secularists to choose between interpretations of young bones and old soft tissues.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
That does not make sense. The clock starts when the bone is completely mineralized? That seems suspicious to me in light of the fact that dinosaur remains have been found which were never fossilized. They had been frozen but not turned to stone. Soft tissues are not mineralized and soft tissues are turning up everywhere in hot dry ground today. Can soft tissues survive 65 million years? Nobody believed it possible until new finds in the last decade forced the secularists to choose between interpretations of young bones and old soft tissues.
Do you mean "good" from a secular bias or from a Christian bias?
What good are "imperfections" if men cannot know where they are? Does God give some critics of the Bible special insight with which to sort it all out according to their best opinions?
So? God obviously loves some and hates others. So what?
When men of natural intellect began to find false assertions of science more intellectually attractive than the Bible, they took no time trashing the Bible to make room for foolish oppositions of science, falsely so-called.
When men disagree about truth in science, whether Christian or not, someone is wrong. How can we explain the errors in understanding? You name it, there are likely many reasons men are deceived into accepting false science speculations and assertions.
I agree.
gcthomas
New member
Specifying the protocols used and opening then to confirmation of criticism would be important for science. Christian scientists would like to see the same surely.
But this is a digression. Can't you find a temptable paper that shows what you claimed about lava flow dating? You seem persistent in your attempts to avoid the issue - OS your claim less reliable than you'd like me to believe?
gcthomas
New member
I was very careful in language to avoid making claims that all bones are remineralised, so you post was unnecessary.
The fact is that it is possible to date fossilised bones in multiple ways, and even absolutely with long half life radio dating. Why won't RATE look at the standard methods used when deep time is suspected? The only way to review the old dates is to use methods that could return long dates but don't rather than C14 that could never give a long date even if the samples were very old.
gcthomas
New member
Piltdown man was never widely accepted and was relatively quickly challenged and rejected. I have never seen a textbook that relied on Piltdown to prove anything about evolution either.
Science at least set up to search out and correct misunderstandings and errors, with those scientists making the biggest changes getting the most feted.
Where in Christianity are those challenging unevidenced dogma welcomed and rewarded? Where is the religious self correction method?
Jose Fly
New member
No one is dismissing anyone's credentials. In fact, when it comes to the RATE group everyone seems to be pretty up-front....the creationists have no credentials.
Jose Fly
New member
I think it's important to make the status of this "debate" clear.
An ancient (at least millions of years) age for the earth has been effectively settled and accepted science for around two centuries now. The congruence of data from independent fields of science is both vast and long-standing. This means the YECs who believe in a 10,000 year old or less earth are on the outside looking in, in much the same way as stationary-earth geocentrists. Both groups are trying to argue that fundamental conclusions of science that have stood for centuries are not only wrong, but very, very, very wrong.
As it currently stands (and has stood for a very long time), no scientific organization operates under a young-earth framework, nor do private industries (e.g. fossil fuel companies, biotech firms), or any accredited universities. Essentially the only people who adhere to the young-earth idea are conservative religious groups who believe an ancient earth conflicts with their holy book(s).
Also, from what I can tell, there is no indication that any of this is poised to change anytime soon. There are no signs that YEC is gaining ground in the scientific community, private industry, or academia. There are no signs of any sort of exodus from ancient ages for the earth or the universe. As I posted earlier, there aren't even any YEC geochronologists in existence.
What does all that mean? It means if the YECs here really believe the data is on their side, then they have quite the task ahead of them. And that makes me wonder....is arguing anonymously on a religious internet board really the best way to go about it? Do the YECs really think any of their posts is going to have any impact on the state of the science?
Rosenritter
New member
Correction, Piltdown Man was taught as truth and proof for at least forty years. And also used in textbooks. Reference here.
"However, a book published and aimed at the popular market was depicting elaborate speculation about the daily life of Piltdown Man, giving him the tools that were found in the gravel bed.[6] Yet despite the early criticism, Piltdown Man continued to be taught children in school, such as in the textbook A Civic Biology, at issue in the Scopes trial of 1927. Dr. Woodward for his part believed in its authenticity so strongly that when he retired he purchased a home near the gravel pit and spent the remainder of his summers excavating.[7]"
You asked where the Christians are that are those challenging unevidenced dogma rewarded. The answer is seldom by men, and seldom in their lifetimes. They are usually mocked, scorned, persecuted, tormented, tortured, or executed (see Foxes' Book of Martyrs, for example.) The religious self-creation method is handled through by conscience and the Holy Spirit (now) or at the Judgment (later).
Revelation 22:11-12 KJV
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
gcthomas
New member
A search of the original 1914 copy of this book on Google Books does not reveal one use of the word 'Piltdown', so could you try again?
I should warn you, a while ago on this thread 6Days mentioned book after book from creationist websites (including this one) and bit one of them turned out to be a textbook promoting Piltdown Man. I suggest that you check the books first, as creationist sites are often economical with the actuatilé.
Incidentally, I claimed that Piltdown Man wasn't widely accepted, so to refute this you need to find a popular textbook.
Last edited:
God gives man mind and wisdom to discern truth apart from institutional religion and its writings.
God doesn't hate anyone.
Science only debunks the superstitious component of religion. The men who wrote the Bible weren't scientist, they speculated about origins which turned out to be wrong. Bible worshipers used the to reject Jesus.
Let me offer this first because I find the arguments very persuasive.
Furthermore, if there are special circumstances that invalidate the method, then this raises questions about the method in general. It's been an eye opener to me to see all the processes that lead to segregation of different minerals in the magma. We have gold appearing pure at times, silver pure at times, etc., and no one says this is due to radiometric decay. The geological processes at work have a tremendous ability to separate different kinds of elements and minerals. And yet we expect that uranium-lead ratios are determined by radiometric decay alone (or at least sometimes)!
There are so many complicated phenomena to consider like this that it calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into question.
http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
I believe the RATE Group published a list of tested dates for lava flows which are clearly inconsistent with the known ages of the volcanic eruptions, but I will have to go back and look it up. Nevertheless, what difference does it really make what ages were derived through testing if we cannot verify the accuracy of those tests, no matter who is doing them?
I have a problem accepting that dinosaur bones could become mineralized without becoming contaminated by things such as ground water. There are other problems as well. Here is an example of what I have been encountering in my research:
Carbonization of ancient organisms is a rare but well-documented form of fossilization. Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine how the carbonized soft tissues of dinosaurs could be preserved while the underlying bone became mineralized.
http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones.pdf
This is from an earlier article I posted:
We now have so many things that can make radiometric dating go wrong, and isochrons don't remedy the situation at all, that I think the weight of evidence of radiometric dating is nullified.
http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
- Status