And you are going to try and pretend like you understood the conversations and arguments that were made.
It's all too easy to ridicule what you don't understand in the first place.
Oh look, more dinosaur tissues
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
And you are going to try and pretend like you understood the conversations and arguments that were made.
It's all too easy to ridicule what you don't understand in the first place.
alwight
New member
The Piltdown Man was a hoax too. :sherlock:
That's all a bit too anecdotal for me, would you care to put some flesh on the bones, so to speak?
So you have no reply. Got it.
What exactly do you want me to reply to?
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Piltdown Man was a hoax too. :sherlock:
That's all a bit too anecdotal for me, would you care to put some flesh on the bones, so to speak?
Good grief, do you actually know nothing about Naszca, Peru? Everything uniformitarianism wants to say is exploded. That's why you don't know about it. Then there's the craftmanship in granite. Things we moderns can't figure out like the pyramids. Precision cut granite too big for Caterpillar to design equipment for, interlocked to be earthquake proof, which it has been for some 5000 years, with poured metal staples that are also found only in SE Asia (see some of the deluge scientist accounts on land migration etc), transported over 100 miles to be perfectly fitted at Naszca. Velikovsky has a point, Von Danikan has a point, and now a former Economist writer has taken on the blindness of modern science for ignoring this stuff in FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS. The reason uniformitarians hate Naszca (uniformitarianism was birthed in selective hate by Lyell) is because a Jesuit spilled all the beans in 1570 so it's been out there a long time. Even access to the patinized dino carvings became scandalous for decades; they are now in the hands of the navy and air force and were badly treated by all accounts.
In theology, the Naszca knew 1, they should not make images of the Creator; 2, the Creator destroyed the evil brainless giants with a flood and lifted their land way up in elevation after that deluge by fast-moving changes of the whole earth; 3, the Creator said he would not flood again, but that his own son would come and take the wrath of God; 4, they were visited by 'Tomas' who had writings about that Son, and a bread and wine ritual; with the interesting detail that the name for the deity was VeriCocha. VeriCocha translates as 'he who walks on the waves.' The reason this name came into use was while they knew they should make no images (and all the idolatry images are regarded as violations of it), they believed he (the god, not Tomas) was last seen walking west across the Pacific after the deluge.
As for detail, I think the Nordic flood accounts come in at 2nd in detail quality (I mean outside of Genesis). They have items such as the destruction of giants and of a major whirlpool big enough to swallow large areas of land and of the resurfacing of such land elsewhere.
When I'm done with a bit of research on such stuff, my question is why do uniformitarians have trouble with Genesis when Hancock, Von D, and Velikovsky speak of a world about 10x more bizarre than Genesis? I'd say Genesis has been 'tamed' or 'homogenized.'
As for the frontier accounts, you'll find some in Michener's CENTENNIAL novel, where he also mentions the aggressive search by English elites for dino facts to bomb Christianity with. That's why they don't want you to know about the fresh tissue. So, tissue 65M years in the midwest desert and sun? Tissue? Forget it. Nonsense. Not even 1M. Not even 10K usually.
There is a professor who was at Whittier College in CA who has been banned for his research on such tissue at a Montana lake site. He has great doc material up on youtube about that. The site was Hell Creek, which is where Schweitzer was:
Also: http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
Yeah, I've got the same problem.
What is 80 million years, anyway?
Does anybody really know?
That sounds a whole lot closer!
alwight
New member
Please don't deliberately misrepresent me here.:AMR:
This wasn't about all that Erich von Däniken nonsense or his alien astronauts, a dodgy character himself btw, it was about stones that local farmers found that they could make money by producing fakes for the gullible.
Mary Schweitzer and her team is where YECs should be arguing their case. Here creationists on your link blithely dismiss genuine scientific conclusions that these structures were preserved by the iron in the blood.
BTW the "soft" tissue wasn't actually soft until Schweitzer hydrated it.
If their conclusions are that iron preserved the blood vessel structure then I'm fine with that, I respect them and their science, but I'm really not interested in silly YEC creationist spin.
Here is a version without all the YEC drivel:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
musterion
Well-known member
The whole 'appearance of age' canard is what bugs me. How does anyone know what "millions/billions of years old" is supposed to look like just from looking at a rock, unless he's already decided it's gotta be that old?
gcthomas
New member
'Appearance of age' doesn't mean 'just looking at a rock'. How did you get that idea? It means the results of a whole suite of scientific techniques based on a wide variety of principles all give ancient ages for rocks.
'Just looking at a rock' :chuckle:
6days
New member
gcthomas said:
Musterion is correct.
Stellar evolutionists think distance means age.
Biological evolutionists think sophisticated design is evidence of age.*
Geological evolutionists think decay rate of isotopes is evidence of age.
As Christians we believe that "in the beginning God created.
iouae
Well-known member
I would imagine that many things, once they are dehydrated and stored in a non-oxidising environment, stay the same forever. Age ceases to matter.
That is sort of the "Doomsday Prepper" attitude to storing food.
And some foods store better than others.
Dehydrated and vacuum sealed, they last indefinitely.
I believe that blood could be as old as science says it is.
That is sort of the "Doomsday Prepper" attitude to storing food.
And some foods store better than others.
Dehydrated and vacuum sealed, they last indefinitely.
I believe that blood could be as old as science says it is.
Early on, the different ages were made up and assigned to the 'geologic column'.
From that point on, the age of rocks and fossils have been determined by that fabricated dating system.
Right!!
6days
New member
alwight said:
It wasn't really very scientific. She did a 2 year experiment in a lab using pure haemoglobin to preserve tissue. I believe her words inplied that even after just 2 years there was deteriation.
To say that iron could preserve tissue 65+ million years in non lab conditions...not in pure haemoglobin...not in a peatree dish is evolutionism....scientism.
Schweitzer starts with the conclusion and trys to make the evidence fit.*
alwight said:
Evolutionism is more concerned with preserving their belief system than it is the most logical explanation for the preservation of dinosaur soft tissue.*
As Schweitzer first said...'it can't be' (soft stretchy pliable)