None of that quote-mined stuff says what you want it to say. You guys just make up stuff as you go.
RSR's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
See gcthomas post #182 just above. Looks like someone did ask her. Gonna change your references to her? I"ll bet not, since the fundamentalist objection to the real facts depends on the lack of desire to double check them.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors...
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally...Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally...Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?all
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
It's the Luther effect.
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." Martin Luther
It's the Luther effect.
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." Martin Luther
6days
New member
That was part of the article I referenced but has nothing to do with the question I was answering about textbooks and fossils.gcthomas said:
gcthomas said:
Not at all. She is upset as an evolutionist that Biblical creationists use her research, and her own words against her evolutionism beliefs. It's similar to calling a hostile witness (her) in a courtroom.
It isn't just the fact of the soft tissue.... its now been carbon dated at under 40,000 years which is consistent with the Biblical creation / flood model expectations.*
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. *Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).
Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. *After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.**Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. *When the authors inquired, they received this letter:......
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Is there some reason all that dino tissue was not dated to 6000 years?
Dishonest misrepresentation from YE creationist site:
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Jonahdog asks:
Well, yes there is. If you try to date carbon that is millions of years old, you'll get close to the maximum age that particular lab can detect.
This is why creationists don't use Argon dating; only C-14 will give you anything remotely close to the 10,000 years they want to get. It's always several times that number, but they don't want to talk about that.
If there was a useful isotope with a shorter half-life, they'd use it.
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Jonahdog asks:
Well, yes there is. If you try to date carbon that is millions of years old, you'll get close to the maximum age that particular lab can detect.
This is why creationists don't use Argon dating; only C-14 will give you anything remotely close to the 10,000 years they want to get. It's always several times that number, but they don't want to talk about that.
If there was a useful isotope with a shorter half-life, they'd use it.
I remain confused. 6days cites a web site which explains how reliable C-14 analysis is. Yet all the dates are about 30,000 years before present. How is that reconciled with 6000 years?
Ignoring the fact that I am certain that 6days is at least vaguely familiar with the issue of the limits of C-14 dating. Clearly he believes that misrepresenting for his deity is permitted.
I believe there is, in his mind, a logic-proof compartment separating the two ideas.
gcthomas
New member
You're telling me that the world is at least several times older than the 6000 years you claim?
You seem to be able to believe several impossible things before breakfast!
6days
New member
gcthomas said:
No... I said that C14 dates of 22,000 to 50,000 are consistent with the Biblical creation flood model.
Earlier in this thread, I said.....
"Unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global fllods etc)
The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14
Creationist researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"
So, that means that it could be a lot older than you think it is. You've simply assumed what you don't know, will affirm your new doctrine.
Not likely. If it was a hundred times greater than the current level, it would only match present-day human output. And that wouldn't make a significant change. And coming up through the seas (covered by water, remember) the CO2 would greatly accelerate blooms of algae, producing more C-14 than before, making the world look younger, not older.
Oceanic phytoplankton takes up more CO2 than land plants.
Sounds like more imagination at work. Let's see those calculations. Prediction: there never were any calculations; they just made it up as they went along.
Nonsense.
Barbarian observes:
So, that means that it could be a lot older than you think it is.
We know you want to believe that, but even the evidence you cite says it wasn't.
It's consistent with billions of years, but it's not consistent with an Earth less than 10,000 years old. You just found something less than one degree of magnitude greater and then made excuses why it doesn't fit your belief.
You already know that no one has actually found tissue in such places, and that it has been known for decades that soft biological material such as collagen can survive millions of years of fossilization.
Do you think people don't know that? They've been reading those posts, too.
So, that means that it could be a lot older than you think it is.
We know you want to believe that, but even the evidence you cite says it wasn't.
It's consistent with billions of years, but it's not consistent with an Earth less than 10,000 years old. You just found something less than one degree of magnitude greater and then made excuses why it doesn't fit your belief.
You already know that no one has actually found tissue in such places, and that it has been known for decades that soft biological material such as collagen can survive millions of years of fossilization.
Do you think people don't know that? They've been reading those posts, too.
6days
New member
C14 can't measure millions or billions. Dinosaur bones with measurable C14 is consistent with God's Word and the young earth.
Of course, but pegging the needle close to the theoretical limit of the method is entirely consistent with billions of years. You've measured a blast furnace with a candy thermomenter, and decided it's 350 degrees F.
C-14 is produced by ionizing radiation, acting on nitrogen. So you'll get a tiny amount in any rocks with any exposure to radioactive elements in any amount, along with some nitrogen.
It's one reason the top end of the scale is somewhat fuzzy. You can't eliminate all the spurious C-14.
How far back can radiocarbon dating accurately measure?
gcthomas
New member
As he knows, anything older than about fifty thousand years comes out as fifty thousand years, since C14 can be created by radiation in rock.
But that has never stopped the dishonest YECs from acting dishonestly.