@gregrutz Well once again, no one said it was absolute, I am only stating the allegations implied in the 'big bang' theory, and the theory of evolution which I find quite questionable.
@sonwisdom There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by 99.98% of biologists.
@gregrutz That is an outright lie. You forget the piltdown man and the nebraska man just to say a few. Vestigial organs are my other favorite evolutionary error. There are none, but at one time the had 180 of them one of which was the pituitary gland. Error after error after error is the history of evolution. Followed by zealots like yourself who say that there were none. At least be honest.
@thinkingman07 You don't even know what a fossil is, creatard. Piltdown man was the only fraud, exposed by scientists. Nebraska man was a pigs tooth. Pigs have the same teeth we do. It was miss identifed, not a fraud. Do you believe all the crap your pastor tell you?
@gregrutz You apparently believe anything that and evolutionist tells you. If you studied anatomy you would find a pig's tooth is vastly different than a human. Additionally this story was believed because evolutionists like yourself are so credulous to anything that seems to support your theory that you will except fraud as proof. Nebraska man was submitted as evidence along with Piltdown man in the scopes trial as PROOF of evolution. Fraud not Proof!
@gregrutz Again, biologists still teach that there are vestigial organs in the human body which anatomists reject. You can still in undergrad biology text that the appendix is vestigial. No not proof but a short term memory of the outright fraud and failure of this theory as applied to human anatomy. I suggest taking actually studying science instead mouthing what you think are scientific claims.
@gregrutz That's way besides the point. I am not censuring health science seeking to improve life as wrong, but I am censuring the idea that finite men try to set their theories on the origin of life as absolute truth, which clearly isn't on account of the constant changes being made. So review your interpretation of my words.
A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its empirical data could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose scientific laws are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
There's substantial advancement in science, but it is yet not enough to bet one's entire life on it. That's foolishness. Basing yourself on it is like standing on a table with one support and expecting to remain after an earthquake. Well, your choice.
@gregrutz The vaccine I took wasn't safe. Moreover, science is now showing us that the polio vaccine in the 1950's was tainted with the SV40 virus which is responsible of a host of cancers. Nevertheless, I appreciate your dogma to hold the "70 million years" line in spite of the evidence---which shows that soft tissue was found in a dinosaur bone. The dedication you have to your philosophy of origins rivals that of the religious fanatic.
@gregrutz What is the difference between a bone and fossil. Can a bone be a fossil at the same time? Knock of the pretense with semantics. You will believe anything as long as the verb "evolve" is placed in the sentence some where.
@thinkingman07 When a bone get fossilized most of the bone is replaced with rock minerals. It this case they soaked the rock in strong acid for week to desolve away the rock leaveing the ''soft tissue'' and ''what looked like red blood cells'' They only found breakdown products in the 70 million year old fossil. Do you believe what every preacher says about science? Even when they have no idea what science is?
@gregrutz Insults won't hide your semantic game. Bones can be fossils. Nevertheless, I am glad you mentioned that a fossil is a former organic structure replaced by inorganic material. This is the problem if this were so with a 70 million yo bone then the connective tissue of hemeoglobin an organic structure would not be visible under a microscope no matter what acid you put it in.
@thinkingman07: You're right in what you say about SV40, but there is no evidence, either individual or statistical, that anyone ever contracted any cancer from the vaccine. Although anywhere from 10 million to 100s of millions of doses may have been contaminated, there has been no cancer "bump" arising from the program. Inasmuch as it stopped a 60k/yr epidemic (in the US alone) in its tracks, I would say it was immensely successful, and not at all "unsafe".
@puncheex Unless you are reading a work by Paul Offit, you would know that indeed cancer is linked to the SV40 and not all the lots of the Polio Vaccine had it. Moreover, scientist have shown where the lots of the polio vaccine which contained the SV40 virus rates of cancer have increased. In addition scientist have also discovered in histological samples the virus in oncocells. Look up the journal oncogene 2003 and SV40 they did a good job of laying out the evidence.
@1billion1deaths1 Yes, a retarded hoax which is so old and famous now it's even in wikipedia. Look it up, it was all b.s from some lying christians, not scientists. The hoax was very quickly debunked by science. : )
@winterstellar sure its all a hoax watever u say. wikipedia??? wtf..wikipedia in general is a hoax,,and your a fanatic of useless information. Science proves human and giant lizards coexcisting..so get over it. Find another BELIEF
@1billion1deaths1 THe dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago when they were fried by the effects of the asteroid impact.(THat's also in wikipedia)And of course it is impossible to find soft tissue, blood, dna or anything similar from that long ago.:)
@winterstellar really did u see that happen on tv?? or did u read about it? all of these equal to no action! I got several pages in wikipedia..u should try posting its so easy kid. The dating "techniques" are way off... Dragons were here not so long ago. Theres no proof of 65 million years ago just theory "belief".
@1billion1deaths1 Nope, NASA even knows which asteroid the piece that hit Earth 65 million years ago had broken off. It was a big asteroid that was hit from behind by another asteroid 160 million years ago, and 105 million years ago one piece slammed intop the Moon and 40 million years later the dinosaurs were fried by that other piece. Tests, samples from both Earth, the Asteroid belt and The Moon have proven all this. It was just on the BBC and Nat Geo. So they know for sure now. : )
@winterstellar Thats retarded ther is no way to date earth seeing as rock "astroid" in space has always been in space. Everything has already been disproven all that theorys have is just theory,,,No action involved. Dating techniques have failed ,,,u can believe all u want...but in the end wheres the "action"...nowhere to b found.
@1billion1deaths1 In science we have more than 15 different dating methods now that all tell the same story, and none that differ. And since science is constantly progressing, constantly improving, the old fairry-tales of religion will just keep being disproved in ever new ways. I'd ditch my religion and embrace science and reality instead right away, because you will be having an ever harder time defending your religions or gods or holy books: )
@winterstellar Actually in science they are way more than just 15 methods of dating, To your understandment ther is 15."observation" science is always progressing thats how mechanism works. Fairy tales?? u mean Philosophy of "equality".. with great understanding comes great reasoning. Befor Observation "science" must come "idea". Reasoning beliefs of god "equality" creation< With great understandment of equality is how the human race has survived ages,,not with animal like reasoning of no purpos
How can I be sure that this video isn't just a big lie? Most creation scientists get their degrees from diploma mills or universities that were accredited by accreditation mills. Many creation scientists who get their degrees from properly accredited universities have degrees in philosophy or psychology.
@multisnootylives1: Let's be a bit careful about that. Wheeler of the DI is really an acredited school doctorate; so is Lisle (in the vid), a doctorate at Colorado U in astronomy. Of course, he had to hide his light under a basket while there; no one who knew him ever suspected that he considered his own doctoral dissertation to be a lie, because it implies a very old universe. Interesting he's now lecturing on paleontology. The lengths people will go to...
@multisnootylives1: Amen. Still, that's not the argument you gave, implying, as you did, that most creationists are ignorant of science. For the record, I completely agree with Potholer on all this, but its still not true that all creationists have Hovind-degrees and are stupid, or like Morris, are engineers looking at biology (which happens to be my viewpoint as well. Harumph). This argument works well on individuals but is not so hot applied to the whole community.
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
I notice how few posting here even address the theme of the video. Animal tissue simply cannot under any circumstance survive more than several thousand years. 65 million year old soft tissue is preposterous. Therefore, Dino's coexisted with man and macro evolution is a fantastic hoax. But the scoffers refuse to see the evidence.
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
@TheThumper49, Yes, it's possible that absolutely everything we know about history and biology has just been overturned. Or perhaps this video is wrong :P
Yeah you're right, people are so stupid they are stopping evolution right now. Human being is supposed to adapt, which means people with defects should die/give birth to less people than completely healthy people. We are not suppose to heal anything, we are suppose to let people die from it until the people remaining will be able to heal all by themselves. More death, less problems.
PS: Even if there is proof THESE dinosaurs died recently, there is proof MOST dinosaurs died m yrs ago
@jossalv1: Animals generally don't live long enough for hardening of the lens to be a problem, and if they should happen to, the first perception mistake they make because of it is likely also their last. Evolution only builds what it needs to get an animal from conception to reproduction and protection of their young. Everything after that is just coasting downhill.
Why are there so many misleading retard videos on Youtube. Well at least this one isn't deliberate. You guys genuinely believe that radioactive dating is wrong. Well go ahead and show me a video disproving all of physics and geology and all of evolution and i'll be persuaded. while to me it is a mystery how soft tissue is preserved for so long, i do not have the evidence that state that all soft tissue must degrade after 1000 or 100000 or 10000000. When exactly must it degrade?
Creationists are too quick to jump on anything that they think proves God while Evolutionists are too quick to dismiss anything that has to do with God. I think the truth is gonna lie somewhere in the middle to be honest and that we have a very long way to go before we get there. I encourage anyone who isn't a creationist to be kind to them and steer away from personal attacks. I encourage anyone who is a creationist to understand science.
@greyfoxzero Don't talk as if Evolutionists were some sort of followers of Darwin, or something. You don't ask astronomers and astrophysics to better understand Astrology or the Heliocentric Theory. Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the variety of species. Creationism is just a bigoted interpretation of the Bible.
@greyfoxzero: Sure it is, because he was key in committing it to paper and to people's minds, and as such, holds some proprietary "bragging rights". That doesn't mean he was the last word in it; it has grown considerably since Darwin. You don't call Physics Newtonianism, but you do hear of Newton's laws and theories. It is, if anything, a sign of respect for a prodigious intellectual feat.
@greyfoxzero: No. What creationists are quick to jump on is anything that seems to say that evolution (biological or cosmic, as they understand it or think the world understands it) may have a flaw. Of course, scientists expect flaws; they are a scientist's livelihood. Creationists are only there to poke at science, as they have no replacement theories, and don't desire them, either.
These discoveries do not so much as dent the theory of evolution - they dent the existing models on fossilization. And the hadrosaur in question is not truly "mummified" the way we think of mummies - its skin is fossilized, and poorly at that.
Nevermind that we've seen preserved soft tissue before, in insects entrapped in amber. It's absolutely amazing that one surprising and interesting discovery gets the creationists frenzied about how all of science must be wrong about the earth's timescale.
@TrevorBlack79: As far as that goes, they have revived 250 million year old bacteria encased inside of halite crystals, which certainly proves that DNA can hang around and remain organized for a long time under the proper conditions. The genera of the bacteria are recognized as having living specimens alive today in the extremeophiles.
@eivarden The fossils is still 68 million years old. The age of the fossil being different did not even cross their minds. There are the people who dig fossils and see evolution every day. They know when the dinosaurs ruled the earth.
I find one big problem with this video, the part in which the host says "common sense." Well common sense to the Church 500 years ago stated that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it right?
Anyway back to the dino issue. The soft tissue is under debate as to whether or not it actually is blood. One study shows that it is not blood, but bacteria. I find it funny how Creationists only support the slightest "evidence" towards 6000 year old Earth.
It's about time that someone is finally telling us the truth about these creatures. As a Christian I believe that this earth is only a few thousand years old and that early man walked the earth with dinosaurs. Of course, they weren't called dinosaurs back then, they were called things like Behemoth and Leviathan. We can read about this in the book of Job. Dr. Kent Hovind talks alot about this subject and is extremely smart about it too.
Ugh, this video is misleading, they found Heme, not hemoglobin, and the skeletal sections of the dinosaur WERE in fact fossilized, ie the Calcium in the bone.
Calling it 'soft tissue meat' is quite an overstatement, the materials don't contain any tangible biological material, mostly it's elastic collagen.
Disregarding radiometric dating as an entire scientific field while using this evidence is hypocritical. For proof of avian evolution, look no further then bird psuedogenes (all have them).
The stated goal should be one that seeks to find the objective truth, rather than to seek a pet theory.
Take for example my own theory of human giants in the earth. I was seeking to prove my theory that men 15 or 20 feet tall lived in the ancient world. But the objective facts have so far not agreed with my theory, although there are some little publicized bone fragments,skeletons, artifacts, and a great deal of written reports which suggest occasional humans of 7 to 9 feet, and possibly 10-12.
@rephaim23: You aren't talking about that "footstep in the granite mush" or the photoshop...er, I mean photographed skeleton unearthed in Turkey, are you? Those are just embarrassing.
Hello. No I am primarily interested in claims of large to giant sized human and hominid skeletons/bones which have some scientific documentation, and or are at least tied to a university, institution, museum or credible anthropologist, scientist or physician who documented such remains in person. There are hundreds of news paper reports of human giants found in burial mounds and or cemeteries in America and Europe. Some are can be explained away, but others have substance.
I am currently investigating claims of possible human giants in the Mediterranean, in and around southern France and Spain. Several scientific papers described abnormally large human bones and or skeletons in these regions. Certainly, estimates of stature from bone fragments and incomplete skeletons are prone to errors by up to a foot or more. From my preliminary investigations, the bones of Castelnau may represent someone taller than perhaps anyone in modern times.
I don't put a great deal of credence in the Paluxy river tracks, nor in the rumor of a 14 foot tall man found in Syria/Turkey in the 1950's. If further details emerge, such as a scientific document written by Turkish anthropologists describing a 120 cm long human femur from Bronze age tombs, then I will take radical steps to investigate this claim. So far no such documents have emerges to my knowledge.
I take a middle ground approach. I think Dinosaurs may well be millions of years old, but the ones which are in that state of pristine decay, the ones with living tissue, are much younger. I also believe the cave paintings, pictographs ceramics, and tapestry representations of "Dragons" in ancient cultures need further study, since these may well be Dinosaurs, and in some cases admittedly appear to represent species characteristics. All options should be exhausted.
Now, perhaps in the right circumstances there are biological mechanisms within an environment that will keep the said Dinosaur corpse in state like a freezer for millions and millions of years. However, even things in a specialized freezer eventually succumb and break down. 70 million years is an incredible amount of time. If these are that old, science needs to revise all the text books regarding body decay to resolve this issue.
@rephaim23 Correct, at least someone understands LOGIC. The age of fossil is so well established that changing the 70 million year old date DIDN'T EVEN ENTER THER MINDS.
Based on decay rates etc. for something to by mummified or contain organic living tissue, skin, blood cells and other matter and survive 70 million years is extremely hard for me to picture. Something that old would practically have turned to stone, and all living tissue would be gone by probably the first 50,000 or 100,000 years, certainly the first million. I mean, human skeletons in 5,000 years are pretty shabby. 70 million years-- almost nothing would exist. So much would happen.
@gregrutz carbon dating is used to measure the time it takes for carbon to disperse into nitro; carbon takes either a few days to a few years to disperse into nitro; in other words, carbon dating does not tell us that any fossil is any older than 6,000 years old. Radiometric dating is basically the determining the age of the fossils by the rock layers & then determining the age of the rock layers by the fossils; in other words, the "million year" age of dinosour fossils is a mere presupposition.
@starsheild7 You even sound like a Hovind video >LOL
1. C14 does not ''disperse into Nitrogen'' It decays.
2. C14 has a know half-life.
3.Carbon dating is not used to date fossils, it has too short a half-life.
It does work well up to 60,000 years
4. Ash layers are dated above and below the fossil to get a range for the fossil.
5. The fossil record is so well know that scientists in the field do use index fossils to see if they are in the right layers to find what they are looking for.
@starsheild7 Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Carbon dating works up to 60,000 years ago.
It works on once living things that get they Carbon from the air. They use it to date Egyptian artifacts, it works on Egyptian artifacts with a know date, that is how they know it works so well. Egyptians were farming in 6000BC and didn't all die in a global flood.
They date ash layers with several different radiomentric dating methods.
@gregrutz You said, "Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Carbon dating works up to 60,000 years"
-Tthe time it takes for carbon to decay into nitrogen RANGES between a few years to a few thousand years; so even the half life RANGES between a "half" of a few years to "half" of a few thousand years. So how can you determine the "half-life" between the RANGE of a few years to a few thousand years? Plus you need to explain why a "half-life" is capable of determining the age of fossils at all.
@starsheild7: No. The randomness is constrained by the Law of Large Numbers, and determined by the mean lifetime of each particular isotope's nucleus. All of them decay exponentially, and thus possess a half-life, the period in which half of a sample decays. For C14, that's 5730 +/- 40 yrs. All common isotopes of natural and artificial elements have measured half-lives which are unaffected by heat, chemical bonds, mag/elec fields and other externalities (few exceptions).
... As far as the how, thus: C14 dating assumes the original matter with carbon was once alive. It was thus building carbohydrates using the air's C12/C14 ratio. When the item died, the clock starts. C14 is no longer replenished and starts decaying. A sample is measured for the C14:C12 ratio remaining, compared to the calibrated ratio at death. If the sampledied less than 8 or so half-lives in the past, the measurement is sensitive enough to yield a date with appropriate error bars.
@gregrutz You said, "they use it to date Egyptian artifacts..."
-There artifacts are made of pottery & metal....... Explain your point about "CARBON" dating
You said, "...it works on Egyptian artifacts with a known date..."
-Is this "known date" determined by historical writings of Egyptians or by carbon dating. According to historical documentation there is no way to determine how long each Egyptian dynasty lasted, for all we know Egypt could be 3928 years old.
@gregrutz You said, "They know when the Egyptians lived, they have a written record. They can date wooden tools, cloth & pottery"
-& how do you determine WHEN the carbon left those objects? Plus, DRY wood & cloth is so much dryer than actual dead corpses, how do you know that the carbon decayed in the wood & cloth at the same speed as the carbon decaying in a dead corpse? & how do you know that the half life of carbon is 5730 years? Decaying carbon ranges from a few year to a few thousand years
@starsheild7 You have absolutly no idea how Carbon 14 dating works, do you? The know that half the C14 will be gone in 5730 years because they can measure the rate of radioactive decay, it is called Science, another thing you have no idea about.
They can date things they know are 4000 years old and they date at 4000 years old, And they date things they know are 5000 years old and the C14 date = 5000 years old. Then they date things and it shows they are 6000 years old, and 7000 and 8000 and.
@gregrutz You said, "They know that half the C14 will be gone in 5730 because they can measure the rate of radioactive decay"
-And how do they know the rate of decay is the same in any climate/ terrain? How do they know that the "rate" of decay is exactly the same NO MATTER WHAT???
@starsheild7 Because they study radioactive decay at different temps. and pressures and it is always the same. The Weak Nuclear Force is one of the fundemental forces of nature, they don't change.
@starsheild7: Having measured the half-lives of thousands of isotopes, nuclear decay as an exponential decay phenomenon is not in contention, even by creationists. The math of all exponential decays yield a "half-life" number with the properties mentioned above. It is known to be unchanging because the weak nuclear force is orders of magnitude more powerful than EM forces which cause chemical and most physical properties. See wiki, "half-life" for the math, and exceptions list.
@gregrutz You said, "They can date things that they know are 4000 years old & they date at 4000 years old. And they date things that they know are 5000 years old & the C14 date = 5000 years old"
-What? They somehow KNOW the date BEFORE they even date the objects? What??? How can any human already "know" the age of an object "before" dating the object???
@starsheild7 Because we have a calender and a history book and some people can count. The know they planted a tree 1000 years ago and when they Carbon date it, it dates at 1000 years. Got it now ?
@gregrutz You said, "They know they planted a tree 1000 years ago & they carbon sate it"
-How do you know that the Egyptians planted trees at all (let alone 1000 years ago specifically)?
You said, "Because they study radioactive decay at different temps. & pressures & it is always the same"
-What about observing radioactive decay in wet vs dry substances? How do you even know when radioactive decay began to start in the fossil (when did the tree die)? When did it begin to decay?
@starsheild7 I don't even understand half of what you say.
'' How do you even know when radioactive decay began to start in the fossil (when did the tree die)? When did it begin to decay?''
The decay goes on all the time. When the animal is alive it takes in more C14 all the time, It stops taking in the C14 when it dies. When did the tree die? THAT IS WHAT C14 DATING TELLS YOU !
@gregrutz You said, "The dacay goes on all the time. When the animal is alive it takes in more C14 all the time. It stops taking in the C14 when it dies. When did the tree die? THAT IS WHAT C14 DATING TELLS YOU!"
-So aside from using presuppositions you have no reference point to to even messure the time/ date that the tree even began to stop taking in C14. Plus how do you know how much carbon the tree even consumed right before it died? How do you know how much carbon decayed from the tree?
@starsheild7 They know the tree stopped taking in C14 when it died dummy. They know how much C14 is in all living things. They know how fast the C14 decays. They can measure how much C14 is left today. They can calulate how old something is up to 60,000 years ago. It only works of once living things that get there C14 from the air or plants.
Do you want me to send you a link to a video that explains it or can you type ''Carbon 14'' in the SEARCH box?
@gregrutz You said, "They know the tree stopped taking in C14 when it dies dummy"
-Then tell me WHEN the tree died & explain HOW you know when it died (otherwise this is just another attempt to suppress your moral accountability to the supreme special Creator).
You said, "They know how much C14 is in all living things"
-Explain HOW they know that (do thety just know because they say so?).
@gregrutz You said, "They know when the tree died by using Carbon 14 Radiometric dating!!!!!!!!!!!!"
-But last time you said, "They know the tree stopped taking in C14 when it died dummy", now you are telling me that the carbon 14 dates the tree... and the tree dates the C14 dating results. I guess you believe in circular reasoning because you determine your belief based on intelligent sounding words; C14 Radiometric dating sounds "official" & "respectable" (you even capatalize the words)...
@starsheild7: The date the tree died is what the dating method is for; you don't start, as you want, by deciding what the age is and then use the method. One knows it died because all trees used for furniture or house beams have. They know how much C14 is in the sample by measuring the decay radioactivity. It gives a direct count of the amount of C14 in it. They then weigh the carbon12/14 mixture, derive a ratio, compute the number of half-lives, and convert that to years.
@starsheild7: That the tree dies at some point is a presupposition? Pray tell, what trees have you seen that never die, even when someone makes a chair out of it? The reference point is WHEN thy die. The error figures are such that 5 years, one way or the other, is not important. And it's irrelevant how much carbon the tree actually has or the rate of growth; what is important is the C14/C12 ratio, which is fixed in the atmosphere (with known exceptions) and is lower now.
@gregrutz All you said was C14 stops being consumed in a dead animal and that the fact that C14 stops being conumed tells us when it died some how; so how does the fact that a creature stops conuming carbon tell us WHEN it stopped consuming carbon exactly?
@starsheild7: No, you're simply too simple minded to know when you've been pinned to the wall. You are the Black Knight of Monty Python. You don't have points, you have poo balls you keep slinging. You've not in your turn refuted anything. As a debater, you are pathetic. And you name is misspelled.
@starsheild7: The wood is used in furniture, burned in cook fires, oats left in clay vessels. It doesn't make any difference who or how planted the trees; only that they grew. Water (hydrogen and oxygen) has no affect on the C12/C14 ratios. As a matter of practice, the water is always driven off (along with other volatiles) during preparation, because it is an easily eliminated irrelevancy and complication.
Decay happens to C14 (and all unstable nuclei) starting the moment they are created; C14 on Earth is created continuously by cosmic rays bombarding nitrogen in the atmosphere. The C14 was regularly replenished, as all live biological matter is, by cellular repair mechanisms. The carbon you were born with has long since been replaced, atom by atom, during your lifetime. The C14 clock starts when the C14 suddenly is no longer replaced in the tissues; it is frozen in place.
@starsheild7 No they don't date the ash layers by the fossils, they get an absolute date with radiometric dating. The knew the earth was old and evolution happens before radiometric dating was invented.
The Half life of C14 is 5730 years. You are not to fucking bright are you.
Read a science book and get back to me when you get an education. BYE
@gregrutz You said, "No they don't date the ash layers by the fossils, they get an absolute date with radiometric dating"
-And radiometric dating is when the rock layers date the fossils & the fossils date the rocks layers.......
You said, "They knew the earth was old & evolution happens before radiometric dating was invented"
-Yet they say that the fossil record proves evolution, but the fossil record (according to them) is determined by radiometric dating, & radiometirc dating is circular.
@gregrutz You said, "The half life of C14 is 5730 years"
-The text books don't explain how the half life proves the age of the fossils, & you not explaining what I may have missed is convincing me that you probably don't know why the half life proves the age of fossils somehow... Care to explain?
@starsheild7 Darwin didn't date rock layers dummy. He did evolution. Radiometric dating had not been invented. Geologists did know the earth was millions of years old.
@gregrutz You said, "Darwin didn't date rock layers dummy"
-I know, that's the point of my comeback; you say I debate like Hovind (that was your joke to me), & I say you debate like Darwin when it comes to dating layers (it was a comeback to your joke), I already know that Darwin couldn't date rocks, & I was saying that your arguments for dating layers is no better than Darwin's ability to date rock layers
PS. Darwin still made claims about the age of rock layers, & atheists believe him.......
@starsheild7 Who gives a shit about what atheists think or theists for that matter.
The fossils are in order, it does not matter what the dates were. Dinosaurs live in 3 major periods, different dinosaurs in each period. Some walked on 2 legs, had hollow bones, oval eggs in nests and feathers.
The rocks are dated like this, the older ones are on the bottom, Can you figure that out or do you want me to explain geology to you?
@gregrutz You said, "The rocks are dated like this, the older ones are on thye bottom, can you figure that out or do you want me to explain geology to you?"
-I understand, but the rack layers on the bottom could simply be older by a few minutes/ hours because of a flood distributing the sediments into layers.
@gregrutz You asked, "Then why don't the layers have the same fossils in them????"
-Huh? They do have the same fossils in them (discovered in various places); they found human fossils buried in all twelve layers (as well as tools & clothing with them).
You said, "And remember, floods don't sort fossils"
-Unless the certain animals have a specific density unique to each kind of animal (but even that may vary because human fossils (& tools) have been found in all twelve layers in various areas.
@gregrutz You said, "ALL SEDIMENTARY ROCK IS NOT LAID DOWN BY WATER!"
-You're telling me that hydrologic sorting is not even possible???
-Why would the sedimtary layers have the same water formation that mud gets when it is washed over land & the water recedes (with the mud have water current marks on the mud), all the sediment in the world (especually in the base of mountains) have have those same water current marks (as if water had moved the sediment in all locations).
@gregrutz Water is the only way for dead animal corpse to even turn into fossils in the first place; if the animal dies in dry sediment (without water moving the sediment) the corpse will not fossilize, it will either rot away into mush/ dust, or turn into oil, or become mummified (intact) if conceiled tight enough; sediment that is moved by water & then soaked up by the dead corpses is the ONLY way for any biological substance to fossilize. Fossilization is evidence of water moving the sediment
@starsheild7 Water is the only way for dead animal corpse to even turn into fossils '' WRONG fossils are found in desert sands and in tar pits.
And Floods don't sort fossils. Floods don't make volcanic ash layers. You can't make what we find in nature with a flood. You need to go outside more often.
@gregrutz Your next argument for the age of fossils/ rock layers will be another form of circular reasoning, "badazzled" to SEEM like a new & better argument for your point, but it won't be; your next argument won't be a plan "B" for your point when plan "A" fails, your next argument will only be plan "A" recycled; you will do that in an attempt to hold on to something that will merely make you FEEL like God can't exist, out of fear of the possibility of God existing, despite God's forgiveness.
@gregrutz You asked, "What does God have to do with the age of the earth? Where did I say He didn't exist?"
-I guess you didn't actually "say" that God did not exist. I had the impression that you were another atheist using science to debate against the bible (I've encountered many atheists doing that, with rudeness) I apologize for judging you without at least getting to know you better.
-PS If Moses was telling the truth, then chronologically, ALL human history should be about 6000 years old
@gregrutz You said, "There is no circular reasoning, the older rocks are on the bottom, is that too difficult for you to understand?"
-Yes, but I'll explain why: sedimentary layers (in global proportion) can be more justified with a flood explaination than a few volcanoes & rotting animal corpses (that are unable to cover the earth with sediment layers), yet with all the sediment covering every piece of land (with limestone & shale layers) it is more logical to say that a global flood did it.
@starsheild7 The third layer down in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. It is made up of wind blown sand, it has desert fossils in it. Not all sedimentary rock is laid down by water. A single flood can not expalin the complex geology of the earth.
@gregrutz I asked you, "You're telling me that hydrologic sorting is not even possible???", & then you said, "YES YES YES YES YES...".
-But you see if you were to take a jar that had different kinds of sediment in it, fill it with water, shook the jar and then set it down & observe the inside of the jar (as the water moves quickly), as the water & sediment slows down the different sediments become sorted seperately into layers based on density. You can try this experiment at home also.
@starsheild7 Yes a flood would make one layer with the dense rocks on the bottom and the silt on the top. Just one problem, that is not what we find in nature. We find distinct layers of different kinds of rock in RANDOM Order. There are not sorted by density. The fossils are NOT sorted by density.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Like all creatards you get you info from Hovind, go outside and study the rocks like scientists do.
@gregrutz You said, "FLOODS DON'T SORT FOSSILS WITH DINOSAURS IN THE MIDDLE"
-The middle of what? There happen to be many places that don't even have twelve layers & people still discovered dinosaur fossils (in different levels in the ground without any more than one sediment layer in the ground), even the dinosaur fossils are not arranged in a straight position in the layers, they happen to be arranged in randomn up and down positions in many places that don't even have any layers at all.
@gregrutz You said, "FLOODS DON'T MAKE CHALK, LIMESTONE, ASH, CORALS, ETC"
-I know that a flood wouldn't make such sediments, the sediments themselves could've existed in various places of the earth (on land and in the sea) before the flood even took place, the flood could've simply arranged the sediments into layers (all around the world).
@gregrutz You asked, "WHERE DID 29,000 FEET OF WATER GO DUMMY".
-To the north & south poles in the form of ice, the the tops of mountains in the form of snow, hidden in the ground that water wells can reach, consumed by all the billions of animals & plants that happen to be made of 70-80 % of "water", & in the many clouds in the sky (even the fact that storms happen at all is because the atmosphere is trying to balance all the water that exists on the earth, as if the earth is crouded).
@starsheild7 There is not 29000 feet of ice at the north and south poles. A global flood would need 5 times the amount of water there is in the world today. There was no flood.
@gregrutz You said, "There is not 29,000 feet of ice at the north and south poles"
-I know, that's why the rest of the water is in all the snow in ALL the mountains, in all the billions of plants & animals, & in all the sewage that exists in the world, & soaked in the grounds that wells can reach (there is water inside of all the factories in the world as well).
@gregrutz You said, "No, there is not enough water at the poles to flood the earth and cover all the mountains"
-I know, you have to ALSO melt all the snow in the mountains and turn all the clouds into rain, and add all the water in the billions of plants and animals into the equation (you are intelligent, but you are being ignorant of God's works in your heart ON PURPOSE)
Ice in the poles + snow in the mountains + cloud water + plus biological water + plus all the sediment = global flood mass
@legion1a Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
More evidence that God created everything approx. 6000 years ago that evolutionists will ignore and keep falling for the evol. Fairytale. Dinousours were Created the same week men were and lived with humans there is tons of evidence proving this but evolutionists ignore it so they can hold onto there evol. Faith
@coolvideo28 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@5tonyvvvv What do you mean ''life can't use''?? Plants make left handed molecules and that is what you eat and use. Life only used one type of molecule, so what, it could have used right handed instead of left handed just as easy. Just random chance. If we went to another planet it could be a problem.
Birth control pills are a 50-50 mixture because it is made in the lab, so woman take twice a much and only use half, it does not seem to be a ''problem for life''.
@gregrutz Well once again, no one said it was absolute, I am only stating the allegations implied in the 'big bang' theory, and the theory of evolution which I find quite questionable.
sonwisdom 2 weeks ago
@sonwisdom There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by 99.98% of biologists.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz That is an outright lie. You forget the piltdown man and the nebraska man just to say a few. Vestigial organs are my other favorite evolutionary error. There are none, but at one time the had 180 of them one of which was the pituitary gland. Error after error after error is the history of evolution. Followed by zealots like yourself who say that there were none. At least be honest.
thinkingman07 6 days ago
@thinkingman07 You don't even know what a fossil is, creatard. Piltdown man was the only fraud, exposed by scientists. Nebraska man was a pigs tooth. Pigs have the same teeth we do. It was miss identifed, not a fraud. Do you believe all the crap your pastor tell you?
Evolution was proven 150 years ago, get over it.
gregrutz 6 days ago
@gregrutz You apparently believe anything that and evolutionist tells you. If you studied anatomy you would find a pig's tooth is vastly different than a human. Additionally this story was believed because evolutionists like yourself are so credulous to anything that seems to support your theory that you will except fraud as proof. Nebraska man was submitted as evidence along with Piltdown man in the scopes trial as PROOF of evolution. Fraud not Proof!
thinkingman07 34 minutes ago
@gregrutz Again, biologists still teach that there are vestigial organs in the human body which anatomists reject. You can still in undergrad biology text that the appendix is vestigial. No not proof but a short term memory of the outright fraud and failure of this theory as applied to human anatomy. I suggest taking actually studying science instead mouthing what you think are scientific claims.
thinkingman07 30 minutes ago
OH CRAP THEY ARE NOW GOING TO CLONE THE ULTAMATE KILLER
montanaman20 2 weeks ago
Potholer54 does a good job at debunking these guy.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz That's way besides the point. I am not censuring health science seeking to improve life as wrong, but I am censuring the idea that finite men try to set their theories on the origin of life as absolute truth, which clearly isn't on account of the constant changes being made. So review your interpretation of my words.
sonwisdom 2 weeks ago
@sonwisdom No one says their theories on the origen of life is absolute truth, dream on.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its empirical data could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose scientific laws are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.
hatever 3 weeks ago
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
hatever 3 weeks ago
How many times do you have to debunk these creationist liars?
gregrutz 4 weeks ago
There's substantial advancement in science, but it is yet not enough to bet one's entire life on it. That's foolishness. Basing yourself on it is like standing on a table with one support and expecting to remain after an earthquake. Well, your choice.
sonwisdom 1 month ago
@sonwisdom You bet your life on science when you took a Polio vaccine.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz That is a really bad bet.
thinkingman07 1 month ago
@thinkingman07 You made the bet when you trusted science and took the vaccine.
At least I am not lying and going to hell like the TRUTH group.
The dinosaur fossis is still 70 million years old.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz The vaccine I took wasn't safe. Moreover, science is now showing us that the polio vaccine in the 1950's was tainted with the SV40 virus which is responsible of a host of cancers. Nevertheless, I appreciate your dogma to hold the "70 million years" line in spite of the evidence---which shows that soft tissue was found in a dinosaur bone. The dedication you have to your philosophy of origins rivals that of the religious fanatic.
thinkingman07 4 weeks ago
@thinkingman07 First of all it is not a dinosaur bone dummy, it is a 70 million year old fossil. The date of the fossil was never questioned.
Second, they found breakdown products ''not fresh soft tissue''
You will believe anything you think proves evolution wrong.
gregrutz 4 weeks ago
@gregrutz What is the difference between a bone and fossil. Can a bone be a fossil at the same time? Knock of the pretense with semantics. You will believe anything as long as the verb "evolve" is placed in the sentence some where.
thinkingman07 1 week ago
@thinkingman07 When a bone get fossilized most of the bone is replaced with rock minerals. It this case they soaked the rock in strong acid for week to desolve away the rock leaveing the ''soft tissue'' and ''what looked like red blood cells'' They only found breakdown products in the 70 million year old fossil. Do you believe what every preacher says about science? Even when they have no idea what science is?
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Insults won't hide your semantic game. Bones can be fossils. Nevertheless, I am glad you mentioned that a fossil is a former organic structure replaced by inorganic material. This is the problem if this were so with a 70 million yo bone then the connective tissue of hemeoglobin an organic structure would not be visible under a microscope no matter what acid you put it in.
thinkingman07 6 days ago
@thinkingman07 Mary says the fossil is still 70 million years old, nice try.
gregrutz 6 days ago
@thinkingman07: You're right in what you say about SV40, but there is no evidence, either individual or statistical, that anyone ever contracted any cancer from the vaccine. Although anywhere from 10 million to 100s of millions of doses may have been contaminated, there has been no cancer "bump" arising from the program. Inasmuch as it stopped a 60k/yr epidemic (in the US alone) in its tracks, I would say it was immensely successful, and not at all "unsafe".
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@puncheex Unless you are reading a work by Paul Offit, you would know that indeed cancer is linked to the SV40 and not all the lots of the Polio Vaccine had it. Moreover, scientist have shown where the lots of the polio vaccine which contained the SV40 virus rates of cancer have increased. In addition scientist have also discovered in histological samples the virus in oncocells. Look up the journal oncogene 2003 and SV40 they did a good job of laying out the evidence.
thinkingman07 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkingman07 This video is debunked at ... watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
Learn the TRUTH.
gregrutz 1 week ago
A moronic lie here that has been debunked by proper scientists years ago. It's all b.s.: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar yea a lie...believe wat u want to! dumb ass
1billion1deaths1 1 month ago
@1billion1deaths1 Yes, a retarded hoax which is so old and famous now it's even in wikipedia. Look it up, it was all b.s from some lying christians, not scientists. The hoax was very quickly debunked by science. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar sure its all a hoax watever u say. wikipedia??? wtf..wikipedia in general is a hoax,,and your a fanatic of useless information. Science proves human and giant lizards coexcisting..so get over it. Find another BELIEF
1billion1deaths1 1 month ago
@1billion1deaths1 THe dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago when they were fried by the effects of the asteroid impact.(THat's also in wikipedia)And of course it is impossible to find soft tissue, blood, dna or anything similar from that long ago.:)
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar really did u see that happen on tv?? or did u read about it? all of these equal to no action! I got several pages in wikipedia..u should try posting its so easy kid. The dating "techniques" are way off... Dragons were here not so long ago. Theres no proof of 65 million years ago just theory "belief".
1billion1deaths1 1 month ago
@1billion1deaths1 Nope, NASA even knows which asteroid the piece that hit Earth 65 million years ago had broken off. It was a big asteroid that was hit from behind by another asteroid 160 million years ago, and 105 million years ago one piece slammed intop the Moon and 40 million years later the dinosaurs were fried by that other piece. Tests, samples from both Earth, the Asteroid belt and The Moon have proven all this. It was just on the BBC and Nat Geo. So they know for sure now. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Thats retarded ther is no way to date earth seeing as rock "astroid" in space has always been in space. Everything has already been disproven all that theorys have is just theory,,,No action involved. Dating techniques have failed ,,,u can believe all u want...but in the end wheres the "action"...nowhere to b found.
1billion1deaths1 1 month ago
@1billion1deaths1 In science we have more than 15 different dating methods now that all tell the same story, and none that differ. And since science is constantly progressing, constantly improving, the old fairry-tales of religion will just keep being disproved in ever new ways. I'd ditch my religion and embrace science and reality instead right away, because you will be having an ever harder time defending your religions or gods or holy books: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Actually in science they are way more than just 15 methods of dating, To your understandment ther is 15."observation" science is always progressing thats how mechanism works. Fairy tales?? u mean Philosophy of "equality".. with great understanding comes great reasoning. Befor Observation "science" must come "idea". Reasoning beliefs of god "equality" creation< With great understandment of equality is how the human race has survived ages,,not with animal like reasoning of no purpos
1billion1deaths1 1 month ago
How can I be sure that this video isn't just a big lie? Most creation scientists get their degrees from diploma mills or universities that were accredited by accreditation mills. Many creation scientists who get their degrees from properly accredited universities have degrees in philosophy or psychology.
multisnootylives1 1 month ago
@multisnootylives1: Let's be a bit careful about that. Wheeler of the DI is really an acredited school doctorate; so is Lisle (in the vid), a doctorate at Colorado U in astronomy. Of course, he had to hide his light under a basket while there; no one who knew him ever suspected that he considered his own doctoral dissertation to be a lie, because it implies a very old universe. Interesting he's now lecturing on paleontology. The lengths people will go to...
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@puncheex Paleontologists study dinosaurs and astronomers study outer space. An astronomer is not the one to go to for advice on dinosaurs.
multisnootylives1 2 weeks ago
@multisnootylives1: Amen. Still, that's not the argument you gave, implying, as you did, that most creationists are ignorant of science. For the record, I completely agree with Potholer on all this, but its still not true that all creationists have Hovind-degrees and are stupid, or like Morris, are engineers looking at biology (which happens to be my viewpoint as well. Harumph). This argument works well on individuals but is not so hot applied to the whole community.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These TRUTH lies are debunked at > watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 1 month ago
/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
dizitei 1 month ago
1. They did not find red blood cells.
2.The rock [fossil] was soaked in strong acid for weeks, there was no ''fresh'' soft tissue
3. These Paleontologists see evolution every day. Changing the age of the fossils never crossed their minds it is so well established.
4. They are questioning fossilization, not the age of the dinosaurs.
gregrutz 1 month ago
then obviously dino bones are nearly as old as they claim which fits the Biblical account. why can't you people just admit it ?
CoopersQuill 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoopersQuill This video is debunked at ... watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
OrthodoxDarwinist 2 months ago
I notice how few posting here even address the theme of the video. Animal tissue simply cannot under any circumstance survive more than several thousand years. 65 million year old soft tissue is preposterous. Therefore, Dino's coexisted with man and macro evolution is a fantastic hoax. But the scoffers refuse to see the evidence.
TheThumper49 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheThumper49
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
OrthodoxDarwinist 2 months ago
@TheThumper49, Yes, it's possible that absolutely everything we know about history and biology has just been overturned. Or perhaps this video is wrong :P
ichimonji1988 1 month ago
If evolution was so great how come we still need glasses? Animals don't wear glasses, funny how that works.
jossalv1 2 months ago
@jossalv1, cos they can't make glasses?
ichimonji1988 1 month ago
@jossalv1
Yeah you're right, people are so stupid they are stopping evolution right now. Human being is supposed to adapt, which means people with defects should die/give birth to less people than completely healthy people. We are not suppose to heal anything, we are suppose to let people die from it until the people remaining will be able to heal all by themselves. More death, less problems.
PS: Even if there is proof THESE dinosaurs died recently, there is proof MOST dinosaurs died m yrs ago
Snow4LifeNEver 1 month ago
@jossalv1: Animals generally don't live long enough for hardening of the lens to be a problem, and if they should happen to, the first perception mistake they make because of it is likely also their last. Evolution only builds what it needs to get an animal from conception to reproduction and protection of their young. Everything after that is just coasting downhill.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
I heard next time, he will show the flintstones existed, and then he transforms into a dinosaur himself. LOLOL
romayne2 2 months ago
Why are there so many misleading retard videos on Youtube. Well at least this one isn't deliberate. You guys genuinely believe that radioactive dating is wrong. Well go ahead and show me a video disproving all of physics and geology and all of evolution and i'll be persuaded. while to me it is a mystery how soft tissue is preserved for so long, i do not have the evidence that state that all soft tissue must degrade after 1000 or 100000 or 10000000. When exactly must it degrade?
greiteneis 2 months ago
So science is wrong because science is right?
gummyboots 3 months ago
Creationists are too quick to jump on anything that they think proves God while Evolutionists are too quick to dismiss anything that has to do with God. I think the truth is gonna lie somewhere in the middle to be honest and that we have a very long way to go before we get there. I encourage anyone who isn't a creationist to be kind to them and steer away from personal attacks. I encourage anyone who is a creationist to understand science.
greyfoxzero 3 months ago
@greyfoxzero Don't talk as if Evolutionists were some sort of followers of Darwin, or something. You don't ask astronomers and astrophysics to better understand Astrology or the Heliocentric Theory. Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the variety of species. Creationism is just a bigoted interpretation of the Bible.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Well I wasn't talking like they were but since you brought it up, isn't it called "Darwin's" theory of evolution?
greyfoxzero 3 months ago
@greyfoxzero It was proposed by Darwin, but that doesn't mean he is some kind of god.
raviept 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@raviept Never said he was.
greyfoxzero 3 months ago
@greyfoxzero: Sure it is, because he was key in committing it to paper and to people's minds, and as such, holds some proprietary "bragging rights". That doesn't mean he was the last word in it; it has grown considerably since Darwin. You don't call Physics Newtonianism, but you do hear of Newton's laws and theories. It is, if anything, a sign of respect for a prodigious intellectual feat.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@raviept It should be renamed "Darwin's theory of evolution based on gradualism" because without gradualism evolution ain't worth jack.
HaphazardCrappola 3 months ago
@greyfoxzero: No. What creationists are quick to jump on is anything that seems to say that evolution (biological or cosmic, as they understand it or think the world understands it) may have a flaw. Of course, scientists expect flaws; they are a scientist's livelihood. Creationists are only there to poke at science, as they have no replacement theories, and don't desire them, either.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
These discoveries do not so much as dent the theory of evolution - they dent the existing models on fossilization. And the hadrosaur in question is not truly "mummified" the way we think of mummies - its skin is fossilized, and poorly at that.
Nevermind that we've seen preserved soft tissue before, in insects entrapped in amber. It's absolutely amazing that one surprising and interesting discovery gets the creationists frenzied about how all of science must be wrong about the earth's timescale.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79: As far as that goes, they have revived 250 million year old bacteria encased inside of halite crystals, which certainly proves that DNA can hang around and remain organized for a long time under the proper conditions. The genera of the bacteria are recognized as having living specimens alive today in the extremeophiles.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also keep in mind you cannot cite ICR as a valid scientific source =)
If you don't believe me just read their "About Us" page, they are not a scientific organization, nor do they use the scientific method.
A0DBOB 4 months ago
How come when Christians use the words TRUTH and FAMILY they usually mean the opposite? Some kind of inside joke that I'm missing?
/nothing quite like doublespeak
A0DBOB 4 months ago
What is Keith Stone doing talking about dinosaurs?
cchris000043 4 months ago
Sigh, do christians have any other argument besides one from that of ignorance?
It's tiresome. So there is a question of soft tissue and the only possible explanation that could possibly make sense is an invisible sky pixy.
Right? .... Right?
losghost 4 months ago 2
Red blood cells deteriorate in about 2 weeks. Nice try.
They are questioning fossilsization NOT the age of the 68 million year old fossil.
gregrutz 4 months ago
yes because if it were soft tissue, 6,000 years old would leave it soft, compared to the millions...
seriously... wtf?
eivarden 4 months ago
@eivarden The fossils is still 68 million years old. The age of the fossil being different did not even cross their minds. There are the people who dig fossils and see evolution every day. They know when the dinosaurs ruled the earth.
gregrutz 4 months ago
I find one big problem with this video, the part in which the host says "common sense." Well common sense to the Church 500 years ago stated that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it right?
Anyway back to the dino issue. The soft tissue is under debate as to whether or not it actually is blood. One study shows that it is not blood, but bacteria. I find it funny how Creationists only support the slightest "evidence" towards 6000 year old Earth.
aDinoSupremacist 4 months ago
It's about time that someone is finally telling us the truth about these creatures. As a Christian I believe that this earth is only a few thousand years old and that early man walked the earth with dinosaurs. Of course, they weren't called dinosaurs back then, they were called things like Behemoth and Leviathan. We can read about this in the book of Job. Dr. Kent Hovind talks alot about this subject and is extremely smart about it too.
jasonsps78 4 months ago
@jasonsps78 ''Dr. Kent Hovind talks alot about this subject and is extremely smart about it too.''
His dad is in Prison for Fraud. He is not a Dr. or a scientist.
JOB 40:
15 Behold now behemoth
16 His strength is in his loins and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Dinosaurs come from eggs, THEY DON’T HAVE NAVELS.
gregrutz 4 months ago
100% pure retarded.
M0b1u5 5 months ago
lying for jesus......
ekorre33 5 months ago
Ugh, this video is misleading, they found Heme, not hemoglobin, and the skeletal sections of the dinosaur WERE in fact fossilized, ie the Calcium in the bone.
Calling it 'soft tissue meat' is quite an overstatement, the materials don't contain any tangible biological material, mostly it's elastic collagen.
Disregarding radiometric dating as an entire scientific field while using this evidence is hypocritical. For proof of avian evolution, look no further then bird psuedogenes (all have them).
EthanNin0 5 months ago
This video is debunked at ... watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 5 months ago
The stated goal should be one that seeks to find the objective truth, rather than to seek a pet theory.
Take for example my own theory of human giants in the earth. I was seeking to prove my theory that men 15 or 20 feet tall lived in the ancient world. But the objective facts have so far not agreed with my theory, although there are some little publicized bone fragments,skeletons, artifacts, and a great deal of written reports which suggest occasional humans of 7 to 9 feet, and possibly 10-12.
rephaim23 5 months ago
@rephaim23: You aren't talking about that "footstep in the granite mush" or the photoshop...er, I mean photographed skeleton unearthed in Turkey, are you? Those are just embarrassing.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@puncheex
Hello. No I am primarily interested in claims of large to giant sized human and hominid skeletons/bones which have some scientific documentation, and or are at least tied to a university, institution, museum or credible anthropologist, scientist or physician who documented such remains in person. There are hundreds of news paper reports of human giants found in burial mounds and or cemeteries in America and Europe. Some are can be explained away, but others have substance.
rephaim23 2 weeks ago
@puncheex
I am currently investigating claims of possible human giants in the Mediterranean, in and around southern France and Spain. Several scientific papers described abnormally large human bones and or skeletons in these regions. Certainly, estimates of stature from bone fragments and incomplete skeletons are prone to errors by up to a foot or more. From my preliminary investigations, the bones of Castelnau may represent someone taller than perhaps anyone in modern times.
rephaim23 2 weeks ago
@puncheex
I don't put a great deal of credence in the Paluxy river tracks, nor in the rumor of a 14 foot tall man found in Syria/Turkey in the 1950's. If further details emerge, such as a scientific document written by Turkish anthropologists describing a 120 cm long human femur from Bronze age tombs, then I will take radical steps to investigate this claim. So far no such documents have emerges to my knowledge.
rephaim23 2 weeks ago
I take a middle ground approach. I think Dinosaurs may well be millions of years old, but the ones which are in that state of pristine decay, the ones with living tissue, are much younger. I also believe the cave paintings, pictographs ceramics, and tapestry representations of "Dragons" in ancient cultures need further study, since these may well be Dinosaurs, and in some cases admittedly appear to represent species characteristics. All options should be exhausted.
rephaim23 5 months ago
Now, perhaps in the right circumstances there are biological mechanisms within an environment that will keep the said Dinosaur corpse in state like a freezer for millions and millions of years. However, even things in a specialized freezer eventually succumb and break down. 70 million years is an incredible amount of time. If these are that old, science needs to revise all the text books regarding body decay to resolve this issue.
rephaim23 5 months ago
Well, either soft tissue can survive 60 million years, or Dinosaurs are not 60 million years old.
rephaim23 5 months ago
@rephaim23 Correct, at least someone understands LOGIC. The age of fossil is so well established that changing the 70 million year old date DIDN'T EVEN ENTER THER MINDS.
These are the people who see evolution ever day.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Based on decay rates etc. for something to by mummified or contain organic living tissue, skin, blood cells and other matter and survive 70 million years is extremely hard for me to picture. Something that old would practically have turned to stone, and all living tissue would be gone by probably the first 50,000 or 100,000 years, certainly the first million. I mean, human skeletons in 5,000 years are pretty shabby. 70 million years-- almost nothing would exist. So much would happen.
rephaim23 5 months ago
@rephaim23 Attn. Creationists. They did NOT find ''organic lifing tissue'' OR ''blood cells''
Mary said they ''looked like red blood cells'' It turns out they were not. Red blood cells go bad in about 2 weeks.
It was stone, the soaked it in strong acid for weeks,
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
Sweet. Thank you for the links. The train is back on the tracks.
rephaim23 5 months ago
@rephaim23 Watch watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE for the TRUTH about what they found.
gregrutz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is debunked at >> watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 5 months ago
In 1990 a T-Rex was unearthed and dated at 68 Million years old. Today it is still dated at 68 Million years old by the people who found it.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz carbon dating is used to measure the time it takes for carbon to disperse into nitro; carbon takes either a few days to a few years to disperse into nitro; in other words, carbon dating does not tell us that any fossil is any older than 6,000 years old. Radiometric dating is basically the determining the age of the fossils by the rock layers & then determining the age of the rock layers by the fossils; in other words, the "million year" age of dinosour fossils is a mere presupposition.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 You even sound like a Hovind video >LOL
1. C14 does not ''disperse into Nitrogen'' It decays.
2. C14 has a know half-life.
3.Carbon dating is not used to date fossils, it has too short a half-life.
It does work well up to 60,000 years
4. Ash layers are dated above and below the fossil to get a range for the fossil.
5. The fossil record is so well know that scientists in the field do use index fossils to see if they are in the right layers to find what they are looking for.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "C14 does not 'disperse into Nitrogen' it decays"
-Right, it decays into nitrogen.
You said, "C14 has a known half-life."
-And yet you don't tell me what that is.
You said, "Carbon dating is not used to dat fossils, it has too short a half-life"
-Like I said.
You said, "It does work well up to 60,000 years"
-On what exactly, hmm?
You said, "Ash layers are dated above & below the fossil to get a range for the fossil"
-How is the ash dated, hmm???
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Carbon dating works up to 60,000 years ago.
It works on once living things that get they Carbon from the air. They use it to date Egyptian artifacts, it works on Egyptian artifacts with a know date, that is how they know it works so well. Egyptians were farming in 6000BC and didn't all die in a global flood.
They date ash layers with several different radiomentric dating methods.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Carbon dating works up to 60,000 years"
-Tthe time it takes for carbon to decay into nitrogen RANGES between a few years to a few thousand years; so even the half life RANGES between a "half" of a few years to "half" of a few thousand years. So how can you determine the "half-life" between the RANGE of a few years to a few thousand years? Plus you need to explain why a "half-life" is capable of determining the age of fossils at all.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7: No. The randomness is constrained by the Law of Large Numbers, and determined by the mean lifetime of each particular isotope's nucleus. All of them decay exponentially, and thus possess a half-life, the period in which half of a sample decays. For C14, that's 5730 +/- 40 yrs. All common isotopes of natural and artificial elements have measured half-lives which are unaffected by heat, chemical bonds, mag/elec fields and other externalities (few exceptions).
puncheex 2 weeks ago
... As far as the how, thus: C14 dating assumes the original matter with carbon was once alive. It was thus building carbohydrates using the air's C12/C14 ratio. When the item died, the clock starts. C14 is no longer replenished and starts decaying. A sample is measured for the C14:C12 ratio remaining, compared to the calibrated ratio at death. If the sampledied less than 8 or so half-lives in the past, the measurement is sensitive enough to yield a date with appropriate error bars.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz You said, "they use it to date Egyptian artifacts..."
-There artifacts are made of pottery & metal....... Explain your point about "CARBON" dating
You said, "...it works on Egyptian artifacts with a known date..."
-Is this "known date" determined by historical writings of Egyptians or by carbon dating. According to historical documentation there is no way to determine how long each Egyptian dynasty lasted, for all we know Egypt could be 3928 years old.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 They know when the Egyptians lived, they have a written record. The can date wooden tools, cloth and pottery.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "They know when the Egyptians lived, they have a written record. They can date wooden tools, cloth & pottery"
-& how do you determine WHEN the carbon left those objects? Plus, DRY wood & cloth is so much dryer than actual dead corpses, how do you know that the carbon decayed in the wood & cloth at the same speed as the carbon decaying in a dead corpse? & how do you know that the half life of carbon is 5730 years? Decaying carbon ranges from a few year to a few thousand years
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 You have absolutly no idea how Carbon 14 dating works, do you? The know that half the C14 will be gone in 5730 years because they can measure the rate of radioactive decay, it is called Science, another thing you have no idea about.
They can date things they know are 4000 years old and they date at 4000 years old, And they date things they know are 5000 years old and the C14 date = 5000 years old. Then they date things and it shows they are 6000 years old, and 7000 and 8000 and.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "They know that half the C14 will be gone in 5730 because they can measure the rate of radioactive decay"
-And how do they know the rate of decay is the same in any climate/ terrain? How do they know that the "rate" of decay is exactly the same NO MATTER WHAT???
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Because they study radioactive decay at different temps. and pressures and it is always the same. The Weak Nuclear Force is one of the fundemental forces of nature, they don't change.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@starsheild7: Having measured the half-lives of thousands of isotopes, nuclear decay as an exponential decay phenomenon is not in contention, even by creationists. The math of all exponential decays yield a "half-life" number with the properties mentioned above. It is known to be unchanging because the weak nuclear force is orders of magnitude more powerful than EM forces which cause chemical and most physical properties. See wiki, "half-life" for the math, and exceptions list.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz You said, "They can date things that they know are 4000 years old & they date at 4000 years old. And they date things that they know are 5000 years old & the C14 date = 5000 years old"
-What? They somehow KNOW the date BEFORE they even date the objects? What??? How can any human already "know" the age of an object "before" dating the object???
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Because we have a calender and a history book and some people can count. The know they planted a tree 1000 years ago and when they Carbon date it, it dates at 1000 years. Got it now ?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "They know they planted a tree 1000 years ago & they carbon sate it"
-How do you know that the Egyptians planted trees at all (let alone 1000 years ago specifically)?
You said, "Because they study radioactive decay at different temps. & pressures & it is always the same"
-What about observing radioactive decay in wet vs dry substances? How do you even know when radioactive decay began to start in the fossil (when did the tree die)? When did it begin to decay?
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 I am sorry but you are too stupid to talk to. Go read a science book.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz YES! You are now unable to refute my points.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 I don't even understand half of what you say.
'' How do you even know when radioactive decay began to start in the fossil (when did the tree die)? When did it begin to decay?''
The decay goes on all the time. When the animal is alive it takes in more C14 all the time, It stops taking in the C14 when it dies. When did the tree die? THAT IS WHAT C14 DATING TELLS YOU !
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "The dacay goes on all the time. When the animal is alive it takes in more C14 all the time. It stops taking in the C14 when it dies. When did the tree die? THAT IS WHAT C14 DATING TELLS YOU!"
-So aside from using presuppositions you have no reference point to to even messure the time/ date that the tree even began to stop taking in C14. Plus how do you know how much carbon the tree even consumed right before it died? How do you know how much carbon decayed from the tree?
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 They know the tree stopped taking in C14 when it died dummy. They know how much C14 is in all living things. They know how fast the C14 decays. They can measure how much C14 is left today. They can calulate how old something is up to 60,000 years ago. It only works of once living things that get there C14 from the air or plants.
Do you want me to send you a link to a video that explains it or can you type ''Carbon 14'' in the SEARCH box?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "They know the tree stopped taking in C14 when it dies dummy"
-Then tell me WHEN the tree died & explain HOW you know when it died (otherwise this is just another attempt to suppress your moral accountability to the supreme special Creator).
You said, "They know how much C14 is in all living things"
-Explain HOW they know that (do thety just know because they say so?).
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 They know when the tree died by using Carbon 14 Radiometric dating !!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is what they are dating dip shit .
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "They know when the tree died by using Carbon 14 Radiometric dating!!!!!!!!!!!!"
-But last time you said, "They know the tree stopped taking in C14 when it died dummy", now you are telling me that the carbon 14 dates the tree... and the tree dates the C14 dating results. I guess you believe in circular reasoning because you determine your belief based on intelligent sounding words; C14 Radiometric dating sounds "official" & "respectable" (you even capatalize the words)...
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "That is what they are dating dip shit"
-What are fourteen years old or something? It's not like I'm bullying you in highschool. Calm down, it's just a mere debate, sheesh.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7: The date the tree died is what the dating method is for; you don't start, as you want, by deciding what the age is and then use the method. One knows it died because all trees used for furniture or house beams have. They know how much C14 is in the sample by measuring the decay radioactivity. It gives a direct count of the amount of C14 in it. They then weigh the carbon12/14 mixture, derive a ratio, compute the number of half-lives, and convert that to years.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@starsheild7: That the tree dies at some point is a presupposition? Pray tell, what trees have you seen that never die, even when someone makes a chair out of it? The reference point is WHEN thy die. The error figures are such that 5 years, one way or the other, is not important. And it's irrelevant how much carbon the tree actually has or the rate of growth; what is important is the C14/C12 ratio, which is fixed in the atmosphere (with known exceptions) and is lower now.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz All you said was C14 stops being consumed in a dead animal and that the fact that C14 stops being conumed tells us when it died some how; so how does the fact that a creature stops conuming carbon tell us WHEN it stopped consuming carbon exactly?
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7: No, you're simply too simple minded to know when you've been pinned to the wall. You are the Black Knight of Monty Python. You don't have points, you have poo balls you keep slinging. You've not in your turn refuted anything. As a debater, you are pathetic. And you name is misspelled.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@starsheild7: The wood is used in furniture, burned in cook fires, oats left in clay vessels. It doesn't make any difference who or how planted the trees; only that they grew. Water (hydrogen and oxygen) has no affect on the C12/C14 ratios. As a matter of practice, the water is always driven off (along with other volatiles) during preparation, because it is an easily eliminated irrelevancy and complication.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
Decay happens to C14 (and all unstable nuclei) starting the moment they are created; C14 on Earth is created continuously by cosmic rays bombarding nitrogen in the atmosphere. The C14 was regularly replenished, as all live biological matter is, by cellular repair mechanisms. The carbon you were born with has long since been replaced, atom by atom, during your lifetime. The C14 clock starts when the C14 suddenly is no longer replaced in the tissues; it is frozen in place.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz: Ummm, not pottery. The things contained within pottery, like grain, yes.
puncheex 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz You said, "They date ash layers with several different radiometric dating methods"
-They date the ash by the fossils don't they.......
Explain how we are suppose to know WHEN all the carbon decayed from the ash.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 No they don't date the ash layers by the fossils, they get an absolute date with radiometric dating. The knew the earth was old and evolution happens before radiometric dating was invented.
The Half life of C14 is 5730 years. You are not to fucking bright are you.
Read a science book and get back to me when you get an education. BYE
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "No they don't date the ash layers by the fossils, they get an absolute date with radiometric dating"
-And radiometric dating is when the rock layers date the fossils & the fossils date the rocks layers.......
You said, "They knew the earth was old & evolution happens before radiometric dating was invented"
-Yet they say that the fossil record proves evolution, but the fossil record (according to them) is determined by radiometric dating, & radiometirc dating is circular.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "The half life of C14 is 5730 years"
-The text books don't explain how the half life proves the age of the fossils, & you not explaining what I may have missed is convincing me that you probably don't know why the half life proves the age of fossils somehow... Care to explain?
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "You even sound like a Hovind video >LOL"
-So? You sound like Darwin when it comes to dating rock layers.......
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Darwin didn't date rock layers dummy. He did evolution. Radiometric dating had not been invented. Geologists did know the earth was millions of years old.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "Darwin didn't date rock layers dummy"
-I know, that's the point of my comeback; you say I debate like Hovind (that was your joke to me), & I say you debate like Darwin when it comes to dating layers (it was a comeback to your joke), I already know that Darwin couldn't date rocks, & I was saying that your arguments for dating layers is no better than Darwin's ability to date rock layers
PS. Darwin still made claims about the age of rock layers, & atheists believe him.......
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Who gives a shit about what atheists think or theists for that matter.
The fossils are in order, it does not matter what the dates were. Dinosaurs live in 3 major periods, different dinosaurs in each period. Some walked on 2 legs, had hollow bones, oval eggs in nests and feathers.
The rocks are dated like this, the older ones are on the bottom, Can you figure that out or do you want me to explain geology to you?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "The rocks are dated like this, the older ones are on thye bottom, can you figure that out or do you want me to explain geology to you?"
-I understand, but the rack layers on the bottom could simply be older by a few minutes/ hours because of a flood distributing the sediments into layers.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Then why don't the layers have the same fossils in them????
This is the key question that we are trying to figure out. Your theory?
And remember floods don't sort fossils. Just like floods don't make different kinds of rock.
ALL SEDIMENTARY ROCK IS NOT LAID DOWN BY WATER !
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You asked, "Then why don't the layers have the same fossils in them????"
-Huh? They do have the same fossils in them (discovered in various places); they found human fossils buried in all twelve layers (as well as tools & clothing with them).
You said, "And remember, floods don't sort fossils"
-Unless the certain animals have a specific density unique to each kind of animal (but even that may vary because human fossils (& tools) have been found in all twelve layers in various areas.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "ALL SEDIMENTARY ROCK IS NOT LAID DOWN BY WATER!"
-You're telling me that hydrologic sorting is not even possible???
-Why would the sedimtary layers have the same water formation that mud gets when it is washed over land & the water recedes (with the mud have water current marks on the mud), all the sediment in the world (especually in the base of mountains) have have those same water current marks (as if water had moved the sediment in all locations).
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz Water is the only way for dead animal corpse to even turn into fossils in the first place; if the animal dies in dry sediment (without water moving the sediment) the corpse will not fossilize, it will either rot away into mush/ dust, or turn into oil, or become mummified (intact) if conceiled tight enough; sediment that is moved by water & then soaked up by the dead corpses is the ONLY way for any biological substance to fossilize. Fossilization is evidence of water moving the sediment
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Are you an expert on fossils, Geology and hydrolics? You have never opened a science book.
''-Are you now telling me that sand could not exist before the global flood came?.......''
NO DUMMY, I AM TELLING YOU THERE WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD.
I am telling you that the 44 distinct layers of sediment, some wind blown, in the Grand Canyon took millions of years to lay down.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Water is the only way for dead animal corpse to even turn into fossils '' WRONG fossils are found in desert sands and in tar pits.
And Floods don't sort fossils. Floods don't make volcanic ash layers. You can't make what we find in nature with a flood. You need to go outside more often.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Your next argument for the age of fossils/ rock layers will be another form of circular reasoning, "badazzled" to SEEM like a new & better argument for your point, but it won't be; your next argument won't be a plan "B" for your point when plan "A" fails, your next argument will only be plan "A" recycled; you will do that in an attempt to hold on to something that will merely make you FEEL like God can't exist, out of fear of the possibility of God existing, despite God's forgiveness.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 What does God have to do with the age of the earth? Where did I say He didn't exist? Sorry if scientists keep proving you wrong.
There is no circular reasoning, the older rocks are on the bottom, is that too difficult for you to understand?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You asked, "What does God have to do with the age of the earth? Where did I say He didn't exist?"
-I guess you didn't actually "say" that God did not exist. I had the impression that you were another atheist using science to debate against the bible (I've encountered many atheists doing that, with rudeness) I apologize for judging you without at least getting to know you better.
-PS If Moses was telling the truth, then chronologically, ALL human history should be about 6000 years old
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "There is no circular reasoning, the older rocks are on the bottom, is that too difficult for you to understand?"
-Yes, but I'll explain why: sedimentary layers (in global proportion) can be more justified with a flood explaination than a few volcanoes & rotting animal corpses (that are unable to cover the earth with sediment layers), yet with all the sediment covering every piece of land (with limestone & shale layers) it is more logical to say that a global flood did it.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 The third layer down in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. It is made up of wind blown sand, it has desert fossils in it. Not all sedimentary rock is laid down by water. A single flood can not expalin the complex geology of the earth.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "The third layer down the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. It is made up of wind blown sand, it has desert fossils in it".
-Are you now telling me that sand could not exist before the global flood came?.......
You said, "Not all sedimentary rock is laid down by water. A single flood can not explain the complex geology of the earth"
-A single flood can simply move sand from one location to another, making a layer out of it (with the reptilians & insects).
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 -You're telling me that hydrologic sorting is not even possible???
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES !!!!
FLOODS DON'T SORT FOSSILS WITH DINOSAURS IN THE MIDDLE.
FLOODS DON'T MAKE CHALK, LIMESTONE, ASH, CORALS, ETC.
WHERE DID 29,000 FEET OF WATER GO, DUMMY.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz I asked you, "You're telling me that hydrologic sorting is not even possible???", & then you said, "YES YES YES YES YES...".
-But you see if you were to take a jar that had different kinds of sediment in it, fill it with water, shook the jar and then set it down & observe the inside of the jar (as the water moves quickly), as the water & sediment slows down the different sediments become sorted seperately into layers based on density. You can try this experiment at home also.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 Yes a flood would make one layer with the dense rocks on the bottom and the silt on the top. Just one problem, that is not what we find in nature. We find distinct layers of different kinds of rock in RANDOM Order. There are not sorted by density. The fossils are NOT sorted by density.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Like all creatards you get you info from Hovind, go outside and study the rocks like scientists do.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "FLOODS DON'T SORT FOSSILS WITH DINOSAURS IN THE MIDDLE"
-The middle of what? There happen to be many places that don't even have twelve layers & people still discovered dinosaur fossils (in different levels in the ground without any more than one sediment layer in the ground), even the dinosaur fossils are not arranged in a straight position in the layers, they happen to be arranged in randomn up and down positions in many places that don't even have any layers at all.
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "FLOODS DON'T MAKE CHALK, LIMESTONE, ASH, CORALS, ETC"
-I know that a flood wouldn't make such sediments, the sediments themselves could've existed in various places of the earth (on land and in the sea) before the flood even took place, the flood could've simply arranged the sediments into layers (all around the world).
starsheild7 5 months ago
@gregrutz You asked, "WHERE DID 29,000 FEET OF WATER GO DUMMY".
-To the north & south poles in the form of ice, the the tops of mountains in the form of snow, hidden in the ground that water wells can reach, consumed by all the billions of animals & plants that happen to be made of 70-80 % of "water", & in the many clouds in the sky (even the fact that storms happen at all is because the atmosphere is trying to balance all the water that exists on the earth, as if the earth is crouded).
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 There is not 29000 feet of ice at the north and south poles. A global flood would need 5 times the amount of water there is in the world today. There was no flood.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "There is not 29,000 feet of ice at the north and south poles"
-I know, that's why the rest of the water is in all the snow in ALL the mountains, in all the billions of plants & animals, & in all the sewage that exists in the world, & soaked in the grounds that wells can reach (there is water inside of all the factories in the world as well).
starsheild7 5 months ago
@starsheild7 No, there is not enough water at the poles to flood the earth and cover all the mountains.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz You said, "No, there is not enough water at the poles to flood the earth and cover all the mountains"
-I know, you have to ALSO melt all the snow in the mountains and turn all the clouds into rain, and add all the water in the billions of plants and animals into the equation (you are intelligent, but you are being ignorant of God's works in your heart ON PURPOSE)
Ice in the poles + snow in the mountains + cloud water + plus biological water + plus all the sediment = global flood mass
starsheild7 5 months ago
So what!
Their just trying to justify their delusions.
There are other, better explanations for the tissue condition.
It's not a sin to lie to promote your delusions.
He saw a cartoon with a TALKING SNAKE and a dinosaur, that's proof enough/
legion1a 6 months ago
@legion1a Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
More evidence that God created everything approx. 6000 years ago that evolutionists will ignore and keep falling for the evol. Fairytale. Dinousours were Created the same week men were and lived with humans there is tons of evidence proving this but evolutionists ignore it so they can hold onto there evol. Faith
coolvideo28 6 months ago
@coolvideo28 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv What do you mean ''life can't use''?? Plants make left handed molecules and that is what you eat and use. Life only used one type of molecule, so what, it could have used right handed instead of left handed just as easy. Just random chance. If we went to another planet it could be a problem.
Birth control pills are a 50-50 mixture because it is made in the lab, so woman take twice a much and only use half, it does not seem to be a ''problem for life''.
gregrutz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coolvideo28 This video is debunked at >> watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
There are trees older than 6000 years old.
gregrutz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is debunked at >> watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 6 months ago
If i found a coke bottle cap at a archeological sight, i would have to assume that everyone in that era drank coke
BadgerCat10 6 months ago