Science is Dogma...

[Robert A Whit]

Nobody knows and nobody can prove how old the earth is . Nobody knows or can prove how old the universe is. I've always thought the immense time span given for earth's age was given to allow for the theory of Evolution. Eons of million year time spans are the magic elixir that allows for evolution. Instead of magic fairy dust they used incomprehensible lengths of time to allow for the changes in earth and its creatures. Since nobody knows or can prove earth's age I'm going with somewhere between 7 to 11 million years . I always liked those numbers and won a lot money with them......--Tyr

I dunno Ty. I have more confidence in the math of the creation of the universe than I have in global climate change. When you get a chance, take a look at some good photos of the Grand Canyon and realize how many years it takes to pack down an inch of sediment and then figure out how long it took to first make that canyon and how much longer it took a river to cut it out. They say you can see almost back to the beginning of earth time in that canyon if you know what to look for. All i know is it is very very old and not 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

[Voted4Reagan]

that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

The Young Earth is scientifically refuted by radio-Isotope dating. It is the realm of fanatical born again Christians that according to biblical lineage the earth is just around 6800 years old.

Personally I am well aware it is BILLIONS of years old.

Let those who believe in that theory believe it... It isnt mine.

But they're entitled to it.... however wrong it is....

[revelarts]

that analogy made no sense to me. I get the feeling you're either confused or intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue that, in no way, shape or form, is there a singular shred of evidence of support for the young earth theory.
Young earth is completely unsupported by any data. in fact, available data renders it a complete fabrication. sure, maybe there's error in radiometric dating, ill admit as much-- such error is recorded and varies upon differing isotopes-- but its firmly based upon repeatedly tested and observed data; not hoodoo theory with absolutely no observational evidence, as young earth is. You try hard to dance around the glaring fact that there's six magnitudes you need excuse away; left only to the argument "science isn't perfect; therefore its not to be trusted"

Hard to see it if you don't look for it.

But I as i said, Just as Good.
what you say is, Look at the radiometric dating it's old. or Look at the grey hair and wrinkles he's old!
At this point I've only pointed out that rapid or slower aging is a real option.

As far as things being younger than they appear. well I won't force it to the less than 10,000 years at this point. but lets see what might give us an idea that things aren't as old as many claim.

red shift = distance and time, not so much
the claim that redshift is an accurate measure of distance and expanding universe has been proven false, not acknowledge to be so but , the facts are there, 1 example is a star cluster, NGC 7603, with 2 galaxies connected by a particle cloud. what's the problem?
One is red shifted so that it appears much older than the galaxy it's connected too. by 7million or so and further investigation shows that 2 quasars within the cluster off by 7 to 11 times.

this shows that red shift is NOT, at least in all cases, an indicator of distance and expansion. And basically throws a lot of calculations in the trash. If you can't know for sure if the red shift is only an indicator of speed/distance/motion how can you make predictions about any stellar bodies with it.

the expansion of the universe ideas and the big bang are based on the discovery of red shift and it's singular interpretation.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...hirtyyears.htm

dinosaurs = old stuff , maybe not
One recent item that shows the geologic ages may not be a long as supposed are dinosaurs.
IF you look at a typical geologic column you'll see that Dinosaurs All went extinct 65 millions years ago with a huge extinction. putting them in the MESOZOIC era. Now when geologist look at rock formation if they see a dinosaurs bone they KNOW the strata are at least 65 mil + years old. they use the fossil to date the rocks.
In a previous thread i mentioned that people have found tissue in dinosaur bone that is carbon dated at 40,000 years old. DOH! With that date it would put dinosaurs in the tail end of the the Cenozoic very near us. Inferring the strata it was found in was not 65 million plus years old. If you use a typical dating method, the rocks are as old as the fossils.
Ok 40,000 is still old, by my standard you'll say, but that's the outer range of the test.
the other factor to consider is that that the tissue should NOT have survived decay for more than 1000 years or so, much less 65 million years.

see a little umbilical cord here?

[Robert A Whit]

Revelarts

Advice for you

Please, do yourself a favor and end this argument that Earth is 10,000 years or less. I don't know where you live but I can sure point out areas where one can see that the Earth is not 10,000 years old or younger. Notice how below the age is still 68 million years old.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../dinosaur.html

Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”
After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.”


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz2aMDhYH31
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

[logroller]

I dunno Ty. I have more confidence in the math of the creation of the universe than I have in global climate change. When you get a chance, take a look at some good photos of the Grand Canyon and realize how many years it takes to pack down an inch of sediment and then figure out how long it took to first make that canyon and how much longer it took a river to cut it out. They say you can see almost back to the beginning of earth time in that canyon if you know what to look for. All i know is it is very very old and not 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

There's good reason to place more value on theories on the age of earth than anthropomorphic global climate change; the age of earth isn't unprecedented. Were I to say that the earths climate changes, that's proven by science to be true--it has changed, multiple times throughout history-- but proving that man has done so is dissimilar in that this would be the first time that man has done so and there is no control from which to gauge the variables of man's action.

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
I dunno Ty. I have more confidence in the math of the creation of the universe than I have in global climate change. When you get a chance, take a look at some good photos of the Grand Canyon and realize how many years it takes to pack down an inch of sediment and then figure out how long it took to first make that canyon and how much longer it took a river to cut it out. They say you can see almost back to the beginning of earth time in that canyon if you know what to look for. All i know is it is very very old and not 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

There's good reason to place more value on theories on the age of earth than anthropomorphic global climate change; the age of earth isn't unprecedented. Were I to say that the earths climate changes, that's proven by science to be true--it has changed, multiple times throughout history-- but proving that man has done so is dissimilar in that this would be the first time that man has done so and there is no control from which to gauge the variables of man's action.

Not only that, but we must know these people come up with their claims. First if they claim they understand not one climate, but thousands of them, how they interact and what are the causes, they are shooting blanks. I learned a lot from Professor Lindzen and his papers.

You know, as flexible as Earth is, warmer eras improve plant life in some areas and may make deserts larger too. Humans adapt. If we won't adapt, we will have many problems.

[logroller]

Hard to see it if you don't look for it.

But I as i said, Just as Good.
what you say is, Look at the radiometric dating it's old. or Look at the grey hair and wrinkles he's old!
At this point I've only pointed out that rapid or slower aging is a real option.

6 magnitudes rev, that's not a little slowing. If that inspector said this guy has wrinkles and grey hairs: he's a million years-old--that's a real option-- you'd have a point. And if I took a hundred or a thousand samples of persons with wrinkles and grey hairs, I'm guessin the average age of such persons would indeed be accurate. You can't base an entire theory on an anomaly.

[revelarts]

6 magnitudes rev, that's not a little slowing. If that inspector said this guy has wrinkles and grey hairs: he's a million years-old--that's a real option-- you'd have a point. And if I took a hundred or a thousand samples of persons with wrinkles and grey hairs, I'm guessin the average age of such persons would indeed be accurate. You can't base an entire theory on an anomaly.

A new born verses a 70 year old is an order of magnitude physiologically. it's depends on your perspective.
And if your honest you have to explain the anomaly. you can't just dismiss it with a wave of a hand.
it has to be explained, corrected or integrated into the age. You can not claim that ONE form of evidence 'over and over is the ONLY evidence that matters.

If you have the DNA of an accuse murderer and have it from various places at the crime scene and on the victim from 100's of places. But someone finds video surveillance of the accused in different country at the time of the murder. All your DNA evidence is great but your conclusion is possibly mistaken.
It's does no good to bang the table and say DNA evidence says he's guilty, DNA is good science!

no one is saying DNA is bad science just that it doesn't tell the whole story.

BTW. I've got more items to come...
tomorrow

[revelarts]

one for the road

Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossil

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-soft-tissue-remnants-discovered-in-%20archaeopteryx-fossil.html#.UfVcG1OTp5s

It boasts more than just... impressions of long-gone feathers. One of the world's most famous fossils... Archaeopteryx – also contains remnants of the feathers' soft tissue. ... "It's amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years." ... palaeontologists had long thought that only impressions remained. [But] "There is soft-tissue chemistry preserved in places that people didn't expect it," says [geochemist Roy] Wogelius. [RSR: Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue but only remnants of tissue.]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...69107.full.pdf


tissue preserved over 150 million years...

[logroller]

A new born verses a 70 year old is an order of magnitude physiologically. it's depends on your perspective.
And if your honest you have to explain the anomaly. you can't just dismiss it with a wave of a hand.
it has to be explained, corrected or integrated into the age. You can not claim that ONE form of evidence 'over and over is the ONLY evidence that matters.

If you have the DNA of an accuse murderer and have it from various places at the crime scene and on the victim from 100's of places. But someone finds video surveillance of the accused in different country at the time of the murder. All your DNA evidence is great but your conclusion is possibly mistaken.
It's does no good to bang the table and say DNA evidence says he's guilty, DNA is good science!

no one is saying DNA is bad science just that it doesn't tell the whole story.

BTW. I've got more items to come...
tomorrow

Not an order of magnitude, rev, six. And the anomaly, as it were, of variable decomposition rate isn't even an entire magnitude, a few per mil is a fraction of a percent that actually Is within he standard precision error reported by many other findings. Not to mention, the age calculations aren't inferred from just one isotope, but many different isotopes of varied decomposition rates, even different isotopes of even the same element found within certain mineral matrices. Thu don't jus take one singular occurrence and call it good. In fact, the testing continues; but even so, when a colossal upheaval of scientific findings is measured in fractions of percent over a billion years, its not hard to conclusively rule out earth age in thousands of years and, thus presuming that the earth is a part of the universe, it would naturally follow that the universe is older still-- this much is known as well as anything can be.
As for red shift research and the expanding universe theory, I'm willing to debate this further but I feel its dubious in the interest of debate if an X thousand year old old earth theory is premised to be as good as mainstream old earth theories-- as the former requires a complete disregard for scientific findings-- so too, then, would any observable data indicating an expanding universe be subject to disregard. If we're to reject the inferred theories that explain the observed based upon a belief in the unobservable, of what value is there to be found in researching the matter? I don't see a point in debating against skepticism; skeptism, like hope, springs eternal.

[Missileman]

one for the road

Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossil

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UfVcG1OTp5s





http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...69107.full.pdf


tissue preserved over 150 million years...

I suggest you read that pdf file a bit more closely. There was no tissue recovered from fossil in question. They were able to identify some of the chemical residues that were originally part of the soft tissues 150 million years ago.

[red state]

Robert A Whit, I'm glad you FINALLY dropped the Sequoia thing) you should know to quit while you're ahead....in fact, if those like you, who refuse to see other evidence or accept other theories can not provide an EXACT dates or a missing links from any so-called "evolved" life forms, I suggest you pipe down before showing any further ignorance (as with the Sequoia). Marcus never stated that he believed as I but he does have an open mind and a sense of logic that your seem to be clouded from because of your attempt to disprove someone simply because their THEORY threatens YOUR theory.


Rev, you made a GREAT analogy with the three investigators!!! Made perfect sense unless one is void of logic or open-thinking.


Another comment or reference is also correct and the statement below has lost the debate to those who stand with "FLAT EARTH" teachings without consideration of OTHER theories. Through even the slightest bit of "open mindedness" the statement below should stand in this "debate" that seems to have only the REV actually debating:


{maybe the earth was made 6000 years ago and it happened to be created with rocks of various degrees of decomposition-- it's possible--}


Why stop at 6000 or 10000 or 1000000000000000000000000000000000 years? I'm sure that an eternal God made NOTHING prematurely or at any particular age. He mad MAN (not a boy or babe) and I'm sure the Earth and Sea could very well have been made MATURE and at a ripe old age or as young as God deemed "perfect". Certainly, some of science (from both sides) are crude and not without faults or disputable evidence. It is those who would LIMIT the expansion of THEORY who are dangerous to the world and the education of our children. They do this out of fear, hatred to religion and plain ignorance.


Romans CH1 KJB~
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.



22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Science is, after all, a systematic, TESTABLE explanation about the universe. I see know testable explanation or evidence to prove or disprove ANY of the THEORIES out there and to close your mind and call someone WRONG simply because they have evidence that contradict what burst certain people's bubble. Many people's bubble was busted when those far traveled ships from years ago didn't drop off the 'edge' of the planet. They weren't necessarily ignorant because that was all that they had been taught. But for those to attack the evidence to other THEORIES without providing proof to argue their point (successfully) is to be among the ignorant, hate-filled, puppets who believe only what they are told. At no point did I see REV attack your belief but I have repeatedly read his posts as legitimate, logical and fact filled DEBATE.


This is a waste of time...just as the last thread that dealt with OTHER theories was a waste of time through attacks and the ignorant, close-minded attacks that come from the Flat Earthers who chose to stay within certain boundaries/teachings/beliefs for fear of dropping off of the Earth. Go further....I promise the only thing will happen is an expansion of the mind and spirit. The truth is out there but truth is not in unproven and consistently disproven and weakening theories from the more radical among our "sciences" who taught that some are beneath others. These were dangerous "scientists" who PUSHED and bullied their hatreds and stupidities as science (rather than prove their THEORIES). In know way should we exclude other theories while indoctrination our children to other THEORIES that was birthed from what appears to be dangerous, and even radical, individuals.


Fossil record reveal complex fossilized life that seems to suddenly appear. Besides this, there are major gaps that have never connected one fossilized “species" to another. They are simply a different species. Even Darwin acknowledged that (IF) his THEORY were true, it would require millions (if not BILLIONS) of transitional forms as they evolved from one origin to a more developed state of evolution. He believed these "missing links" to his problem in accrediting his THEORY would be found in fossil records....especially as technology "caught up to" his THEORY. There hasn't been and breakthroughs to prove his THEORY as of yet (even with our highly advanced methods of today).
Should our children be taught to consider the three "investigators" as REV so masterly depicted in his analogy.....the answer is YES! When considering ALL the variables, who knows, we may actually come to some conclusion as to our ORIGINS.




Who is to say that there is or isn't Scientific proof of evolution, young earth, old earth, an intelligent alien designer or a creative and artistic GOD........yet. We simply do not KNOW at this time.
If a bridge is out, are we good citizens/neighbors by remaining silent and allow others speed toward certain doom or should we warn them of the destruction at the end of their way....

[revelarts]

Hey...
I've been wanting to get back to this thread FOREVER but i just don't have time to do it Justice.
For those interested in looking into the why Evolution is piss poor science and basically dead.
why the big bang is in trouble and full of holes black and otherwise.
why the Earth is more than likely MUCH younger than many "know" it is.

One really great place to look and listen
is -real science radio- they sum up and link to various science issues along this line.
http://kgov.com/real-science-radio

For the Soft tissue in Dinosaur info they have on of the best, if not the best, pages on it.

the soft tissue is still UNEXPLAINABLE in the long timeline. And really does just disprove the 65million plus ages.
there's just no way soft tissue could survive for 65, 100, 150 million years. the molecular decay alone would turn the bio structures into dust. but they are so intact some researchers have been able to sequence some dinosaur proteins DNA.

there' NO way it's that old. and they are finding it in more and more dino bones. since they now know it's there and are looking for it.

the UNIVERSAL denials are over. Everyone KNEW that the tissue that old COULD NOT survive but now all of the alternative explanations have fallen FLAT and they are left saying. Well it's an "ANOMALY" (found over and over )or just scathing their heads.
as i've listened to some of the interviews with the discovers . I hear the disbelief in thier own words.
"So this is 65 million years old. " said with a question mark, rather than a period.

look if you want to follow the science let the science speak don't ASSUME that it MUST be old when the evidence says it's NOT.
But if the idea of an old earth is DOGMA then don't let the facts bug you. just keep on believing. you don't have to have evidence from dinosaurs. Believe what you want.

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue


someone earlier in the thread mention the rock layers as Proof.
well that's not true either.
in the Grand Canyon even there, there are a supposed 100s of millions of years of missing strata.
but zero evidence that those layers were washed away basically there's no evidence they were there.
its as if someone stolen 100 miillion years + and laid the the next hundred on top without leaving a trace.
an anomaly? maybe an alternative explanation fits the facts better.
And if you look at the mount Saint Helen Volcano and several other events like it. scientist have witnessed several hundreds of layers of sediment laid down over a matter of days and months. and seen a 4 story canyons craved in days. and miles of trees laid down FLAT, creating a bed of organic material. then covered with earth and stone. Tree uprooted stuck strait up in a new lake and then covered with layers of earth.
Catastrophe is an alternate explanation, that's been OBSERVED that causes structure like the grand cannon and other formations.

Like i said it more to it than i'll be able to really discus the way i'd like but if your interest please take a look at the links.

Log you mentioned the radiocarbon dating a few times as your gold standard.
I mention one area where it's be shown that the decay is NOT steady. to what degree is still an open question. the observation are brand new.
there are other issues with the method itself that make it suspect. but there is research that's investigating the creation of new radioactive material in the earth crust.
And one thing to consider, the presence of Carbon 14 in things like Diamonds that should be billions(?) of years old.
carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years. If the whole earth was made of carbon 14 there would be None left in 50,000 years. But carbon 14 has been found in things that are said to be MUCH older. with NO good explanation as to why.
It's an Anomaly! or maybe the assumption of an old earth is just wrong.
Shouldn't the science answer the question. just asserting that it's old is not good enough. ignoring anomalies is not good science. it's DOGMA.

i can honestly say what I'd like to find. can "real" scientist do the same. and still report the facts without fear of losing tenure?
i'm not willing to make stuff up or ignore facts. But i not going to lose a job, a grant or anything.
But i'm telling you honestly, it horribly bad for the evolutionist.
and mighty shaky for the old earth crowd.

the big bangers are adding more epicycles and changing the numbers with every new observation
and the things they EXPECT to see often isn't showing up. but they still claim everything PROVES their points.... As soon as they do a recalculations... They had to make big changes to the numbers for the amount of DARK mater and DARK energy a few weeks ago.

And the Galaxies they EXPECTED to be young and unformed, when they got a good look, because they are closer to the big bang in time, look just like our galaxy and others, mature. This was unexpected ... BUT of course it stills PROVES the big bang, even thought the predictions were flat wrong.
....
Comets should have all disappeared by now if the Solar system is as old as expected but..
it's Just an Anomaly. Scientist BELIEVE there's a Cloud out there somewhere that feeding comets its Unobserved... but it GOT to be there. because WE KNOW the solar system is X years old.
...
we don't go from fish to man in the womb,
There are no vestigial organs,
There is NO Junk DNA , evolutionist were wrong again, again and again
etc etc etc

....
the fossil in China show that the 5 major types of animals basically came out of NOWHERE. and show little to no variation.
....
there are birds found with dinosaur bones and in dinosaur strata,
yes Birds. penguins, owls, flamingos and more. also squirrels and wolf like animals

...........
Like i said i've wanted to really get into this but
If your at all interested You might want to seriously take a look at the links above and do some exploring.

I've got some project coming i can't be around to comment though i'd LOVE to.

God lead you all.

[Missileman]

Hey...
I've been wanting to get back to this thread FOREVER but i just don't have time to do it Justice.
For those interested in looking into the why Evolution is piss poor science and basically dead.
why the big bang is in trouble and full of holes black and otherwise.
why the Earth is more than likely MUCH younger than many "know" it is.

One really great place to look and listen
is -real science radio- they sum up and link to various science issues along this line.
http://kgov.com/real-science-radio

For the Soft tissue in Dinosaur info they have on of the best, if not the best, pages on it.

the soft tissue is still UNEXPLAINABLE in the long timeline. And really does just disprove the 65million plus ages.
there's just no way soft tissue could survive for 65, 100, 150 million years. the molecular decay alone would turn the bio structures into dust. but they are so intact some researchers have been able to sequence some dinosaur proteins DNA.

there' NO way it's that old. and they are finding it in more and more dino bones. since they now know it's there and are looking for it.

the UNIVERSAL denials are over. Everyone KNEW that the tissue that old COULD NOT survive but now all of the alternative explanations have fallen FLAT and they are left saying. Well it's an "ANOMALY" (found over and over )or just scathing their heads.
as i've listened to some of the interviews with the discovers . I hear the disbelief in thier own words.
"So this is 65 million years old. " said with a question mark, rather than a period.

look if you want to follow the science let the science speak don't ASSUME that it MUST be old when the evidence says it's NOT.
But if the idea of an old earth is DOGMA then don't let the facts bug you. just keep on believing. you don't have to have evidence from dinosaurs. Believe what you want.

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue


someone earlier in the thread mention the rock layers as Proof.
well that's not true either.
in the Grand Canyon even there, there are a supposed 100s of millions of years of missing strata.
but zero evidence that those layers were washed away basically there's no evidence they were there.
its as if someone stolen 100 miillion years + and laid the the next hundred on top without leaving a trace.
an anomaly? maybe an alternative explanation fits the facts better.
And if you look at the mount Saint Helen Volcano and several other events like it. scientist have witnessed several hundreds of layers of sediment laid down over a matter of days and months. and seen a 4 story canyons craved in days. and miles of trees laid down FLAT, creating a bed of organic material. then covered with earth and stone. Tree uprooted stuck strait up in a new lake and then covered with layers of earth.
Catastrophe is an alternate explanation, that's been OBSERVED that causes structure like the grand cannon and other formations.

Like i said it more to it than i'll be able to really discus the way i'd like but if your interest please take a look at the links.

Log you mentioned the radiocarbon dating a few times as your gold standard.
I mention one area where it's be shown that the decay is NOT steady. to what degree is still an open question. the observation are brand new.
there are other issues with the method itself that make it suspect. but there is research that's investigating the creation of new radioactive material in the earth crust.
And one thing to consider, the presence of Carbon 14 in things like Diamonds that should be billions(?) of years old.
carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years. If the whole earth was made of carbon 14 there would be None left in 50,000 years. But carbon 14 has been found in things that are said to be MUCH older. with NO good explanation as to why.
It's an Anomaly! or maybe the assumption of an old earth is just wrong.
Shouldn't the science answer the question. just asserting that it's old is not good enough. ignoring anomalies is not good science. it's DOGMA.

i can honestly say what I'd like to find. can "real" scientist do the same. and still report the facts without fear of losing tenure?
i'm not willing to make stuff up or ignore facts. But i not going to lose a job, a grant or anything.
But i'm telling you honestly, it horribly bad for the evolutionist.
and mighty shaky for the old earth crowd.

the big bangers are adding more epicycles and changing the numbers with every new observation
and the things they EXPECT to see often isn't showing up. but they still claim everything PROVES their points.... As soon as they do a recalculations... They had to make big changes to the numbers for the amount of DARK mater and DARK energy a few weeks ago.

And the Galaxies they EXPECTED to be young and unformed, when they got a good look, because they are closer to the big bang in time, look just like our galaxy and others, mature. This was unexpected ... BUT of course it stills PROVES the big bang, even thought the predictions were flat wrong.
....
Comets should have all disappeared by now if the Solar system is as old as expected but..
it's Just an Anomaly. Scientist BELIEVE there's a Cloud out there somewhere that feeding comets its Unobserved... but it GOT to be there. because WE KNOW the solar system is X years old.
...
we don't go from fish to man in the womb,
There are no vestigial organs,
There is NO Junk DNA , evolutionist were wrong again, again and again
etc etc etc

....
the fossil in China show that the 5 major types of animals basically came out of NOWHERE. and show little to no variation.
....
there are birds found with dinosaur bones and in dinosaur strata,
yes Birds. penguins, owls, flamingos and more. also squirrels and wolf like animals

...........
Like i said i've wanted to really get into this but
If your at all interested You might want to seriously take a look at the links above and do some exploring.

I've got some project coming i can't be around to comment though i'd LOVE to.

God lead you all.

Post #56 burns your strawman about soft tissue to the ground.

[revelarts]

Post #56 burns your strawman about soft tissue to the ground.

In the excerpt i mention exactly what it was, but that's not the only place where residue and FULL BLOWN soft tissue has been discovered Missile.

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ji2cvuJ1mYg?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

"it's impossible" 65 million years old tissue.
"Blood vessels, and intact cells.."
"...find it ... over and over and over... and 80 million years old..."

there facts were ATTACKED.. in science, say it ain't so

Notice how the option of the bone NOT being 65 million 85 mil + years old is not even considered...
Why is that.
Notice in the 1st part of the interview she says she was AFRAID when she 1st found what she found? why should someone be AFRAID in science? Shouldn't she be excited that she'll "get a noble prize!" for challenging conventional scientific concepts.
But her reaction was FEAR.
dogma?

but what's been found so far.


TEX REX "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multim...cleID=10021606
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...saur%20Shocker


here's the problem with the dates, why its "impossible".
Biological material CANNOT survive more than 1million years, not EVEN 1 million years.

The research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological can survive.
When you cut you finger they tell you put it in ICE immediately so they can reattach it BEFORE the natural process of decay begins to break it down.
Natural chemical reactions from within the cells ALONE begin to decompose the tissues.
not to mention
bacteria, fungus, radioactivity , heat, cold, microorganisms. they've done eperiments sealing dead lobesters and other creatures in jars in salt and fresh water with mud. it only takes days for the tissues to decompose.
some scienctist have tried to say that the reason the soft tissues have been preserved is because "well..
-it's was found in Hard bone and protected there...
-it's was found in special sedimentary mud and protected there...
-it's was found marine sedimentary mud and protected there..."

but they keep finding the soft tissue OUTSIDE of those conditions as well,
there's a Triceratops horn that's been found with soft tissue (Osteo-tissue osteocytes) inside , unmistakable types of bone cells. It was found in Montana in the Bad lands and it was found broken up and run though with plant roots, fungus , microbes and earth. NOTHING to protect the bones inards from ALL of the various decompositional attacks that it could suffer.
yet there Triceratops soft tissue was.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...65128113000020
summery/abstract
(peer reviewed paper in Acta Histochemica a euro pub , they also publish the Lancet and Cell)


the strata the Triceratops was found in is said to be 65 million years old... "impossible"
dinosaurs are all 65 million old or older... "impossible"
(by orders of magnitude)

If the facts don't fit the scientific dogma here, what do you change?

it's impossible for the tissue to survive 65 million years, so the bone CANNOT be that old.
that's the Only logical conclusion to come too.

it has to be LESS than even 1 million .
Based on the empirical science of known decomposition rates.
The dinosaurs have only been dead thousands of years, AT most.

Science always changes right away when it gets new facts that disproves the old scientific beliefs.... right?