Dinosaur Soft Tissue, Blood, & DNA Catalog of Peer Reviewed Papers

by Perry 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  designs

  Dr. Schweitzer is not saying don't question or critique her team's work she is pointing out what the Young Earth crowd are doing- misrepresentation of her work. Sort of like the Wt. and its Trinity brochure.

  The article in Smithsonian speaks of wholly mammoths being 300,000 years old, but that does not appear to be a statement from Dr. Schweitzer.

  If there were a herd of Brontosaurus in the Jordan valley at the time of King David let's bring on the evidence, people were pretty good artists at that time you know and its hard to miss a 30' long 20' high reptile.

  Some people think 'Nessie' is a relative of the Brontosaurus.
• 

  Perry

  Her work produced facts. Those facts are indifferent to the conclusions drawn from them. I merely point out what the evolutionary paradigm is now requiring from thinking minds.

  This is in part what is now required:

  1. Fresh tissue is indicative of a young age, unless it is dinosaur tissue, then it isn't

  2. The distinctive odor of rotting flesh is indicative of a young age unless it is dinosaur corpse stench, then it isn't

  3. Carbon 14 dating is accurate unless it is performed on dinosaur soft tissue, then it isn't

  4. DNA has a scientifically proven half life of 521 years unless it is dinosaur DNA, then it doesn't
• 

  designs

  Dr. Schweitzer disagrees with the Young Earth Creationists, she says they have tried to twist her work for their own purposes. Sad you are feeding this stuff to your children. Its like a JW kid having to put up with the Evolution book as a real book of science.
• 

  designs

  Perry- Did you watch Real Time with Bill Maher and his guest Bill Nye. They brought up Young Earth Creationists and their views on the age of the earth. Two figures were tossed out- 10,000 years and 5,000 years. Which do you and your group subscribe to. Do any of you Creationists agree with the Jewish reckoning that this is the year 5774.

  Since the Waco Texas School District may be forced to include Creationism in its science textbooks which date for the creation of the earth have the Creationists agreed on.
• 

  metatron

  Unless I've missed it, this thread ignores a critical point - we're still talking about 'freakin' dinosaurs' !

  I used to read a great many creationist studies in which they point individual problems with dating methods. However, I concluded that in order for these 'millions of years' to be all wrong, there had to be something fundamentally wrong with all radioactive dating methods. I still think that could be true.

  However, we're still talking about dinosaurs in the context of theism and for me, that just doesn't work.

  The Awake magazine typically has this sort of 'fuzzy kittens and puppies' view of nature that is ridiculous. "Nature, red in tooth and claw" is the reality - and that easily observed fact is what kept Darwin going in developing his theory of evolution.

  I understand that they found fossils that show partially healed wounds on prey that match the teeth on dinosaur predators. They had prehistoric giant sharks and crocodiles as big as a bus (50ft).

  However these creatures came into existence, it wasn't from a loving, personal "Creator". That's why I'm a Pantheist.

  metatron
• 

  tootired2care

  @Metaron - However, we're still talking about dinosaurs in the context of theism and for me, that just doesn't work.

  This is exactly how I feel too, g iven that the bible makes zero commentary about the dinosaurs or past extinction events on earth, it seems paradoxical to try and use dinosaur remains to prove the veracity of the bibles creation timeline.
• 

  designs

  Creationist.org is saying that the Book of Job makes the claim- 40:15-24 and the creature described as 'behemoth' and having a tail the size of a cedar tree. They then show a pic of a Brontosaurus to guide their followers to their conclusion.

  One of the Ooopsies is verse 16 saying the 'behemoth' has a navel. Reptiles, navels
• 

  TheClarinetist

  Perry:

  1. Fresh tissue is indicative of a young age or of a very lucky preservation, such as if it were frozen shortly after death, or any number of other extraordinary circumstances that inevitably happen in a large enough sample.

  2. Smell permeates. If you had a dead animal in your car, the rotting smell in your car wouldn't be indicative of your car decomposing, it would be indicative of there having been a dead animal in your car. The same applies to bones.

  3. As far as I'm aware, they don't use Carbon-14 on dinosaur bones for that particular reason.

  4. Half-life doesn't mean that there won't be any, it means that every 521 the amount of DNA available is halved, not including external factors which might preserve the DNA. Given the collossal amount of DNA that has existed over the ages, some of it is BOUND to have survived. It's not impossible by any means, just very, very rare.
• 

  designs

  There are drawings and figurines going back to the Bronze Age showing large reptiles and some look very much like their bigger related ancestors. What does this prove about the age of the earth and life on earth. When you have artifacts from Damascus dating to 10,000 BC it still short circuits Adam being 5774 years old and the first human.
• 

  Nickolas

  This was an enlightening thread so thought I'd come back and read it through again. It illustrates well that someone who is truly, inextricably convinced that what he believes is right cannot be brought to entertain a contradictory perspective. Those who assign little scientific weight to his contradictory point are just being as fundamentalist in their thinking as he. Communication is fruitless.

  The arguments for theism are theadbare and some who've heard them over and over don't want to waste any more of their lives debunking them. Presenting testimony that evolutionary theory is flawed does not prove that creationism is right. It is not a corollary argument. An open mind is prepared to accept contradictory evidence but it has to be real evidence. And when that evidence is found to be true then the relevant science seeks to understand why it is true. Science embraces contradiction because it always leads to insight. Truth is all that matters. Understanding what is True changes. The science books are rewritten, then re-rewritten when understanding changes again, as it inevitably will. That's what science does. It expands its understanding and discards what turns out to be wrong. That sort of thing notably doesn't happen in religious circles.

  I may from time to time drop into a thread you've started, Perry, not to participate but to observe. Take notes. Maybe come to understand better the pathology of god delusion and maybe get better at helping people who want to shake it off but are afraid to. Anybody who doesn't want to shake it off is fine with me. If you're happy and your beliefs don't negatively impact the lives of people, especially those you are important to, then have at it. That's all that really matters in the end, but it isn't always what happens.