Posted on 09/27/2013 3:53:17 AM PDT by kimtom
According to evolutionary theory’s assumption-based dating methods and circular reasoning (see DeYoung, 2005), for well over 100 million years large sauropod dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Antetonitrus allegedly lived more than 200 million years ago, Apatosaurus 150 million years ago, and Argentinosaurus 95 million years ago—about 30 million years before dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct. Note that these dinosaurs supposedly did not flourish on Earth for just hundreds or thousands of years, but for multiplied millions of years. Evolutionists contend that dinosaurs inhabited Earth at least 500 times longer than “modern humans.”
Consider the connection between the vast time that sauropod dinosaurs allegedly were on Earth with a recent study published in Current Biology concerning “climate warmth” (i.e., global warming). According to Dr. David Wilkinson of John Moores University in Liverpool, and his colleagues, sauropods produced massive amounts of the “greenhouse” gas methane, which would have warmed the planet considerably. [NOTE: Scientists have suggested that greenhouse gas is “21 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat on Earth and causing climate change” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” 2012).] Wilkinson and colleagues conservatively estimate that the “global methane production from sauropods” was “520 million tonnes per year” (2012, 22[9]:292-93, emp. added). Just how much is 520 million tons, comparatively speaking? According to Wilkinson, “Our calculations suggest these dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” emp. added).
Even though sauropods supposedly would have warmed the planet .........
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
I clicked on this post because the title suggested that a serious scientific discussion was about to follow.
Then I read this opening sentence, and realized that it's just another screed by some anti-science kook (of the creationist variety; many flavors of anti-science exist).
Seriously, it looks bad for Christians to embrace anti-science of any flavor.
You obviously do not know science nor assumptions in radio isotope dating methods
SHould have read the article.
Actually, I have a PhD in the life sciences. In the course of getting that PhD, I had to learn the physics of radioisotopes and how to use them for scientific measurements. Radioisotopic measurements are among the most precise and accurate forms of measurement there are, because the rate of radioisotopic decay remains constant over time, and the decay process is invariable. For instance, sulfur 35 *always* decays through emission of a beta particle and becomes chlorine.
I seriously doubt that the M. Min who wrote this blog piece has ever stepped foot in a science class (other than sitting through the obligatory introduction to science course required as part of general education). He (she?) is certainly no expert on science.
My guess: methane emitted from swamps via decaying animal and vegetable and to termites due matter exceeds that emitted from animals emissions. However, I have not found any authoritative investigation of how much man has lowered methane emissions by draining swamps and by trees into useful products such as paper and lumber instead of allowing trees to be eaten by termites.
Only because dinosaurs eventually gave up smoking and checked their triglycerides.
OkY, FOR EXAMPLE:
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks.
For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, or neodymium) were present when the rock formed (via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on unproven assumptions).
Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected.1 For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years!2 Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.
The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.* Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.
Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!
REF: .A. A. Snelling, “The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 285–303; Ref. 4, 2005.
G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed. (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2005); A. P. Dickin, Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
.A. A. Snelling, “The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1998), pp. 503–525
I do not believe he can
Yes, yes, but most continued their poor diet.
Micheeellllle-osaurus was born yet, until a few thousand years later.....
Must have been horrible back then. They couldn’t bury the dead so life back then was living atop dead dino’s and putting up with the stench. Probably not an inch of land without a dead dinosaur!
No need to waste my time like that. I already have to bypass many serious scientific discussions simply because I don't have limitless time to read and comment on real science, much less pseudoscience.
Oh, nice. Now you are copying and pasting from one of the anti-science creationist sites. Remember, if they are promoting creationism, they are scammers. They may be able to use big words, but that does not make them scientists.
As I said, I cringe whenever I see Christians fall for pseudoscience. At a time when fewer people are going to church than ever, is it really wise to promote this image of Christians as illiterate heathens?
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Your problem appears to be simple - pride. You believe only the way your authority figures dictate [in order to get your PhD but what about other PhDs - do all simply agree?] therefore all creation science must be bad, yet you still try to defend the Christian faith. Choose ye this day who ye will serve - mankind or God!
Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts
And yet you have time to lecture all those fellow FReepers you consider dim-witted b/c their faith informs their science, their bia, and their politics? Really. Truly. Astounding.
Please tell us more how dumb we are and how smart you are - BTW here’s some more facts they didn’t discuss when you were instructed in the infallible science of long ages...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Eric Lyons:
“Eric Lyons is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min (and what exactly is an M.Min – Master of Ministry, Master of Muddled thinking?). Eric, his wife Jana, and their three children (Bo, Micah, and Shelby) live and worship in Wetumpka, Alabama, where Eric works with the youth of the Wetumpka church of Christ. Eric currently serves as a member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press, where he has worked for the past 12 years.”
“Eric has authored or co-authored a number of books, including The Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies (Volumes 1 & 2), Behold! The Lamb of God, Truth Be Told, and Wonders of God's Creation. In addition, he writes weekly for the Apologetics Press Web site, is editor of the Explorer Series (sp?), and assistant editor of Discovery, the monthly magazine on Scripture and science for children published by Apologetics Press. Eric speaks frequently at youth rallies, Gospel meetings, and seminars around the country, and specializes in presenting seminars on the following topics…”
Eric is also the author of this very “scientific” blog post - Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together?
Surly Eric knows more about science than you do! ;) ,
so I am a illiterate am I?
I smile
Delineating Christianity by a NON-Christian is tripe
not even a true evolutionist would argue against established science fact.
shall I quote only evolutionist journals then??? I can still prove my point.
so you support man made global warming then?
“...of the anti-science creationist sites. R...”
Don’t know any!!
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.