Posted on 01/12/2005 8:00:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are: * Continental erosion * Sea floor sediments * Salinity of the oceans * Helium in the atmosphere * Carbon 14 in the atmosphere * Decay of the Earth's magnetic field The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.
Fantastic, 6 terrible arguments for a young earth in a single bullet-list, followed by a lie about how radiometric dating works.
The point at issue is more whether or not those publications and articles that were printed in reputable peer-reviewed journals actually say what your webpage says they say. For example the scientists who wrote those papers are absolutely clear that no hemoglobin has been found in dinosaur bones and no panic about the occasional unmineralized bone is evident.
That only bumps up the ante by 6,000 years.
6 days x 1000 = 6,000
6,000 + 6,000 = 12,000
Jesus said:
Mat 19:4-5
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Quoting from the supposed mythological story in the Book of Genesis:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And:
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This is not an overly "literal" reading. Jesus Christ's confirmation assures us of the truth and accuracy of the Genesis account. Who better to make such a confirmation. Or who worse to disregard.
You read the articles? You have back issues? Perhaps you can provide that all-important evidence for your statement? Or are you just taking another leap into non-reason?
Because the site is so patently ridiculous, and because you are otherwise not in the habit of presenting ridiculous information, I have concluded that your use of information from that site in evolution threads is for the purpose of recreational argument, and that you do not intend for it to be taken seriously.
The specific article you plucked off of the site to allegedly support your contention that there exist "unfossilized dinosaur bones ... with identifiable blood cells in them" is a prime example of the site’s overall silliness and flimflammery. For example, your cited article contains this gem, which I will let stand without commentary:
Remember that our literature search found that all the articles on organic material still present in dinosaur bones were published from April 1990 until November 1994. As far as we can tell, there has been nothing published in Nature or Science on the subject since then. Why not?
We suspect it has something to do with the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial and the 1993 release of Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park made the general public aware that DNA supposedly from Jurassic times had been preserved in amber. Experts testified at the O.J. trial that DNA decomposes so rapidly that DNA from the blood found at the murder scene could not be positively identified. This gave credibility to the creationists’ claim that dinosaurs must have lived recently because DNA can’t last millions of years.
Second, Jurassic Park made any scientist doing research on ancient DNA appear to be a dangerous lunatic who might release dinosaurs upon the modern Earth. Scientists who value their reputations generally don’t want to be viewed as creationists or lunatics. Only the brave scientists continued the research on “ancient” organic molecules.
I, for one, don't believe that you truly find this kind of nonsense credible.
Your observational skills want honing. And what shall we make of the fact that you dismissed all of the referenced articles in scientific publications listed without reading them? How would you identify such a mindset? Open or closed? Curious or hardened? The more I read these threads, the more the critics become the charicature of creationists they have created.
We imagine your reaction to be similar to Kerry's, "I can't believe I'm being beat by this idiot."
I cited both talk origins and the Creationist cite to show that the claim is agreed to as being bunk.
As for your other reference (to Do-While Jones' site), I would suggest reading this. Although it isn't directly rebutting Do-While's work, it is rebutting the same claims made by another creationist. You'll learn all about Osteocalcin, and all about what Muyzer actually found.
Finally, incomplete permineralization does not mean "unfossilized".
Scientific publications on Do-While Jones' site?? I know he has a "monthly newsletter" in which he prints articles. But I'd hardly call them scientific.
My favorite discusses his personal incredulity that spiders could have evolved toxins, webs and instincts. It has no citations to any scholarly work, of course, but it does contain three Garfield cartoons...
The more I read these threads, the more the critics become the charicature of creationists they have created. We imagine your reaction to be similar to Kerry's, "I can't believe I'm being beat by this idiot."
Ha. That's cute. But you know, when the discussion turns to actual science, we see that your reaction is like that of a beagle being taught Parliamentary procedure...
Some inborn survival skills of humans, other than brains.
1) Most efficient long distance runner in the animal kingdom.
2) Highest endurance walker in the animal kingdom.
3) Opposable thumb
4) Aquatic adaptations, including physiological slowing upon submersion.
5) Extraordinary, unmatched co-ordination and power in throwing objects.
6) Extreme sociality, and the associated violence-inhibition that accompanies that in every large, slow-breeding social predator, enabling us to work together at the art of hunting/warfare, without tearing each other apart.
7) A uniquely adaptive immune system that puts most creatures' to shame.
8) Extreme neoteny, extending the adaptive learning period far into adolescence--and the tendency toward pair-bonding and group bonding that ensures the success of such a high-investment, and therefore, high risk form of maturation.
And that hardly scratches the surface.
Oops, my mistake. On second viewing of the spider article, De-While does quote articles in Nature, twice. So he does cite to scholarly work, in addition to that crazy cat, Garfield.
Oh, and like all good scientific work, there is a smiley.
Wrong on all counts--mammals aren't the only food, and not all mammals are faster than us, and grabbing with tools is not unique to smart humans.
Even if he did catch one, he would surely be killed,
By a rabbit? By a chipmonk?
if not he couldn't eat the raw flesh.
Of course he could. What is sushi?
What is really needed is a more intelligent HUMAN..
Human beans are not too smart.. but they do love a good story.. Humans just love lies and call them storys.. and even put music to them sometimes..
You make it sound like the fluff piece you linked is a virtual clearinghouse of published ancient dna research. But the body of the piece references with specificity only an article by the Midway-Magician Carl Wieland and a 1992 Geology article by Gerard Muyzer, and the two (count ‘em, two) footnotes point the alert reader to a 1998 National Geographic article and a dead link. Not exactly "deep research."
And lets not forget the amazing claim of the author, a Mr. "Do-While Jones." He says he cannot locate any research into ancient dna after 1994, apparently because of a conspiracy of silence brought on by the twin revelations of the OJ Simpson trial and the movie Jurassic Park, and because "any scientist doing research on ancient DNA [would] appear to be a dangerous lunatic who might release dinosaurs upon the modern Earth."
Hmmm. What, then, to make of the articles listed at the following (obtained with only a cursory search)?
http://forensic.shef.ac.uk/ardnar.html
http://www.sfu.ca/~donyang/adnaweb/publication.htm
And what to make of these 6974 hits on “ancient dna” in Science alone?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search
Or this list of Journals publishing on ancient dna?
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/topic_dir/630591/631578/631591/631601/focus.dtl
And finally this, from a book review of The Molecule Hunt: Archaeology and the Hunt for Ancient DNA, by Martin Jones (2002):
"“The Molecule Hunt describes the highs and lows of ancient DNA research in a detailed fashion, moving from the sublime (such as the Neandertal sequence) to the ridiculous (many candidates, but the dinosaur DNA probably wins). The portrayal reveals the many problems encountered along the way, such as the slow realisation of the extent of contamination with modern DNA and the complications created by nuclear copies of mitochondrial genes. The real-time nature of the description is important, as it illustrates the context in which high-profile mistakes were made, and why it was so necessary that more rigorous standards were introduced in the mid-1990s. As soon as a requirement for independent replication was adopted around 1995, reports of DNA sequences older than 100,000 years disappeared completely (although Nature has recently reverted to bad habits with several descriptions of supposed Permian bacteria)."
Again, I just don’t believe that you view “Do-While Jones” as an authoritative source.
Evidence for that statement has already been posted in links by others (that you chose to reject because of the source of those links). The old-earth site and talk.origins quote from the articles extensively and directly when debunking the dinosaur-blood nonsense.
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.