Please Give Your Opinions on My Origins Viewpoints

[Midst]

Heaven is indeed strange and distant from Earth.

The question of what physical conditions and histories it takes for a wide variety of rocks, from Earth or from space, to have particular isotopic ratios - now that is not quite as strange and distant, however. What has Heaven to do with that?

I already covered this in other posts, the mechanics of the dating. I did not get into too much about the difference between the "Heaven" concept of what we mean by Heaven and what cosmologists and the like mean by it.

The first that should be pointed out here: the details of the material world are fascinating. As is fascinating any well involved system that is divinely made. There is great artistry and mystery there.

But... for people to be so very involved in the details and to ignore the pursuit of eternal life seems to me on the face of it as the very quintessence of stupidity.

After all, for all the things human beings might seek, should they not seek eternal life?

That is the promise: if you seek it, you will find it.

Now, I am not here speaking to Christians, but I am merely pointing out the many cunning human beings who have gone chasing after the details of the material world as if they are the greatest truths, and have not spent, instead, the time and energy to chase after the only thing which matters: eternal life.

Why? Because death makes entirely meaningless all such pursuits.

Of course, people tend to just assume, even atheists, I think, God will take care of them regardless of what they do or how they behave.

Their bet is probably something like, "Well if there is a God, He made me as I am, so I must be this way". Not considering that whatever eternal life may be, the life and all the words they do, all their works becomes meaningless at death. Nor considering the potential cost they are incurring there, striving for personal glory and praise, as opposed to truth and answers that are substantial and meaningful.

It is not like they have no evidence. Jesus is all over the place. I have never seen any of them come up with any strongly thought out answers on the specifics of what Jesus said or taught. There is no plausible explanation dealing with Jesus, nor the prophets, nor others that dismisses any of this.

At best, they can come up with a plethora of poorly thought out strawman arguments. "Well, look what this extreme example said and did, so there, that covers the subject", or "Joe Bob from Country Land said Jesus said and did this, and well, that settles the subject. Jesus is bunk. Source? Joe Bob."

All that said -- that their lives are pursuits are utterly wasted... aside:

What of Heaven and how it may relate to earth, and the mechanics we might observe on earth?

That is quite a hard subject. What telescope might be used to peer into this Heaven? And where, exactly, is this Heaven? What is a spirit, and what is a spirit world, and where might we find conclusive answers to these questions?

If I were to share with you my own knowledge, what meaning would it have to you, if you did not have language with which to grasp the concepts? After all, if I use the word "rock", we have a shared agreement there on what that is. Rocks of are earth. But, what can one speak of, linguistically, when it comes to a realm so alien, there is not even the same fabric of which to speak of?

What then can be observed? Considering Scripture as true, how is it Jesus could walk on water, or change water into wine? Or how is it that God and the spirits were so up on the matters of the earth?

Solomon pointed out, not only that death makes all meaningless, but also that this material world is "ruled" by chance. So it is, we find a world that is seemingly without control, exactly, but by mechanics. Not unlike a clock, one could say.

However, while "chance happens to all", it is also well pointed out: the world is managed by Heaven.

Where and how is this hand seen?

One ends up in such a discussion with far more questions then answers. And this is good. For material sciences seek "answers", despite their extraordinary infancy. But the pursuit for truth often raises more questions then answers, and many a wise person has ended with the solemn statement, "it is wise to realize one does not know".

What we do know, however, is that Heaven is metaphorically above us, but also all around us. Not too mind bending a thought for anyone who has considered parallel universes. (We can pretend that the 'parallel universe' concept is more mind bending then Heaven, but of course, it is very far from it. )


And we can note that the concept of "spirit" is considered to be flexible, whereas "body" is much less so. The "spirit world" is flexible, while the "material world" is firm. Or so humans tend to understand, anyway. So it is this Heaven is of a spirit world like fabric. And when Heaven interacts with earth, as we are told it constantly does -- then we can consider that the material, solid, definite shapes of the material can be changed, just as a spirit can change its' own shape.

Invariably this means while we human beings live in a world of limits and boundaries, the spirit world is something else entirely.

Limited lives, limited resources, limited capabilities. What would the world be like if everyone were with infinite capacity?! How would it work? Where would there be adversity? What challenges might we have to overcome?

And with no challenges, where is then the substance of what we call "life"?

Why is what is valuable so rare?


All these points being: the earth is not as the material eyes and material ears make it out to be. It is a firm reality we can not alter, but one which Heaven alters as Heaven pleases.

But knowing - understanding this - is a very rare thing to have, it is not easy to gain. One will not just say this and someone have absolute confidence in it.

 

[shernren]

After all, if I use the word "rock", we have a shared agreement there on what that is. Rocks of are earth.

Right-o, that sentence there was what I needed to hear. Before we can even proceed, can I assume that we also agree on what the word "isotope" means?

And do not assume that the pursuit of Heaven precludes increasing our understanding of the earth. We are called to redeem earth in Heaven's name, to tend the garden (Genesis) and seek the template of the Holy City whose coming from God we eagerly await (Revelation). The Bible is full of instructions that say little about the ineffable mystery of Heaven, and say much about the realities of earth and what we are to do with them. We long for there, true, but we still live here after all. Even Jesus went about the business of Heaven by redeeming the corner of earth which He touched and walked through and breathed upon.

To invert priorities thus - to invest the mysteries of Heaven with a false profound apophatic that clouds our vision of earth - is unhelpfully Gnostic and frankly rather un-Biblical. But don't take my word for it - how much of what you're saying actually follows the emphases and trajectories of the Bible? Seek for yourself.

 

[Midst]

Right-o, that sentence there was what I needed to hear. Before we can even proceed, can I assume that we also agree on what the word "isotope" means?

And do not assume that the pursuit of Heaven precludes increasing our understanding of the earth. We are called to redeem earth in Heaven's name, to tend the garden (Genesis) and seek the template of the Holy City whose coming from God we eagerly await (Revelation). The Bible is full of instructions that say little about the ineffable mystery of Heaven, and say much about the realities of earth and what we are to do with them. We long for there, true, but we still live here after all. Even Jesus went about the business of Heaven by redeeming the corner of earth which He touched and walked through and breathed upon.

To invert priorities thus - to invest the mysteries of Heaven with a false profound apophatic that clouds our vision of earth - is unhelpfully Gnostic and frankly rather un-Biblical. But don't take my word for it - how much of what you're saying actually follows the emphases and trajectories of the Bible? Seek for yourself.

I am just speaking from experience. Claiming this is some kind of weird invasion of some unsaid rule is a bit odd for that. It is simply my own experience and perspective. That you have a different one does not mean you need to argue mine is "un-biblical" -- like that would mean anything to me, anyway.

If you are doing this just to try and get others to be persuaded, frankly, I am not even sure if anyone else would go this deep into the thread. So in talking to *me*, no, I am not going to be anxious when someone tries to reverse engineer that and argue it is "gnostic" or "unbiblical".

If you are trying to persuade your own self, I would only point out: first understand what the person is saying, then maybe try and dismiss it by the specific details. Sweeping statements like "gnostic" or "unbiblical" are extremely vague terms which one could use to describe all sorts of matters.

On what you are saying, specifically, I am not opposed to you being concerned with origins theories. I am in no way condemning your own work. I am not even necessarily condemning anyone's work.

I am simply pointing out that such research *is* vague, and there are a lot of components which make up material reality that human beings are not privy to. There are many other reasons to doubt the solidity of the evidence. Or, it could be true, as well. Which I have also said.


It does not persuade nor pull me in personally because I am aware that things that people observe may not be as they think they are. Very simple statement, and further, one which does have some credence in some advanced scientific fields, specifically in quantum physics.

I do not need that science to tell me what I already know, I simply point out that possibility.

I could also point out many scientific studies 'out there' on the capacity for human beings to accurately perceive reality. For instance, there is one great book by one team you likely have heard of: have you been made aware of the scientific study that shows the dancing gorilla and basketball players? Or, do you have any notice of the "recentish" studies on people's capacity for accurate perception?

If not, I would suggest you look into that.


Put another way: I assure you, the observer is flawed, and so there is little trustworthiness in what the observer reports.

Or, to use the homicide cop analogy again, if the homicide cop is suspect, then the entire investigation is suspect.

Put it however you will, some bizarre "gnostic" or "unbiblical" throwaway term that really is just a shortcut to thinking:


(1) studies have shown people have too much confidence in their own memory
(2) studies have shown that people have too much confidence in their capacity to notice change
(3) studies have shown that people have too much confidence in their abilities to perceive reality in general
(4) studies have shown that people have too much confidence in their biases, not being cognizant of when and how they are prejudiced
(5) witnesses to events are extremely bad at their capabilities of perception of the events and their capabilities of recall, further people are very bad at accepting witnesses which they do so based on the witnesses capacity for confidence which has little to no bearing on their accuracy of a witness -- it can, but it also may not

People simply have a tendency to believe confident people over less confident people.

And so on.


I am only here talking about *my* view. I am very well aware that my view is not shared by everyone.

I can totally "get" how someone might find these findings very important. I have studied them. But merely to see if I was missing anything. I came away thinking that they are really not as sure as they profess being. They are much over confident.

Further, for the *atheists* involved, they are truly absurd. Here they are, working so hard, for what? They will die. There is more then plausible evidence eternal life is out there, so if they had their priorities **thought out** they would have put that first. This, its' self, dismisses their credibility. And not just with me, but with many who know their atheism is wrong, so they are corrupt sources.

*My* perspective regarding Heaven, beyond the above, is simply one which indicates that human beings far over estimate their own capacities *and* their own capabilities at perception.

There is a God, and there is a Heaven, both of whom are always deep at work with humankind. Yet, people can actually be oblivious to this -- just as they can hardly see or hear, their own minds just complete the picture internally.

These "studies show" statements btw, are hard, empirical sciences. They are easy to repeat and return hard evidence. One good study was how people could be stopped on the street, asked for directions, then have some workers come by separating the people for a moment. So that the person asking directions is changed in the process. Do people tend to notice they are suddenly now talking to a totally different person? No.

Human beings are literally *that* clueless.

So, why take their findings seriously on such matters?

 

[gluadys]

I am simply pointing out that such research *is* vague, and there are a lot of components which make up material reality that human beings are not privy to. There are many other reasons to doubt the solidity of the evidence. Or, it could be true, as well. Which I have also said.

There is a little motivational phrase I have seen from time to time: Just because you can't do everything should not prevent you from doing something.

If we move to the realm of thinking, we could rephrase it as: Just because we can't be certain of everything doesn't mean we can't be certain of some things.

Your paragraph above seems to assert the opposite: that our overall incompleteness and uncertainty about the universe we live in and the planet we live on means we have no certainty of anything at all.

Now i am not against healthy skepticism. We would have no advances in knowledge, specifically scientific knowledge, at all without being ready at any time to question what we think we know. But there still has to be good reason, solid evidence, in favour of doubting our small certainties. We must be ready to question, but we also need reason to question.

As another saying puts it: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You seem to want us to assume it is broke and that it can't be fixed.

I could also point out many scientific studies 'out there' on the capacity for human beings to accurately perceive reality. For instance, there is one great book by one team you likely have heard of: have you been made aware of the scientific study that shows the dancing gorilla and basketball players? Or, do you have any notice of the "recentish" studies on people's capacity for accurate perception?

(1) studies have shown people have too much confidence in their own memory
(2) studies have shown that people have too much confidence in their capacity to notice change
(3) studies have shown that people have too much confidence in their abilities to perceive reality in general
(4) studies have shown that people have too much confidence in their biases, not being cognizant of when and how they are prejudiced
(5) witnesses to events are extremely bad at their capabilities of perception of the events and their capabilities of recall, further people are very bad at accepting witnesses which they do so based on the witnesses capacity for confidence which has little to no bearing on their accuracy of a witness -- it can, but it also may not

People simply have a tendency to believe confident people over less confident people.

And so on.

All that is absolutely true, of every individual person, even when that person is a scientist trained to be skeptical. That is the reason any court of law follows the biblical injunction not to convict on the testimony of one witness alone. That is why evidence from independent lines of study converging on the same conclusion is considered more certain than a conclusion based on one study alone.

What you are overlooking though, is that science is not a private work of many individuals, but a public work in which the enterprise is deliberately structured to invite criticism from the individual's community of peers--who may often have a different perspective, be dubious about methodology, have information from other sources that casts things in a different light, etc.

A short glance at the history of major scientific paradigm shifts shows that new and distinctive ideas do not win quick or easy acceptance in the scientific community.

So when an idea does, after months or years of trial, convince scientists of its validity, it is worth paying attention to it. The age of the earth, for example, has been calculated at 4.54 billion years with an error margin of less than 1%. Because there is an error margin, we can say truthfully, that we are not certain of the age of the earth. But it would be a gross error in judgment to say it could be anything from 6,000 to 60 billion years old. We are as certain as evidence can make it that it comes within less than 500 million years of the calculated date. And that means to budge scientists from that date, one would need to provide some very solid reasons to budge.

So, sure, let's be wary of our own fallibilities. And the limits of our knowledge. There is much we are totally unaware of yet.

But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and forget the limited certainties/near certainties we do have.

You think they are overconfident? Do more than think. Show where they err. If you have no idea where they err, what is the basis for thinking them overconfident? Maybe they have a right to be confident.

Further, for the *atheists* involved, they are truly absurd. Here they are, working so hard, for what? They will die. There is more then plausible evidence eternal life is out there, so if they had their priorities **thought out** they would have put that first. This, its' self, dismisses their credibility. And not just with me, but with many who know their atheism is wrong, so they are corrupt sources.

Are we discussing atheism or your origins viewpoint or the science of origins? Atheism is a different kettle of fish and should not be confused with ideas about origins which are valid or invalid no matter who holds them.

*My* perspective regarding Heaven, beyond the above, is simply one which indicates that human beings far over estimate their own capacities *and* their own capabilities at perception.

There is a God, and there is a Heaven, both of whom are always deep at work with humankind. Yet, people can actually be oblivious to this -- just as they can hardly see or hear, their own minds just complete the picture internally.

These "studies show" statements btw, are hard, empirical sciences. They are easy to repeat and return hard evidence. One good study was how people could be stopped on the street, asked for directions, then have some workers come by separating the people for a moment. So that the person asking directions is changed in the process. Do people tend to notice they are suddenly now talking to a totally different person? No.

Human beings are literally *that* clueless.

So, why take their findings seriously on such matters?

Now that is an interesting study. (And, you note, a scientific study)

But what does it show about the reliability of scientific conclusions?
Not that this study, and many of those above, placed individuals in a situation where they had to observe, as individuals, without assistance from others--often under time pressure and distracting information.

Why would we not expect people to get muddled in such situations?

But is that how scientific information is gathered and studied and conclusions reached? You know it is not. In the scientific arena, there are many people working on a project, over months or years; the data, the methods, the conclusions are shared with a wider community, which can add other perspectives, suggest other explanations, more tests, different methods. Can we really compare the conclusions agreed on in this sort of process with the person-in-the-street asked to describe a few minutes of a basketball game, or recall the face of a stranger briefly glimpsed?

I think we should take studies such as the long-term experiment on E. coli evolution seriously because they are quite a different sort of thing than the behaviour exhibited in the studies you reference. It is not a matter of whether one notices that one stranger has replaced another, or a piece of furniture in a room has been exchanged for another. Indeed, it is not a matter of humans making the observation at all, since it is machines that record the changes in genomes as the bacteria evolve, and records are kept of the various samples so the work can be double (and triple and quadruple)-checked at need.

Do you forget that knowing our foibles gives us the means to defend against them?

That is why we can be certain or near-certain of a good many things while still being totally ignorant of as many more things.

 

[MKJ]

Okay, I like to get counteropinions on matters I believe in, or have confidence on, so soliciting this here in regards to origins theology:


Brief Background: I am well read in modern evolutionary theories, having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan (having read their books, seen some of the videos, and so on).

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

My conclusion is that a lot of the evidence they are finding are "false signs".

I realize that is difficult to believe, but I have seen there is that capacity.



Dawkins and Sagan both rely heavily on strawman type of argumentation for many of their arguments against creationism. I think they would not have to do this if they had firm ground to stand on.

Evolutionists also like to try and redefine "faith" as "believing without evidence". This sort of message is strongly propagandized in society. But it is the opposite of true.

We have faith based on evidence. Consider James pointing out that the demons know God exists, and he calls that "faith without deeds which is dead".



What I believe is surely based on evidence.



Whether dead or alive faith, that is up to God, but I have confidence it is alive.


It might be noted, that on studying modern evolutionists viewpoints I do, however, agree with them that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity. Further, if God would do this, then why have such an evolution at all?


No, I believe their entire edifice is corrupted with false evidence. Something is giving them the evidence they are seeking for. They believe in lies because they *want* to believe these things. This is their preference. So, somehow, creation is providing what it is they want to see. But this only deludes them.


Now, how or why... in Thessalonians, God is said to send people a great lie. There is also speaking of false signs being given to the nations to lead them against God and his people.

You seem to be disagreeing with their views on creationism, rather than what they say about evolution. There is an important distinction there.

I would not worry too much about why they think creationists think the way they do. Dawkins in particular is not a very psychologically insightful man.

You really need to be thinking about what the reasons for thinking evolution might be true are.

 

[shernren]

I could also point out many scientific studies 'out there' on the capacity for human beings to accurately perceive reality. For instance, there is one great book by one team you likely have heard of: have you been made aware of the scientific study that shows the dancing gorilla and basketball players? Or, do you have any notice of the "recentish" studies on people's capacity for accurate perception?

Yes, I keep abreast with developments in cognitive psychology, and I am acutely aware of work by Kahnemann and Ives and such.

Let me ask you a question, though: now that you know about the dancing gorilla experiment, do you keep an eye out for a dancing gorilla during every NBA game? Let's go further still: do you insist to all your basketball-watching friends that there are dancing gorillas in every basketball game? Would you bet them a dollar that during any given game there is a dancing gorilla on the court?

I'm sure you don't. In the same way, it is of course theoretically possible that every single radiometric confirmation of the Earth is fatally flawed in the exact same way such that the Earth is, in fact, not a few billion years old. It is of course theoretically possible that every single scientist in the field has let their personal predilections cloud their minds to the unspeakable truth.

Thing is, the dancing gorilla experiment is only remarkable because you can actually go on to show me the dancing gorilla - not just pontificate that in theory every NBA basketball court is constantly being infiltrated by invisible dancing gorillas or leprechaun cheerleaders or what-have-you, but you can't actually see them because, reasons!

Similarly it is only useful or practical to consider error in the radiometric dating of the Earth if you can go on to show me the error. Don't just assume it's possible, show me it's actually there.

 

[shernren]

In fact, if you are aware of Kahnemann, you should be aware that most scientific work is acutely taxing on the cognitive Slow System, which is precisely the part of the brain that is supposed to unmask the dancing gorillas on the basketball court.

It is precisely the scientists who are furrowing their brows hard enough to see.

Your analogy proves the exact opposite of what you think.

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay, I like to get counteropinions on matters I believe in, or have confidence on, so soliciting this here in regards to origins theology:


Brief Background: I am well read in modern evolutionary theories, having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan (having read their books, seen some of the videos, and so on).

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

My conclusion is that a lot of the evidence they are finding are "false signs".

I realize that is difficult to believe, but I have seen there is that capacity.



Dawkins and Sagan both rely heavily on strawman type of argumentation for many of their arguments against creationism. I think they would not have to do this if they had firm ground to stand on.

Evolutionists also like to try and redefine "faith" as "believing without evidence". This sort of message is strongly propagandized in society. But it is the opposite of true.

We have faith based on evidence. Consider James pointing out that the demons know God exists, and he calls that "faith without deeds which is dead".



What I believe is surely based on evidence.



Whether dead or alive faith, that is up to God, but I have confidence it is alive.


It might be noted, that on studying modern evolutionists viewpoints I do, however, agree with them that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity. Further, if God would do this, then why have such an evolution at all?


No, I believe their entire edifice is corrupted with false evidence. Something is giving them the evidence they are seeking for. They believe in lies because they *want* to believe these things. This is their preference. So, somehow, creation is providing what it is they want to see. But this only deludes them.


Now, how or why... in Thessalonians, God is said to send people a great lie. There is also speaking of false signs being given to the nations to lead them against God and his people.

ORIGINS is outside of Science. Once you understand that "History" has nothing to do with science, then you need not look for tricks or delusions.

Science can only deal with what may have happened, if you saw it correctly, and if you documented the circumstances well, then somebody may be able to reproduce your results and decide for THEMSELVES if what you saw was a good analysis of what actually happened.

As you can see, there is no room for pre-history events in real science.

Evolutionary origins are outside the ability of real science to support.
It's all just science fiction grown from scattered observations.

 

[Yacob2040]

Okay, I like to get counteropinions on matters I believe in, or have confidence on, so soliciting this here in regards to origins theology:


Brief Background: I am well read in modern evolutionary theories, having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan (having read their books, seen some of the videos, and so on).

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

My conclusion is that a lot of the evidence they are finding are "false signs".

I realize that is difficult to believe, but I have seen there is that capacity.



Dawkins and Sagan both rely heavily on strawman type of argumentation for many of their arguments against creationism. I think they would not have to do this if they had firm ground to stand on.

Evolutionists also like to try and redefine "faith" as "believing without evidence". This sort of message is strongly propagandized in society. But it is the opposite of true.

We have faith based on evidence. Consider James pointing out that the demons know God exists, and he calls that "faith without deeds which is dead".



What I believe is surely based on evidence.



Whether dead or alive faith, that is up to God, but I have confidence it is alive.


It might be noted, that on studying modern evolutionists viewpoints I do, however, agree with them that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity. Further, if God would do this, then why have such an evolution at all?


No, I believe their entire edifice is corrupted with false evidence. Something is giving them the evidence they are seeking for. They believe in lies because they *want* to believe these things. This is their preference. So, somehow, creation is providing what it is they want to see. But this only deludes them.


Now, how or why... in Thessalonians, God is said to send people a great lie. There is also speaking of false signs being given to the nations to lead them against God and his people.

In light of the recent discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. .all talk of "millions of years" is irrelevant but of course evolutionists will fight to their last dying breath to convince others & themselves that somehow soft tissue can survive for "millions of years". The discovery of soft tissue is The final nail in the coffin for the theory of evolution but. .as I said about fighting to their last braeth. .

 

[Brightmoon]

Soft tissue in dinosaur bone was preserved and mineralized . The mineralization process was THEN new to science and involved iron ions coming from heme molecules in the blood . It’s not evidence against any mainstream science . Including evolution or the billions year old age of the earth

 

[-57]

In light of the recent discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. .all talk of "millions of years" is irrelevant but of course evolutionists will fight to their last dying breath to convince others & themselves that somehow soft tissue can survive for "millions of years". The discovery of soft tissue is The final nail in the coffin for the theory of evolution but. .as I said about fighting to their last braeth. .

That is true...the soft dinosaur tissue...biomaterial presents quite a problem for the evolutionist.

The iron preserved it theory may sound good but it actually fails. When one see the steps of purification and manipulation Mary Schweitzer performed on her sample...something that can't and doesn't happen in the natural...we learn her experiment was a failure in preserving biomaterial.

What does this mean? The rock surrounding the Dino biomaterial is dated wrong.

 

[Brightmoon]

You can’t radiodate sedimentary rocks. You can get a relative date from overlaying and underlying lava flows and other igneous rock nearby . So the Preserved soft tissue in a dino bone Won’t tell you how old it is . Why would you think so?
Recreating a natural preservation technique in a lab ? You might or might not be able to do that .

 

[Brightmoon]

This article explains in laymen’s language why 57’s Information is inaccurate . The picture is of some of the soft tissue with the title of Dr Schweitzer’s original paper These are photos as I can’t link

 

[-57]

You can’t radiodate sedimentary rocks. You can get a relative date from overlaying and underlying lava flows nearby . So the Preserved soft tissue in a dino bone Won’t tell you how old it is . Why would you think so?
Recreating a natural preservation technique in a lab ? You might or might not be able to do that .

In many cases they use fossils to date the rock...Mary S pulled out a T-Rex so as we all know the rock must have been at least 65 MY's old.

Then again we also know biomaterial won't survive 65 + MY's. Quite the delemma for the evos.

As for re-creating the so-called preservation technique in the lab...nope.

 

[-57]

This article explains in laymen’s language why 57’s Information is inaccurate . The picture is of some of the soft tissue with the title of Dr Schweitzer’s original paper These are photos as I can’t

Personally I would stay as far from biologist as I could.

When they can biblically show me why, when, where and how sin entered into the world via a single man Adam when he fell....get back to me with them.

 

[Brightmoon]

Your scientific credentials for disputing this are what? Your evidence for disputing this has come from a well known crackpot website . What other evidence do you have?

 

[Brightmoon]

Fossils are only used to get relative dates if the species lived for a short time ( geologically speaking) and they had a worldwide or near worldwide distribution . Trilobites only lived until the end of the Permian. If you find a undisturbed trilobite fossil in a layer then the other organisms found in that layer with the trilobite, are more than 250 million years old

 

[-57]

Fossils are only used to get relative dates if the species lived for a short time ( geologically speaking) and they had a worldwide or near worldwide distribution . Trilobites only lived until the end of the Permian. If you find a undisturbed trilobite fossil in a layer then the other organisms found in that layer with the trilobite, are more than 250 million years old

So the theory goes...then again biomaterial showed the dinosaurs that it was taken from were not 65+ MY's old.

Science as well as the Bible says your timeline is screwed up.

 

[Brightmoon]

All non avian dinosaurs are over 65 million years old . Do you have verifiable evidence that they are not ? Mainstream scientists can date the specific layer from the bolide that killed them off . It’s also visible and obvious to laymen .

 

[-57]

View attachment 279670 All non avian dinosaurs are over 65 million years old . Do you have verifiable evidence that they are not ? Mainstream scientists can date the specific layer from the bolide that killed them off . It’s also visible and obvious to laymen .

Not quite sure your point...presenting faulty unverifiable age claims. You still need to get around biomaterial...as well as C14 found in coal.