Man and dinosaur coexisting

[RickG]

A rock is brought in to be dated.

There's a bit more to it than that. Quite a bit in fact. Like removing all weathering, keeping it separate from other samples, and providing a description as to what it is.

The guy doing the dating ask how old they think the rock is.

Actually there would be a team of geochemists that would pretreat it and prepare it for testing. As for asking the date, they may or may not ask for a general expected range, which is to ensure the proper dating method is used, not for what you are suggesting.

The dating happens.

Yeah, that's what is supposed to occur.

Ages that disagree with the estamite are thrown out.

Ah......NO! All obtained dates are reported. If any anomalies occur, there is an investigation into what may have occurred, i.e., generally contamination. That is why multiple samples are tested which may include different dating methods/techniques.

 

[RickG]

The upper strata is red clay so you are looking at the great oxygen event 2.3 Billion years ago. The angle indicates plate tectonics subduction.

Plate tectonic subduction occurs at subduction zone, which are the ocean trenches. So, how do you get a sample of red clay at a subduction zone?

 

[RickG]

Can you prove that is what they did?

I can. I've had boots on the ground in a dating lab. I am quite familiar with many dating methods and techniques and how they go about them. Is there a dating method you wish to discuss in particular? I will be glad to educate you on the process.

 

[Queller]

What you have is species that get mutated and new features are added or subtracted and become a different type of the same animal. Like a yellow lab and a Shepard. But they are both still the dog 'kind'. You don't have fossils of one 'kind' of animal turning into another 'kind' of animal. Eg, an ape into a man or a dog into a whale.

Scientists do not believe that an ape turned into a man or a dog into a whale.

The first horse would have mutated and became other types of horse but it's still a horse of course.

Can you give a definition of "transistional fossil" and give a specific example of what a transitional fossil would look like?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Can you prove that is what they did?

Here is an example of how Snelling, and Austin lie, lie, lie.

They wrote,

Figure 3 and 4. It is possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons. All these layers had to be soft and pliable at the same time in order for these layers to be folded without fracturing. The folded Tapeats Sandstone can be seen in Carbon Canyon (top) and the folded Mauv and Redwall Limestone layers can be seen along Kwagunt Creek (bottom).

“In the walls of the Grand Canyon, we can see that the whole horizontal sedimentary strata sequence was folded without fracturing, supposedly 440 million years after the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited, and 200 million years after the Kaibab Limestone was deposited. The only way to explain how these sandstone and limestone beds could be folded, as though still pliable, is to conclude they were deposited during the Genesis Flood, just months before they were folded.”

"#2 Bent Rock Layers: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth" by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2012.

Photo 1: The whole sequence of sedimentary layers through which Grand Canyon cuts has been bent and folded without fracturing. This includes the Tapeats Sandstone, located at the bottom of the sequence. (A 90° fold in the eastern Grand Canyon is pictured here.)

Look at the photos of some of these layers at the edge of the plateau, just east of the Grand Canyon. The whole sequence of these hardened sedimentary rock layers has been bent and folded, but without fracturing (Figure 1.3) At the bottom of this sequence is the Tapeats Sandstone, which is 100–325 feet (30–100 meters) thick. It is bent and folded 90° (Photo 1).

It is obvious the 90-degree folding of the layers was done when they were still soft and pliable because there is no evidence whatsoever of breaking or shattering.

It is these false assertions, that "these hardened sedimentary rock layers has(sic) been bent and folded, but without fracturing" repeated over and over that are a major fraud of "Flood Geology."

Here is the reality: (red lines mark stress fractures)

More at "Andrew Snelling, and Steve Austin: Creationist Frauds"

 

[Queller]

At a point in times past you became aware Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

Were they also created with apparent history? Did they have scars? Were their teeth ground from years of chewing? Were the soles of their feet callused as if from years of walking?

The earth has this apparent history. Why?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Oh, "talk origins".....they can be trusted.

I thought we just did this?

Did you miss it?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Oh boy...an article written by Kevin R. Henke.

Yep, an article written by professional geologist Kevin R. Henke Ph.D.

 

[RickG]

Here is an example of how Snelling, and Austin lie, lie, lie.

They wrote,

Figure 3 and 4. It is possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons. All these layers had to be soft and pliable at the same time in order for these layers to be folded without fracturing. The folded Tapeats Sandstone can be seen in Carbon Canyon (top) and the folded Mauv and Redwall Limestone layers can be seen along Kwagunt Creek (bottom).

“In the walls of the Grand Canyon, we can see that the whole horizontal sedimentary strata sequence was folded without fracturing, supposedly 440 million years after the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited, and 200 million years after the Kaibab Limestone was deposited. The only way to explain how these sandstone and limestone beds could be folded, as though still pliable, is to conclude they were deposited during the Genesis Flood, just months before they were folded.”

"#2 Bent Rock Layers: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth" by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2012.

Photo 1: The whole sequence of sedimentary layers through which Grand Canyon cuts has been bent and folded without fracturing. This includes the Tapeats Sandstone, located at the bottom of the sequence. (A 90° fold in the eastern Grand Canyon is pictured here.)

Look at the photos of some of these layers at the edge of the plateau, just east of the Grand Canyon. The whole sequence of these hardened sedimentary rock layers has been bent and folded, but without fracturing (Figure 1.3) At the bottom of this sequence is the Tapeats Sandstone, which is 100–325 feet (30–100 meters) thick. It is bent and folded 90° (Photo 1).

It is obvious the 90-degree folding of the layers was done when they were still soft and pliable because there is no evidence whatsoever of breaking or shattering.

It is these false assertions, that "these hardened sedimentary rock layers has(sic) been bent and folded, but without fracturing" repeated over and over that are a major fraud of "Flood Geology."

Here is the reality: (red lines mark stress fractures)

More at "Andrew Snelling, and Steve Austin: Creationist Frauds"

Tensile testing might be a good analogy. Take a fiber (polymer) and slowly stretch it slowly. Depending upon its molecular orientation it will stretch to a certain point before breaking. Speed up the process and the break point will become shorter. The same thing happens with strata. The break point is dependent upon temperature, pressure, force, rate, and consistency of rate.

 

[RickG]

Yep, an article written by professional geologist Kevin R. Henke Ph.D.

Who BTW has quite a few published peer review articles in the scientific literature in his area of expertise. Unlike some engineers and meteorologists, who ignore the thermodynamics they use in their profession when writing about things outside of their area of expertise in the creation science literature.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

You're not answering the questions. So I'll repeat them:
If the Earth has only existed for 6,000 years, as the Bible claims, then why does all of the evidence point towards the Earth existing for 4.5 billion years?
And if the Bible is the word of God (I thoroughly do not believe it is, but for the sake of the argument let's pretend it is), then does that mean that God has been deceptive in making all of the evidence point towards an old Earth?

It's not God being deceptive. It's mans interpretation of the evidence. Like with the strata layers for example; evolutionist see billions of years on top of billions of years. Where as creationists see strata layers being a result of the flood. We have the same evidence but interpret differently. In the creationists view, the earth looks old because their was a catastrophic world wide flood. If there was no flood then why do we have tree fossils all over the world standing up straight through several layers of strata? Why are marine fossils found all over the world including mountains? Why are modern day mammals found in the same strata as dinosaurs? Massive whale graveyards nowhere near oceans? This was a massive flood that killed every living thing on land. So of course the earth is going to look bruised and battered.

 

[lasthero]

Perhaps not that particular rock...but creationist have had blind radio dating testing done and the results came up with vastly different ages.

Why don't THEY do the testing?

 

[dougangel]

You're not answering the questions. So I'll repeat them:
If the Earth has only existed for 6,000 years, as the Bible claims, then why does all of the evidence point towards the Earth existing for 4.5 billion years?
And if the Bible is the word of God (I thoroughly do not believe it is, but for the sake of the argument let's pretend it is), then does that mean that God has been deceptive in making all of the evidence point towards an old Earth?

Well I'm a Christian. I don't think the bible actually claims YEC. On the surface if you do no inquiry, it looks like that. But its being interpreted incorrectly and in a confused way. There's parts in the bible that aren't the word of God for every body. Genesis 1-3 are very symbolic, non literal and can have a lot of different interpretations. Genesis 1- 3 isn't scientific it's mainly concerned with pointing out spiritual truths. It also has many Hebrew story telling and prophecy techniques that you need to know to interpret it correctly.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is true, Dougangel, that Genesis has been interpreted allegorically and then given more than one interpretation. My approach is to stay with the plain meaning or reading f the text, so that we do not turn it into a nose of was that can be twisted any way we want, which was the Reformers critic of the symbolic or allegorical method. Therefore, I believe Genesis is a totally inadequate account of creation . I find it offers two contradictory chronologies of creation written by two different authors from very different periods of history. And I am not alone here. That is the standard understanding of Genesis as found in contemporary biblical scholarship.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not God being deceptive. It's mans interpretation of the evidence. Like with the strata layers for example; evolutionist see billions of years on top of billions of years. Where as creationists see strata layers being a result of the flood. We have the same evidence but interpret differently. In the creationists view, the earth looks old because their was a catastrophic world wide flood. If there was no flood then why do we have tree fossils all over the world standing up straight through several layers of strata? Why are marine fossils found all over the world including mountains? Why are modern day mammals found in the same strata as dinosaurs? Massive whale graveyards nowhere near oceans? This was a massive flood that killed every living thing on land. So of course the earth is going to look bruised and battered.

But none of the evidence proves that a worldwide flood happened. Geologists have known that for over 200 years

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well I'm a Christian. I don't think the bible actually claims YEC. On the surface if you do no inquiry, it looks like that. But its being interpreted incorrectly and in a confused way. There's parts in the bible that aren't the word of God for every body. Genesis 1-3 are very symbolic, non literal and can have a lot of different interpretations. Genesis 1- 3 isn't scientific it's mainly concerned with pointing out spiritual truths. It also has many Hebrew story telling and prophecy techniques that you need to know to interpret it correctly.

That as well may be, but my question was directed to a Christian who does believe that the Bible supports a Young Earth Creation, and I was asking him how that could be when all of the evidence points towards an opposite.

 

[Hoghead1]

Geologists have known for 200 years there was a Flood, Warden ? You can't be serious. the reality of it is that especially in the 19th century, geologists went out in the hopes of discovering evidence for the Flood. What happened was that when they carefully studied the hard data they gathered, it pointed to factors way other than a gigantic world Flood.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Geologists have known for 200 years there was a Flood, Warden ? You can't be serious. the reality of it is that especially in the 19th century, geologists went out in the hopes of discovering evidence for the Flood. What happened was that when they carefully studied the hard data they gathered, it pointed to factors way other than a gigantic world Flood.

Yeah. The 19th century was 200 years ago.

 

[fargonic]

It's not God being deceptive. It's mans interpretation of the evidence. Like with the strata layers for example; evolutionist see billions of years on top of billions of years. Where as creationists see strata layers being a result of the flood. We have the same evidence but interpret differently.

Well, to be fair, most YEC don't actually know how to interpret the rock layers. Most of them haven't had any geology classes. It isn't necessary to be a professional geologist to look at rocks, but when one does have experience in the field the rock interpretation makes more sense and actually comports with reality.

Even the Creationist scientists you see like Austin et al. often abuse basic science in order to get the interpretations they prefer.

In the creationists view, the earth looks old because their was a catastrophic world wide flood.

And to a geologist: catastrophic flooding doesn't necessarily make something look "old". It makes something look like a catastrophic flood deposit. Which is NOT what we see when looking at the world's rocks as an explanation.

Why are marine fossils found all over the world including mountains?

Tectonics. In fact finding marine fossils in the top of a mountain is evidence for DEEP TIME.

Why are modern day mammals found in the same strata as dinosaurs?

They aren't.

Massive whale graveyards nowhere near oceans?

From my personal experience: when I was in undergraduate in the Midwest I took a paleontology class and one of my class projects was to go to a local quarry and get examples of various fossils. I was one of the few people to find a SHARK'S TOOTH in that quarry. Remember, I was in the Midwest (Illinois), thousands of miles from an open ocean. Interestingly enough the shark tooth I found was very ancient. It wasn't like modern shark teeth.

The fact of the matter is the surface of the earth changes over time. At one point millions of years ago we had a shallow sea covering Illinois.

While at the same time there were areas that were NOT underwater. The seas ebb and flow and land rises and falls.

This was a massive flood that killed every living thing on land. So of course the earth is going to look bruised and battered.

Now here's where your simplification of geology breaks down: if there were a worldwide flood then there should be a layer across the globe that is not contemporary with any "subaerial" exposure. Like if you find your "Flood" layer then you will NOT be able to correlate it with a layer somewhere else on earth that has "dune deposits" for instance.

 

[JacksBratt]

Actually it takes two things, both of which are not that hard to come by:

1. Chemistry
2. Statistics

Life is not chemically special in any way. It uses only naturally occurring elements and the chemical reactions that life undergoes are standard chemistry. Nothing mystical about it at all.

Life is not chemical at all. You cannot weigh it, smell it, measure it, move it, taste it, create it or explain it.

An organism is alive and then dead. All the equipment is still there but man cannot give it life again.

It is an enigmatic force. Even if you had all the DNA, Protein, cell components, molecules of tissue, whatever, you still need that spark, that force or energy ,whatever it is that makes everything run.

You cannot have a bunch of material needed for life and voila it spontaneously all comes together and breathes.

Life came from some source. For each species created it was given an initial spark of life. Take humans for instance. Two humans, male and female are given life. They then can pass it on through living cells, the sperm cell is alive and has life, the ovum is alive and has life. They come together and form a living organism. We do not create life. No life has been created from the original life. It has been passed on and on and on.

To say that all these intimately complex materials, components, chemicals, enzymes, proteins, compounds all came about by chance is one infinitely unbelievable event or events. To say that they somehow came alive..... that is just thousands of times more likely.

We don't even know what life is or how to create it. It is a huge leap of faith to believe that evolution started from some spontaneous life form. To say that evolution doesn't need to answer how life came to be is skipping the most important event. everything is hinged on the HOW. IF you cannot get that answer the rest is meaningless. The HOW determines the WHY and determines what happened after that.