Name just one....

[SkyWriting]

You'll probably find the first half of this video to be quite enlightening.

Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked - YouTube

My follow up on the debunking results in about half of the debunking, being debunked.

I noticed that the debunkers used ONE research paper. A dumb plan suggesting they didn't do any real homework. Most debunkers do little actual research work. I admit, the papers say they found suggestion of proteins. None have mentioned the word "meat" so far as I've found. I even admit that I only used ONE research paper to debunk the debunkers by 50%. I'm too lazy to nail them on more. The first 50% is enough for me to know I'm not dealing with quality accusations.



"Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. The present study attempts to trace the occurrence of these four components in bone from specimens spanning multiple geological time periods and varied depositional environments. At least three of the four components persist in some skeletal elements of specimens dating to the Campanian. Fibrous bone matrix is more altered over time in morphology and less likely to persist than vessels and/or osteocytes. Vessels vary greatly in preservation, even within the same specimen, with some regions retaining pliability and other regions almost crystalline. Osteocytes also vary, with some retaining long filipodia and transparency, while others present with short and stubby filipodia and deeply pigmented nuclei, or are pigmented throughout with no nucleus visible."

Soft tissue and cellular preservation in verte... [Proc Biol Sci. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[SkyWriting]

The video looks right at the scientific peer reviewed papers for the study. They are put on screen so the fact checking is quite easy to do. However, I do understand not wanting to debate a video, so later this evening I'll type some of it out for you.

I checked. "The claimers" in the video took a couple of liberties with terms. The "debunkers" looked at ONE of Mary's 19 papers and used it to attemt to debunk the "claimers". I looked at ONE of Mary's papers and found the original claims were mostly correct. Perhaps If I had more interest....but I don't debate video's for this reason. Lack of professionalism.

See "Mary Schweitzer"
Home - PubMed - NCBI

 

[SkyWriting]

Scientists will clutch at any straw when cornered. I defy any scientist to repeat the conditions for bending layers even using heat if they have to -hey the Flood laid down plenty of oil that you could use for fuel -so what is stopping it.

I live near the Dells and our twisted rock layers have never been known to be exposed to heat at all. Nor pressure.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds similar to Kelvin's estimate of between 20 million and 400 million years, and he was an Old Earth Creationist.

I don't know how did he do it. But I am glad that my arbitrary guess falls into his range.

Old or young is relative. For me, an old earth means a 4500-million-year old earth. So, even a 2200-million-year old earth is a young earth. The only thing I am trying to argue is that the earth is NOT 4500 m.y. old.

 

[juvenissun]

No, 100 million years is an old earth. A young earth is usually 6,000-50,000 years old.

I post the following not to be rude, but to give you a chance to clarify things for me.

Back in the 1800s looking at how sediments formed gave an estimated age of the earth of hundreds of millions of years, which seems to be what you've done here. Since then other lines of evidence have extended that longer. You seem to be 150 years behind geology. The difference is, they didn't have our modern dating techniques, and you do. In fact, you started this whole conversation out by saying "if we ignore radiometric dating...".

So what's the point of going against the grain here? You want the age to be different than what scientists think, but you admit you have to ignore evidence to make it fit. Your view also doesn't fit young earth theology (as far as I can tell) so it seems to be a view that is unique to yourself. Maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing? What do you think happened during the 100 million years of earth's existence, did God create species along the way like progressive creationism? Or did you have something else in mind?

What I argued is a simple concept: Radiometric dating is not geological, and it is inappropriate to apply the dates on geological interpretation, except making a sequential arrangement on geological events. There are plenty of other physical and chemical processes that can be used to consider the rate of any geological process in a more proper way. When a case of geology is considered in that way, everything could take much shorter time to be completed.

The formation of the Grand Canyon sequence is an example. According to the interpretation which is "controlled" by radiometric (thus, fossil) dates, it took more than 200 m.y. to form. But the time could be reasonably shortened to less than 100 m.y. if only sedimentary and petrological processes are considered.

Radiometric dating nailed a few key dates to the history and let geology fill up the gaps in between. This process of reconstruction is not appropriate.

 

[juvenissun]

Correct -but the real strata formation would have occurred with the receeding flood waters where great forces would be involved.

I guess you did not catch what I meant.

If all material on the layers of the Grand Canyon Series were all laid down as soft sediments, then the layers would collapse under their own weight.

This would be just one difficulty among many others.

 

[cottom]

No, 100 million years is an old earth. A young earth is usually 6,000-50,000 years old.

I post the following not to be rude, but to give you a chance to clarify things for me.

Back in the 1800s looking at how sediments formed gave an estimated age of the earth of hundreds of millions of years, which seems to be what you've done here. Since then other lines of evidence have extended that longer. You seem to be 150 years behind geology. The difference is, they didn't have our modern dating techniques, and you do. In fact, you started this whole conversation out by saying "if we ignore radiometric dating...".

So what's the point of going against the grain here? You want the age to be different than what scientists think, but you admit you have to ignore evidence to make it fit. Your view also doesn't fit young earth theology (as far as I can tell) so it seems to be a view that is unique to yourself. Maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing? What do you think happened during the 100 million years of earth's existence, did God create species along the way like progressive creationism? Or did you have something else in mind?

I get cross-wise of my spiritual leaders all the time because I have NO DOUBT this planet we call Earth is somewhere between 4.5 and 5.0 BILLION YEARS old. The general accepted age of the earth is approximately 4.55 BILLION YEARS, during which there were many major upheavals of our planet. When God created (or caused to be created) the original earth it was perfect in every way. However, by Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Verse 2 continues “And the earth BECAME (Hebrew1961 hâyâh) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. In my Spirit, I support the concept that this happened when God threw Lucifer to the Earth. Lucifer proceeded to throw a tantrum, as the universe had never seen. Destroying the beautiful, perfect Earth God had created. I like the end of verse 2 that reflects a mother hen circling a nest of her eggs that had been disturbed.
So, there are probably millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Then about 12,000 years (my approximation) ago God took his man project which had been evolving for millions of years, cleaned up the design a bit, and by Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became (H1961 again) a living soul. Man was no longer an "animal" subject to animal desires and living.
Hope that makes somebody think about all this. Just DO NOT put God in a “time box,” He is not subject to Time as we know it.

Chaplain Van

 

[cottom]

I am working on this....will resume shortly duty calls at 10 PM.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I guess you did not catch what I meant.

If all material on the layers of the Grand Canyon Series were all laid down as soft sediments, then the layers would collapse under their own weight.

This would be just one difficulty among many others.

Please explain where they would collapse to. And dont we see evidence of wall collapses in the GC if that is what you mean In some cases undermining would cause sheering which could only occurr with soft sediments. A good example of the sheer effect is when a water stream crosses wet sand , like on a beach, where the water undermines the wall until it cannot be supported any longer and sheers off . The GC is a macro example of that
There is an example on the GC where the process began but did not complete to the "collapse" stage. Instead there is a huge cave near the base of the canyon.
There is another thing to remember about canyon type formations -the longer the flow of receeding water continues the lesser the amount of water in the flow -hence the higher the layer the wider the erosion

 

[jackmt]

Your attititude seems defiant. I have a policy of not answering objections, but only sincere questions. I find it a waste of time and effort.
I am curious, though, about the footnote on your original posting. What is intended? Natural selection is a tautology: those most fit to reproduce tend to reproduce the most. That is true for evolutionists as well as creationists. I believe in evolution as well, but not over millions of years. Any beneficial mutation or adaptation must establish itself very rapidly or it will be diluted in every succeeding generation until it has lost all effectiveness.
Remember also, Jesus did not believe that Genesis was allegorical. He treated it literally. And whom shall I believe, the Creator, or some created being who desperately needs to explain away God so that he may live as he wishes? Nietzche said that if there is no God, all is permissible. Certainly that would include falsifying and (deliberately) misinterpreting data, and excluding any facts that contradict the desired outcome. Watch the movie "Expelled" to see how dissenters are treated. It is a non-Christian documentary.
Have you conducted any of the experiments, done any of the primary research? I know many who trust entirely in science who speak as if they have, claiming "we know." (Jer.17:5)
God (okay, for you, if He exists) would not give an atheist a way out of his responsibility to Him by making the evidence equivocal. I used to believe in evolution because that was what I was taught from my earliest schooling. I was indoctrinated, as are most children. And I believed that everyone who believed literally was an idiot. When I came to believe in Christ, the first sermon I heard was on Genesis. I laughed and arrogantly said to God, "Please tell me he doesn't really believe in literal creation!" Two days later, I no longer believe in evolutionary theory and I didn't know why. I have since studied the matter in depth and now I know why.
Kent Hovind, an apologist for creationism, is off the wall when he leaves his area of expertise, as he does in a couple of his videos. I am reluctant to refer you to him because of that. But his evidence and reasoning is sound within it. Google him to find his info if you are interested.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What seems to have alluded the scientists is that in a catastrohic flood (such that water may be 2 km deep on what was dry land) the real geologic upheaval would come when these waters receeded. Now if this happened quickly like the earth crust collapsing over the voids from where the water came, there would be released mighty forces as mega tons of water raced to the sink holes. Much of the strata layering (as has been shown by tests)and subsequent erosion and formation forming would happen under these conditions .

There are many reasons why this is false. Pick a layer and I'll explain why your theory doesn't work for it.

I live near the Dells and our twisted rock layers have never been known to be exposed to heat at all. Nor pressure.

You'll have to show a picture of the twisted rocks that you're talking about. The Dells contain both young (<2 million years old) glacial moraines and ancient metamorphosed bedrock. The latter have most certainly been exposed to great heat and pressure.

I don't know how did he do it. But I am glad that my arbitrary guess falls into his range.

Old or young is relative. For me, an old earth means a 4500-million-year old earth. So, even a 2200-million-year old earth is a young earth. The only thing I am trying to argue is that the earth is NOT 4500 m.y. old.

Why are you so dead set on the Earth not being 4.5 billion years old? At this point, it seems more like you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

Please explain where they would collapse to. And dont we see evidence of wall collapses in the GC if that is what you mean In some cases undermining would cause sheering which could only occurr with soft sediments. A good example of the sheer effect is when a water stream crosses wet sand , like on a beach, where the water undermines the wall until it cannot be supported any longer and sheers off . The GC is a macro example of that
There is an example on the GC where the process began but did not complete to the "collapse" stage. Instead there is a huge cave near the base of the canyon.
There is another thing to remember about canyon type formations -the longer the flow of receeding water continues the lesser the amount of water in the flow -hence the higher the layer the wider the erosion

The total lack of geologic understanding in this post makes me want to cry. An unconsolidated layer will not collapse in blocks; it will slump and flow. You wouldn't get things like this:

if the Grand Canyon formed in the past 4,000 years (notice the boulders).

And it takes significantly longer than 4,000 years to consolidate that large of a quantity of sediment into rock of that strength.

Also, I have a better explanation for the width of the canyon. Simple gravity. A shear wall is difficult to sustain in nature, especially if it's made up of several types of rock, each with varying degrees of strength. As the river (and its tributaries) cut deeper, more and more of the canyon wall failed until it reached its current width.

 

[juvenissun]

I get cross-wise of my spiritual leaders all the time because I have NO DOUBT this planet we call Earth is somewhere between 4.5 and 5.0 BILLION YEARS old. The general accepted age of the earth is approximately 4.55 BILLION YEARS, during which there were many major upheavals of our planet. When God created (or caused to be created) the original earth it was perfect in every way. However, by Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Verse 2 continues “And the earth BECAME (Hebrew1961 hâyâh) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. In my Spirit, I support the concept that this happened when God threw Lucifer to the Earth. Lucifer proceeded to throw a tantrum, as the universe had never seen. Destroying the beautiful, perfect Earth God had created. I like the end of verse 2 that reflects a mother hen circling a nest of her eggs that had been disturbed.
So, there are probably millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Then about 12,000 years (my approximation) ago God took his man project which had been evolving for millions of years, cleaned up the design a bit, and by Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became (H1961 again) a living soul. Man was no longer an "animal" subject to animal desires and living.
Hope that makes somebody think about all this. Just DO NOT put God in a “time box,” He is not subject to Time as we know it.

Chaplain Van

Did you just do that?
At least you should have some doubts.

 

[juvenissun]

Please explain where they would collapse to. And dont we see evidence of wall collapses in the GC if that is what you mean In some cases undermining would cause sheering which could only occurr with soft sediments. A good example of the sheer effect is when a water stream crosses wet sand , like on a beach, where the water undermines the wall until it cannot be supported any longer and sheers off . The GC is a macro example of that
There is an example on the GC where the process began but did not complete to the "collapse" stage. Instead there is a huge cave near the base of the canyon.
There is another thing to remember about canyon type formations -the longer the flow of receeding water continues the lesser the amount of water in the flow -hence the higher the layer the wider the erosion

Sorry for not being clear. Those layers will collapse into each other and the layered feature will not be able to maintain.

Something like you put a layer of sand on a layer of pudding. Both layers won't stand.

 

[juvenissun]

There are many reasons why this is false. Pick a layer and I'll explain why your theory doesn't work for it.



You'll have to show a picture of the twisted rocks that you're talking about. The Dells contain both young (<2 million years old) glacial moraines and ancient metamorphosed bedrock. The latter have most certainly been exposed to great heat and pressure.



Why are you so dead set on the Earth not being 4.5 billion years old? At this point, it seems more like you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.



The total lack of geologic understanding in this post makes me want to cry. An unconsolidated layer will not collapse in blocks; it will slump and flow. You wouldn't get things like this:

if the Grand Canyon formed in the past 4,000 years (notice the boulders).

And it takes significantly longer than 4,000 years to consolidate that large of a quantity of sediment into rock of that strength.

Also, I have a better explanation for the width of the canyon. Simple gravity. A shear wall is difficult to sustain in nature, especially if it's made up of several types of rock, each with varying degrees of strength. As the river (and its tributaries) cut deeper, more and more of the canyon wall failed until it reached its current width.

(Hi, nice to see you again)

The bottom-line reason for me to against the 4.5 b.y. age of the earth is because it is inferred by methods of radiometric dating. If that age could be discredited, then the meaning of radiometric date would be revise, restricted, and correctly used.

Since you are a geologist, I will skip some explanations. One major factor in the control of Grand Canyon landscape is the limestone formations in the strata. The strength of the whole sequence is limited by its weakest rock layer. If a limestone bed in the middle of the sequence dissolved, then all layers on top of it could not stand.

Erosion is not a problem for the young age of GC. The canyon could be eroded pretty fast. The depositional process is the central issue of the argument, if we omitted the structural and tectonic factors.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

(Hi, nice to see you again)

The bottom-line reason for me to against the 4.5 b.y. age of the earth is because it is inferred by methods of radiometric dating. If that age could be discredited, then the meaning of radiometric date would be revise, restricted, and correctly used.

I don't think you're quite understanding my question. Why do you disagree with radiometric dating and what do you stand to gain if it is discredited?

Most YECs want to discredit radiometric dating so that they can say that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You think it's several million years old, but your only evidence for that is "it looks like it's that old". YECs have a source for their age in the Bible, and there is a whole pile of radiometric age data (some produced by yours truly) verifying that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Since you are a geologist, I will skip some explanations. One major factor in the control of Grand Canyon landscape is the limestone formations in the strata. The strength of the whole sequence is limited by its weakest rock layer. If a limestone bed in the middle of the sequence dissolved, then all layers on top of it could not stand.

Erosion is not a problem for the young age of GC. The canyon could be eroded pretty fast. The depositional process is the central issue of the argument, if we omitted the structural and tectonic factors.

I'm well aware of all of this, though I'm not sure how dissolving limestone applies to what either of us was talking about. I was merely addressing his arguments.

 

[TasManOfGod]

There are many reasons why this is false. Pick a layer and I'll explain why your theory doesn't work for it.



You'll have to show a picture of the twisted rocks that you're talking about. The Dells contain both young (<2 million years old) glacial moraines and ancient metamorphosed bedrock. The latter have most certainly been exposed to great heat and pressure.



Why are you so dead set on the Earth not being 4.5 billion years old? At this point, it seems more like you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.



The total lack of geologic understanding in this post makes me want to cry. An unconsolidated layer will not collapse in blocks; it will slump and flow. You wouldn't get things like this:

if the Grand Canyon formed in the past 4,000 years (notice the boulders).

And it takes significantly longer than 4,000 years to consolidate that large of a quantity of sediment into rock of that strength.

Also, I have a better explanation for the width of the canyon. Simple gravity. A shear wall is difficult to sustain in nature, especially if it's made up of several types of rock, each with varying degrees of strength. As the river (and its tributaries) cut deeper, more and more of the canyon wall failed until it reached its current width.

If the amount of water flow was constant over the whole time of the erosion you would not get the formations we see in the GC. Just think of the the initial flow it would have to be very shallow (and hence not very fast flowing) to do the erosion at the extremities - that is if you want us to beleive that the same quantity of water millions of years later fitted into the narrow stream at the bottom of the canyon. BTW Have you actually had your theory checked by an hydrologist

 

[TasManOfGod]

Sorry for not being clear. Those layers will collapse into each other and the layered feature will not be able to maintain.

Something like you put a layer of sand on a layer of pudding. Both layers won't stand.

I am sorry but I do not agree . You can see examples in nature where these same things happen ie. when the shoreline is disturbed . You can also repeat using different sands in a bottle. They stay separated even when wet.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If the amount of water flow was constant over the whole time of the erosion you would not get the formations we see in the GC. Just think of the the initial flow it would have to be very shallow (and hence not very fast flowing) to do the erosion at the extremities - that is if you want us to beleive that the same quantity of water millions of years later fitted into the narrow stream at the bottom of the canyon. BTW Have you actually had your theory checked by an hydrologist

First of all, it's not "my" theory. It's the accepted theory of how rivers cut their canyons. I'm not sure I can give you a clear reference for it though, because it's essentially common sense.

Second, the Colorado River is hardly a "narrow stream". Perhaps in relation to the Mississippi, but it's still 175-700 ft wide and 9-130 ft deep within the canyon. That's a lot of river. Also keep in mind that it's restricted by Glen Canyon Dam, so it isn't receiving its full flow anymore.

So now to explain how river downcutting works. As the river cuts down through the rock, it behaves differently when it reaches different layers. A hard, resistant layer (like the Kaibab Limestone or Coconino Sandstone near the rim of the canyon) will be cut in more-or-less sheer cliffs, much like the base of the canyon is now. However, whenever a softer layer (Hermit Shale or Supai Formation, for example) is reached, the river is able to erode much more quickly, and also broaden. It undercuts the more resistant layers, which collapse into the river and are eventually swept downstream. In the course of this, it loses some energy (this can also be caused by raising sea level and/or subsiding the drainage area of the river, lowering its gradient), so it may have trouble cutting into the next resistant layer it encounters. The river then will change into a meandering course and continue to widen its floodplain, undercutting more and more (which explains the big shelves in the canyon). Then, base level (sea level) drops or the drainage area is uplifted and the gradient of the river increases, which increases its energy, allowing it to downcut again.

Hope that explained things.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think you're quite understanding my question. Why do you disagree with radiometric dating and what do you stand to gain if it is discredited?

Most YECs want to discredit radiometric dating so that they can say that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You think it's several million years old, but your only evidence for that is "it looks like it's that old". YECs have a source for their age in the Bible, and there is a whole pile of radiometric age data (some produced by yours truly) verifying that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

I'm well aware of all of this, though I'm not sure how dissolving limestone applies to what either of us was talking about. I was merely addressing his arguments.

1. Radiometric dating is a physical feature of unknown origin (or mechanism).
2. The nature of time is not answered or explained by radioactive decay. It is not even a concern in the technique.
3. Geologists never truly use radiometric dating to refer to the true time. The dates only provide time reference to geological processes. Only non-geologists who misunderstand the meaning of radiometric dates.

For example, the 4.5 b.y. is only taken as a "beginning" of all geological processes. It does not really matter if it is really 4.5 b.y. in true time. However, non-geologists seriously think this number is the true age of the earth.

Another example: the 1 b.y. Rodinia and the 0.3 b.y. old Pangaea only mean the earth took ±0.5 b.y. to disperse one and to reassemble another supercontinent. We derive the rate of various geological processes based on these dates. Geologists don't really care if the Pangaea is truly 300 m.y. old as long as the rates of various geological processes are found consistent. The focus is on the understanding of a process, not on the meaning of time.

So, radiometric dating gives a reference to time. But the date does not mean true time. I am not trying to discredit the radiometric dates by religious argument. I am trying to discredit it by comparing it with time duration derived from process which is independent of the mysterious radioactive decay.

 

[juvenissun]

I am sorry but I do not agree . You can see examples in nature where these same things happen ie. when the shoreline is disturbed . You can also repeat using different sands in a bottle. They stay separated even when wet.

Why don't you try this: put some wet mud in a box to make a base layer. Then add a 2-inch thick sand layer onto the mud and see what happen.

Now, think if the sand is 20-feet thick ...