Where are all the bones?

[Radrook]

Challenging creationism is not incompatible with being a Christian; far from it. The vast majority of Christians can reconcile science and faith perfectly well without resorting to distortions of either.

I said as much and you said my post did not help. Why was that?

I have never identified myself as being in favor with extreme views which go completely contrary to firmly established science. Why I am being accused of it is beyond me. For example, I find the age of the Earth and universe as astronomers describe it as totally acceptable and totally reconcilable with the Genesis account.
So again, thanks for trying to help me but I am not in need of any major overhaul at this particular time.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

I was just naturally confounded by a professed Christian who seems to feel it his duty to vehemently challenge creationists. To me that seemed and still seems totally incompatible with being a Christian and so I asked for a clarification.

It baffles me too.

 

[W2L]

Yes, you are misinformed. Carbon, such as that in the collagen, is "in situ" carbon and would not contain any 14C which is necessary for radiocarbon dating.

How do we know?

 

[RickG]

I was just naturally confounded by a professed Christian who seems to feel it his duty to vehemently challenge creationists. To me that seemed and still seems totally incompatible with being a Christian and so I asked for a clarification.

I challenge the young earth concept as described in the "creation science" literature. I do not challenge ones' literal belief of Genesis so long as those beliefs stay biblical. Conversely, "creation science" attempts to justify some scripture through what they term as science. In fact it is not science, but generally a misrepresentation of science, which is bearing false witness. One way they describe it is a different interpretation of the mainstream scientific literature. I have yet to see any creation science literature claiming a different interpretation to provide any original scientific data and/or research supporting what they claim; rather, it is nothing more than their opinion. There are also cases where "quote mines" are used. A quote mine is taking something someone has said, written, or published and turned it around completely out of context to mean something completely different. For example, Henry Gee, a paleontologist wrote a book titled In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. In the book, he uses one chapter to approach evolution from a denial point of view. Within that chapter he utilizes several reasons describing why evolution is false. After doing that, he then goes back and shows how each of those reasons are invalid. Numerous creation science citations have taken those arguments and presented them as a paleontologist who doesn't believe in evolution. The point is not whether one accepts or denies evolution, the point is that the creation science literature that claims Gee doesn't accept evolution is a deliberate, hugely distorted lie.

Now, look at your claim of dinosaurs not being million of years old. What do your sources say, or at least imply? Probably pretty much like they broke open a dinosaur bone and there was soft tissue and blood. That is an outright lie, no such thing happened. And even if they did, it still doesn't have, nullify evolution.

But enough of evolution. I wish to understand why you reject the age of the dinosaur fossil. What prevents if from being millions of years old?

 

[RickG]

It baffles me too.

No, what is baffling is Noah in New Jersey.

 

[RickG]

How do we know?

Because we know the difference between naturally occurring 14C and 'in situ' 14C. The only way any 14C can be present in a dinosaur fossils is for it to be in proximity of uranium or thorium, which could cause minute amounts of 14C to from from 14N. Do you know how dinosaur fossils are dated?

 

[W2L]

Because we know the difference between naturally occurring 14C and 'in situ' 14C. The only way any 14C can be present in a dinosaur fossils is for it to be in proximity of uranium or thorium, which could cause minute amounts of 14C to from from 14N. Do you know how dinosaur fossils are dated?

I believe they date rocks and they use that to determine the age of fossils that are found around those rocks, if I'm not mistaken. However, its possible I suppose, that those rocks can be much older than the fossils. In an event like a global flood for example, the fossils would theoretically be buried with much older rocks, and even younger ones as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, what is baffling is Noah in New Jersey.

I'm sure it is to you, since you seem to believe New Jersey is the same distance from Mesopotamia, whether New Jersey exists on Pangaea or North America.

Or, as I suspect, you were giving me dishonest answers.

ETA: I just went back and checked, and I was wrong.

You say New Jersey is farther away on Pangaea, than North America.

Later you admitted they would be 'at least two thousand miles' from each other -- contradicting yourself.

 

[RickG]

I believe they date rocks and they use that to determine the age of fossils that are found around those rocks, if I'm not mistaken. However, its possible I suppose, that those rocks can be much older than the fossils. In an event like a global flood for example, the fossils would theoretically be buried with much older rocks, and even younger ones as well.

The site in which the fossil is contained is dated, not the fossil itself. An exception would be something like mollusks where the shell containing carbonates could be dated directly. And with that the marine effect must also be taken into account.

 

[RickG]

I'm sure it is to you, since you seem to believe New Jersey is the same distance from Mesopotamia, whether New Jersey exists on Pangaea or North America.

Or, as I suspect, you were giving me dishonest answers.

No, simple put, the flood did not cover the entire earth. Floods leave very specific residues of several types. If the flood was truly global covering ALL the land, there would be a single layer found globally with that specific debris and sediments. There is no such layer. Conversely, the evidence that is there shows differently.

I do not look at the book of Genesis as being literal fact, metaphoric and inspirational. Why? Because the physical evidence we have scientifically cannot be changed. Call it God's evidence if you wish. Conversely, men who wrote scripture and/or decided what was or was not scripture, and never mind the actual intended context, which we do not know, are fallible. Understand? God's evidence infallible, man's evidence fallible.

 

[HitchSlap]

I believe they date rocks and they use that to determine the age of fossils that are found around those rocks, if I'm not mistaken. However, its possible I suppose, that those rocks can be much older than the fossils. In an event like a global flood for example, the fossils would theoretically be buried with much older rocks, and even younger ones as well.

You're mistaken.

 

[W2L]

You're mistaken.

Why is that? Specify please

 

[AV1611VET]

No, simple put, the flood did not cover the entire earth.

Did I just now say anything about a flood?

I'm talking about distance.

Specifically the distance between two points prior to the land those two points are on being pulled apart.

Of course, you want to feature creep it until it doesn't make sense, then blame me for your lack of understanding.

 

[W2L]

If the earth was covered in Ice at one time, that would also indicate that it was largely flooded as well. Before we can have ice we must have water, and ice melts eventually.

 

[RickG]

If the earth was covered in Ice at one time, that would also indicate that it was largely flooded as well. Before we can have ice we must have water, and ice melts eventually.

And this that covered the earth was when?

 

[W2L]

And this that covered the earth was when?

I never said it was, I said "if" it was.

 

[RickG]

Of course, you want to feature creep it until it doesn't make sense, then blame me for your lack of understanding.

No, I pointed out the problem because you lack understanding, I didn't blame you for anything.

 

[RickG]

I never said it was, I said "if" it was.

Thanks for the clarification, I thought you were suggesting that it had, my mistake.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why is that? Specify please

Rick G adequately explained it.

 

[W2L]

Rick G adequately explained it.

Actually no. In my post which you responded to, I saw no contradiction in what I said and he said.