Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

More amazing science- dinosaur soft tissue found


Gmountain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alright, here is the rule. This thread has nothing to do with creationism. It's is not going to turn into a creationism podium, nor is it going to address any religious belief. We are talking about a scientific discovery and publication. If you don't like it, don't read the thread. It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think I want to see Jurassic Park now. I haven't seen it in years, but I have seen it hundreds of times. I remember waiting in line to see it at theatres when I was 14. It is kind of a tired plot now, but back then it was an exciting premise.

Then you are a young feller! :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carbon 14 is a myth! :lol:

Hello ES! Hey, a screenshot of your reply to Dieselfume has been posted to one of the most highly ranked pages online for googling: dinosaur bones and carbon 14 (or anything similar).

 

Your reply was posted as an illustration of the countless times that people claim that Carbon 14 is evidence of million-year ages. However, 14c has a very brief half-life, and even though today's labs are so sophisticated that they are counting each 14c atom, the oldest Carbon 14 could theoretically date a specimen is only thousands of years, not one million, and so of course not 68 million.

 

Of course your second question could be: "Well then, do they find 14c in dinosaur bones?" Yes. Carbon 14 is EVERYWHERE it shoudn't be if the Earth were more than just thousands of years old, as implied by Dieselfume. These observations are not easily refuted, not by claims of contamination, nor by claims of neutron capture (as is easy to find out about).

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

-Bob Enyart

Real Science Radio & KGOV Radio

Edited by Bob Enyart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello ES! Hey, a screenshot of your reply to Dieselfume has been posted to one of the most highly ranked pages online for googling: dinosaur bones and carbon 14 (or anything similar).

 

Your reply was posted as an illustration of the countless times that people claim that Carbon 14 is evidence of million-year ages. However, 14c has a very brief half-life, and even though today's labs are so sophisticated that they are counting each 14c atom, the oldest Carbon 14 could theoretically date a specimen is only thousands of years, not one million, and so of course not 68 million.

 

Of course your second question could be: "Well then, do they find 14c in dinosaur bones?" Yes. Carbon 14 is EVERYWHERE it shoudn't be if the Earth were more than just thousands of years old, as implied by Dieselfume. These observations are not easily refuted, not by claims of contamination, nor by claims of neutron capture (as is easy to find out about).

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

-Bob Enyart

Real Science Radio & KGOV Radio

It is good to see a truly psuedo scientific view here, presented by no other than #651 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. :laugh: You must be very proud of your designation by them as a "zealous bag of bigotry and denial" , well done Bob..........you must be very proud! :bellylaf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum pastor. I am actually familiar with your show. I am flattered to be digitally immortalized on a Creation Science website and delighted to meet you.

 

Radiometric dating isn't all that controversial, or it shouldn't be. People become fixated with carbon-14, when in reality there are other methods already addressed for dating fossilized material. Uranium-238, Uranium-235 and Potassium-40, are what scientists use to date fossils and rock. We can also determine age by geologic stratum and molecular dating. All methods you will likely find objectionable because they conflict with a preconceived notion of how old you want the Earth to be, respectfully.

 

Even if the half-life of carbon 14 is only shy of 6,000 years, so even at 50,000 years it still debunks the chronologies of New Earth Creationism. (roughly 6,000 years)

 

Does your vehicle run on fossil fuels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get this religion bash side tracked, but I'm shaking my head on this story. Its kind of so what? They've found some proteins and claim its from the T Rex and anything T Rex makes the news. Its not DNA or real tissue (muscles, skin, even marrow). They're happy they found iron in the red stain. Without the sample history, as far as anyone knows somebody sneezed. BTW, then the story, totally the author creation, goes on to say DNA activity. Please, that would mean living cells. ... They didn't claim tissue.

Tj

 

Hi TJ! Many science journals are reporting original biological material from dinos, and from Archaeopteryx and a mosasaur including Nature, Science, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Public Library of Science, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Bone, and the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. So far in these fossils they've documented blood vessels, red blood cells, different proteins including collagen and hemoglobin, and even decomposing dinosaur DNA (from a T. rex and a hadrosaur). These fossils also have a lot of the kinds of atoms and amino acids that only last thousands of years, similar to what we find in Egyptian mummies, all of which is scientific evidence that these creatures did not die out millions of years ago but only recently. Surviving biological material has been found from hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, and T. rex. If you Google: dinosaur soft tissue, ranked among the first few pages will be a chronological catalog of all the published papers, with links and excerpts. :)

-Bob Enyart

Real Science Radio & KGOV Radio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...