Age of fossil remains

[bob b]

Jukia recently asked my opinion of the age of TRex bones at the Natural History Museum in NYC.

I used to go there as a lad, because we lived within driving distance and some people in our town worked in NYC.

To me it is obvious that the museum bones are no more than 4400-5400 years old, because the dinosaurs would have perished in the Flood.

It was recently discovered by accident that some dinosaur fossilized bones contain in their centers unfossilized and preserved organic material. This is good evidence that they are not nearly as old as previously thought, but being that evolution and long ages are "facts" the obvious evidence that the bones are not that old is being ignored.

Bones were never cracked open before since the "known" age of such fossils would obviously preclude the kind of preservation now known to be present.

There is now an effort underway to crack open other specimens to determine how widespread the "unusual" preservation phenomenon might be.

Stay tuned. A major paradigm shift might just be possible if only those creationists were not around to make such an event too embarassing to be feasible.

 

[Servo]

Jukia recently asked my opinion of the age of TRex bones at the Natural History Museum in NYC.

I used to go there as a lad, because we lived within driving distance and some people in our town worked in NYC.

To me it is obvious that the museum bones are no more than 4400-5400 years old, because the dinosaurs would have perished in the Flood.

It was recently discovered by accident that some dinosaur fossilized bones contain in their centers unfossilized and preserved organic material. This is good evidence that they are not nearly as old as previously thought, but being that evolution and long ages are "facts" the obvious evidence that the bones are not that old is being ignored.

Bones were never cracked open before since the "known" age of such fossils would obviously preclude the kind of preservation now known to be present.

There is now an effort underway to crack open other specimens to determine how widespread the "unusual" preservation phenomenon might be.

Stay tuned. A major paradigm shift might just be possible if only those creationists were not around to make such an event too embarassing to be feasible.

Very interesting! :thumb:

 

[Real Sorceror]

Lies, bull, and ignorance.

 

[truthteller86]

Lies, bull, and ignorance.

Do you have to continually talk about yourself? :think:

 

[Real Sorceror]

Do you have to continually talk about yourself? :think:

Truthteller, I had assumed we where friends. I guess I was wrong, eh?

 

[eisenreich]

To me it is obvious that the museum bones are no more than 4400-5400 years old, because the dinosaurs would have perished in the Flood.

bob, what scientific evidence would it take to convince you that the world is older than 6,000-10,000 years old? Being the fundy that you are, keep in mind that your entire world-view would then inevitably come collapsing down if you did admit to such a piece of evidence.

That said:
1. Do you see any kind of bias that you may be bringing to the topic?
2. Again, what scientific evidence would it take to convince you of an ancient earth?
3. (Bonus) name one scientist who does not follow an Abrahamic-based religion that supports your view of a young earth.

 

[Servo]

Lies, bull, and ignorance.

All you did here is post a four word sentance.

 

[Servo]

So unfossilized and preserved organic material was found in the center of the bone. Nothing! It means nothing!

 

[Real Sorceror]

All you did here is post a four word sentance.

All you did here was point out that posted a four word sentence.

 

[hatsoff]

Oh, it means something. It means we have more information with which to study the history of dinosaurs. It does not mean the earth is less than 7,000 years old.

The creationist argument here is missing a component: dinosaur material has survived, therefore they must not have been extinct for more than several thousand years. There's no word about how organic material can't survive millions of years, especially when encased in what I assume would be an air-tight fossil. Instead, we have a claim that scientists were stunned when they discovered the material, which is another of many creationist untruths.

For those interested in the actual science, as opposed to idle musings about how organic material just can't possibly survive all that time, have a look over here.

 

[Real Sorceror]

So unfossilized and preserved organic material was found in the center of the bone. Nothing! It means nothing!

It means that this is falsified evidence. It didnt happen. Its a hoax.

 

[bob b]

bob, what scientific evidence would it take to convince you that the world is older than 6,000-10,000 years old? Being the fundy that you are, keep in mind that your entire world-view would then inevitably come collapsing down if you did admit to such a piece of evidence.

That said:
1. Do you see any kind of bias that you may be bringing to the topic?
2. Again, what scientific evidence would it take to convince you of an ancient earth?

1. My bias is that I have become skeptical of old age claims, because when I have examined them in detail they turn out to have no basis in fact. On the other hand, after I first got interested in the Bible some 23 years ago I began to discover that things that I had rejected in my youth turned out to be more solid scientifically than I had previously thought.

2. Who knows? Try me. If you have something compelling I might change my mind. After all, until I few years ago I did believe in the old age thing, until I began to look at it in detail and realized that most of it had no real solid scientific basis. Those old bugaboos of assumptions turned out to be the problem.

 

[SUTG]

To me it is obvious that the museum bones are no more than 4400-5400 years old, because the dinosaurs would have perished in the Flood.

It was recently discovered by accident that some dinosaur fossilized bones contain in their centers unfossilized and preserved organic material. This is good evidence that they are not nearly as old as previously thought, but being that evolution and long ages are "facts" the obvious evidence that the bones are not that old is being ignored.

Bones were never cracked open before since the "known" age of such fossils would obviously preclude the kind of preservation now known to be present.

There is now an effort underway to crack open other specimens to determine how widespread the "unusual" preservation phenomenon might be.

Stay tuned. A major paradigm shift might just be possible if only those creationists were not around to make such an event too embarassing to be feasible.

To me it is obvious that the Earth is flat, because the Flying Spaghetti Monter hates spheres.

It was recently discovered by accident that people in China do not fall off the Earth. This is good evidence that the Earth is flat, but being that the spherical Earth "facts" the obvious evidence that the Earth is flat is being ignored.

People in China were never interviewd before because the "known" sperical shape of the Earth would obviously preclude the kind of lack of falling for the Chinese now known to be present.

There is now an effort underway to talk to people in other Asian countries to determine how widespread the "unusual" scenario of not falling off the Earth might be.

Stay tuned. A major paradigm shift might just be possible if only those Round Earthers were not around to make such an event too embarassing to be feasible.

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

It was recently discovered by accident that some dinosaur fossilized bones contain in their centers unfossilized and preserved organic material. This is good evidence that they are not nearly as old as previously thought, but being that evolution and long ages are "facts" the obvious evidence that the bones are not that old is being ignored.

If you're referring to the 1997 find in T-Rex bone, or even if you're not, I invite you and everyone else to read the following

 

[Servo]

To me it is obvious that the Earth is flat, because the Flying Spaghetti Monter hates spheres.

It was recently discovered by accident that people in China do not fall off the Earth. This is good evidence that the Earth is flat, but being that the spherical Earth "facts" the obvious evidence that the Earth is flat is being ignored.

People in China were never interviewd before because the "known" sperical shape of the Earth would obviously preclude the kind of lack of falling for the Chinese now known to be present.

There is now an effort underway to talk to people in other Asian countries to determine how widespread the "unusual" scenario of not falling off the Earth might be.

Stay tuned. A major paradigm shift might just be possible if only those Round Earthers were not around to make such an event too embarassing to be feasible.

So, your funny then?

 

[Real Sorceror]

So, your funny then?

Hes hilarious!

 

[Servo]

Oh, it means something. It means we have more information with which to study the history of dinosaurs. It does not mean the earth is less than 7,000 years old.

The creationist argument here is missing a component: dinosaur material has survived, therefore they must not have been extinct for more than several thousand years. There's no word about how organic material can't survive millions of years, especially when encased in what I assume would be an air-tight fossil. Instead, we have a claim that scientists were stunned when they discovered the material, which is another of many creationist untruths.

Finding organic material in fossils can lean towards:
A) The fossils are younger than we thought.
B) The fossils are older then we thought.
C) It means nothing.
D) It might mean something, just don’t know what.

For those interested in the actual science, as opposed to idle musings about how organic material just can't possibly survive all that time, have a look over here.

I love that line "For those interested in actual science...."
Followed by the Google search link.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Finding organic material in fossils can lean towards:
A) The fossils are younger than we thought.
B) The fossils are older then we thought.
C) It means nothing.
D) It might mean something, just don’t know what.

E) Its a hoax.

 

[hatsoff]

Finding organic material in fossils can lean towards:
A) The fossils are younger than we thought.
B) The fossils are older then we thought.
C) It means nothing.
D) It might mean something, just don’t know what.

Organic material inside fossils might possibly improve the accuracy of the date ascribed to a given fossil, but it doesn't mean they are older or younger than scientists thought.

I love that line "For those interested in actual science...."
Followed by the Google search link.

I linked to a detailed rebuttal to this ridiculous creationist argument, written by an educated scientist. If you got a Google search, you're doing something wrong.

 

[Servo]

E) Its a hoax.

And you know this....how?