Yep.
Real Science Radio: More Soft Tissue Confirms RSR Dino Prediction
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Yep.
We know.
AMS carbon dating methods generally require a sample size of less than 1 gram.
Horner refused to carbon date it because he knew that his god (science) would prove to him that his denomination (evolution) was false.
Collagen isn't tissue. Tissue is groups of cells organized together.
Collagen is merely a chemical. And we already knew that organic chemicals can last for millions of years under the right conditions.
But here's the important thing we learned from these materials:
A bit of heme (a fraction of the hemoglobin molecule) was found in T-rex bones. When tested it turned out to be most like the heme of...
...birds.
A new study of ancient proteins retrieved from a Tyranosaurus rex fossil confirms the long-hypothesized evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and modern birds, experts say.
The finding is the first molecular evidence that birds, not lizards or other reptiles, are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, the researchers note.
"The amazing part of this study is that we could establish the dinosaur-bird connection using only 89 total amino acids [the building blocks of proteins]," Asara said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-trex-mastodon_2.html
Another reason that scientists don't accept YE creationism. Thanks for the reminder, Jefferson.
He knew that carbon dating doesn't work much beyond 50,000 years. After that, random contamination would obscure any results.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tissue
Collagen is merely a chemical. And we already knew that organic chemicals can last for millions of years under the right conditions.
But here's the important thing we learned from these materials:
A bit of heme (a fraction of the hemoglobin molecule) was found in T-rex bones. When tested it turned out to be most like the heme of...
...birds.
A new study of ancient proteins retrieved from a Tyranosaurus rex fossil confirms the long-hypothesized evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and modern birds, experts say.
The finding is the first molecular evidence that birds, not lizards or other reptiles, are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, the researchers note.
"The amazing part of this study is that we could establish the dinosaur-bird connection using only 89 total amino acids [the building blocks of proteins]," Asara said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-trex-mastodon_2.html
Another reason that scientists don't accept YE creationism. Thanks for the reminder, Jefferson.
He knew that carbon dating doesn't work much beyond 50,000 years. After that, random contamination would obscure any results.
Last edited:
Then why didn't Horner give that as his reason for refusing?
For the same reason a candy thermometer will give you a reading of about 270 degrees or so for the temperature of a blast furnace that melts steel.
So it always goes when creationists run into problems:
"Maybe it was a lot different, back then."
But magic and fantasies are not part of science. If you want to overturn all the real evidence for an ancient Earth, you'll need more than an active imagination.
Interesting. How would carbon dating a dino fossil prove that evolution is false?
It wouldn't.
Given that evolution is not science, nothing can prove it false. However, given that it is a religion, if its tenets were disproved, adherents would fall away.
Why wouldn't carbon dating a dino fossil prove that evolution is false?
Why haven't the tenets of evolution been disproved?
Because there's nothing in evolution that says dinos and people could not have lived together. Darwinists just resist the idea because... well... nobody is really sure why. :idunno:
They have. It just takes a long time for religious fanatics to get over themselves.
Mightn't the placement of fossils in the fossil record have something to do with why evolution says that dinos and people could not have lived together?
Sure. However, that would be to assume evolution is true.
If we accept the Biblical account, most of what Darwinists would say becomes irrelevant.
The key is: When the opposing sides discuss the issues, they must not assume the truth of their positions. Unfortunately, it is next to impossible for evolutionists to use words that are not laden with old-Earth assumptions, let alone trying to get them to appreciate an alternative.
If carbon dating a dino fossil wouldn't prove that evolution is false, then why did Bob Enyart offer Jack Horner $25k to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex, and why did Jefferson say that carbon dating the dino fossil would prove that evolution is false?
Listen to the call. It is all explained. :up:
Why do you never accept answers and work desperately to cover up the ignorance of your fellow believers?
6days
New member
So evolutionists now reject all c14 readings of 22,000 years??
Or just the ones that disagree with their belief system?
The only place on earth where the fossil records line up with the theory of evolution is in Darwinian text books, not in the earth's actual strata.
My understanding is that no dino fossils have ever been found above the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary.
Yep. Still no rabbits in the Cambrian, either. For the obvious reason.
I just found this quote by Colton Rodoski in the comments section of this video:
With regards to Schweitzer's work, I've emailed her asking her to clarify on C14 dating her fossils. Found out something interesting. Her team used a buffer containing carbon to demineralize the bone, so even if they C14 dated the soft tissue, it wouldn't give an accurate date anyways because demineralization would have contaminated it. BUT she DID have a colleague grind up a bone extract from the fossil before they demineralized it and C14 date that. No surprise, it had no detectable carbon in it. So if you ever see the videos of a creationist asking Jack Homer to C14 date the tissue samples, remember:
Ergo, the young earth model is still wrong. So the real question is how come the first scientist to make such a discovery finds no 14C, but the creationists who are out to prove the earth is young, are finding tons of it?
1. The soft tissue had been treated in carbon based compounds, so no accurate date will be given.
2. The bone itself had no detectable carbon anyways, so it's at least older than the limits of the method.
2. The bone itself had no detectable carbon anyways, so it's at least older than the limits of the method.
Ergo, the young earth model is still wrong. So the real question is how come the first scientist to make such a discovery finds no 14C, but the creationists who are out to prove the earth is young, are finding tons of it?
Oh, wow. That settles it then. User has found a link.
lain:Then show us the paper. :up:
There's only one group looking. Who should we believe?
Did you get around to correcting JD yet?