Yabadabadoo!

I am having a sort of discussion with someone who is asserting that Mary Schweitzer’s famous T-Rex bone – the one with the soft tissue –  proves  that dinosaurs walked the earth thousands not millions of years ago.

When asked if he also believed humans and dinosaurs co-existed no direct answer was forthcoming, and when I replied , along the lines of: I shall take that as a ”Yes” you do believe they metaphorically rubbed shoulders, again, no direct answer, yea or nay. ( and, of course we are not talking about birdies in case one of you smart Alecs’ were going to throw that into the pot -or pan.)

He provided a link that apparently addressed all of the objections to a ”young” dinosaur and chastised me for pointing out it was a YEC site. Well, seriously, what did he expect?

Anyway,  just in case some of you out there still aren’t sure, and secretly harbour thoughts that perhaps The Flintstones was originally a documentary, here’s a nice little U-tubby that should sort you out.

 

 

And here’s a couple of hot chicks from way back when. Hubba hubba!

 

Ark.

 

Advertisements

103 comments

    • As it happens, John,
      there does seem to be an Atlantic divide over Mary Schweitzer’s findings. At the recent Copenhagen conference — https://sites.google.com/palaeome.org/2018-ancient-proteins/programme/tuesday-21st-archaeology-programme — it was mainly British Palaeontologists who gave her a rough time but by all accounts she has covered every corner with the tests that have been carried out. Scepticism remains however because although Schweitzer, an ex-fundamentalist evolutionary creationist, is convinced that the soft tissues she’s found have survived for sixty-five million years, her British critics ‘know’ that they can’t have.
      Personally, I don’t understand why non-palaeontologists have so much invested in whether or not men walked with dinosaurs but when the dating comes down to considerably less than sixty-five million years as I expect it to, it will be interesting to see what realignments take place.
      Yours,
      John/.

      Like

      • When Jesus fails to turn up — like Godot– in the next 2000 years, and Christianity goes the way of T-Rex, it will be interesting to see what realignments take place.

        Yours,
        a realist/.

        Liked by 1 person

        • In the meantime, Chris,
          2 Peter 3:3b-6 seems rather to sum up your case

          Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

          There was an interesting article on the BBC website the other day about rising meat consumption where it was pointed out that individuals, mainly in the West, who give up eating meat altogether or cut down drastically are greatly outnumbered by those in developing countries who now find that they are able to eat meat and indulge. Decline of Christianity in South Africa for example is rather offset by huge increases elsewhere. Not to be blasé, however, for the warning of Luke 18:8b still stands.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

          • I would not knowingly quote a fraudulent piece of work so the fact you quote a pseudo epigraphic biblical text speaks volumes for your lack of credibility.

            The backhanded dig at vegetarians/vegans was interesting, but somewhat pointless, other than to demonstrate how those who are more enlightened care about animal welfare.

            And ”huge increases” (xians) only seem to be occurring in certain developing countries, or a place such as China.
            They will get over it as those more socially advanced cultures have.

            It is rather typical of you, Johnk that when you run out of any thing reasonable or intelligent to say, and especially when you take umbrage over what people say about your god, you tend to revert to type, by dropping the veil and becoming the snide, disingenuous christian fundamentalist we all know you for.

            As I have mentioned before, most of the visitors here who comment on religiously related matters are, by and large, former christian, so trying to ”point score” by trotting out scripture as an attempt to strengthen your case simply makes you look churlish.

            Liked by 1 person

          • @John, why would I care what it says in the Bible? Do you care what it says in the Koran, or the works of L. Ron Hubbard? Neither do I.

            Fallible men wrote the Bible, and fallible men such as you are all too infatuated with the empty posturing and scare-mongering that takes the place of critical inquiry.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Chris,
            you asked “why would I care what it says in the Bible?” I dunno, Chris, perhaps I assumed that you didn’t actually care about the topic of soft tissues in dinosaurs and wanted me to talk about Jesus instead. Perhaps it’s because I thought this was a sword fight and not a knife-in-the-back exercise. Perhaps it’s because I’m actually engaged in critical enquiry about how Atheists really think and the subject needs prodding every now and again. I had not realised that my speculations about dinosaur soft-tissue dating would be counted asempty posturing and scare-mongering; I thought I was sticking my neck out!

            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          • Bearing ln mind the claimed call to proselytize / ”spread the word”, especially with what is also claimed to be at stake, and taking note that those you are attempting to convince, or at the very least engage, are all Been-There-Done-That-Got-The-T Shirt-Very-Ex-Christians, from your creationist perspective how do you honestly feel your snide, smart-arse, disingenuous approach is working for you so far, JohnK?

            Liked by 1 person

        • The livescience.com article was published in 2013, John,
          but the Copenhagen conference was in 2018 so livescience was a little bit too sanguine about the presence of iron sealing the deal for Schweitzer. I’m impressed by the finding that the presence of blood cells slows down the rate of degredation of soft tissue rather dramatically, but Schweitzer discovered the iron in the bone before she found the collagen. (According to https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt the presence of iron was noted by Schweitzer back in 1990.) Her work is undoubtedly going to lead to a revision of how long soft tissue might remain unfossilised in optimum conditions but, as I say, I think we are going to be confronted with a time much shorter than sixty-five million years. Keep watching for developments.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

          • So are you suggesting that geologists are wrong as well with regard their dating of rocks?

            And just for the record, do you consider humans and dinosaurs co existed?

            Like

          • I think we are going to be confronted with a time much shorter than sixty-five million years.

            Really?
            You think? And what do the scientists involved have to say about your thoughts, Johnk.

            As far as I have been able to ascertain, the argument/s, disagreements etc among paleontologists and all other relevant scientists is primarily about how the bone /s are preserved.

            Only Creationists seem to be the ones nudging, nodding and winking among themselves and making outlandish statements such as yours?

            What next, JohnK? You want to try for a shot at debunking evolution? Are we, perhaps, going to be ”confronted” with the discovery of that elusive Precambrian rabbit, or maybe even chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea?

            Seriously, why not do something useful with your time and sign up for an archaeological dig and go look for Jesus’ tomb.
            That will keep you busy for a while, I’m sure.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Did you actually read any of the lecture notes in your link? The only thing I found was this line in the Archaeological proteins from the Niah Caves Complex, Sarawak lecture:

            We have successfully extracted protein from a small amount of powder (mg) from archaeological human bone from the West Mouth dated to the Neolithic period (2000-4000 years old).

            If I’ve missed some note of millions-years-old proteins then by all means point me to it.

            Liked by 1 person

        • As it happens, John,
          I hadn’t read any of the other abstracts on the conference schedule but since the dinosaur soft tissue talk was at the end of the day — and a keynote speech to boot — I didn’t think that the conference organisers would have put on a ‘spoiler’ earlier in the day. Besides, at such a conference most of the speakers get their fifteen minutes, if not of fame, at least of notice; but lots of the better-known names in the field of the study of ancient proteins will have been there for the keynote speeches and especially for Schweitzer’s at the end of the day. The brouhaha, such as it was took place after the talk and both sides were for the sixty-five million year dating: Schweitzer saying that the collagen is sixty-five million years old because it’s Cretacious and her challengers claiming that if it’s Cretacious it can’t be collagen.
          Sticking my neck out, I think it to be likely that Schweitzer will have shown that soft tissues can be older than previously thought but not to the extent of sixty-five million years. I’d wait for developments before chopping my head off.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

          • By your belief that the dinosaur/s is not as old as current science asserts, are you thus suggesting that the Cretaceous itself is a lot younger than 65,000,000 million years, and if so how old do you estimate it is?

            As such a dramatic revision of the dating would then have major implications on the age of the earth itself, how old do you estimate this planet is?

            Liked by 1 person

          • So, why did you link to the conference and then double-down, pretending it supported whatever it is you think you’re forwarding?

            Bit odd.

            At any rate, even if under exceptional conditions (and they would truly have to be mind-haemorrhagingly exceptional) some protein could survive fossilisation, then great! An interesting find. It serves the Creationist zero capital to their absurd beliefs.

            Liked by 2 people

          • This is what I find baffling:
            Here we have all these blinkered half-wit YEC sinners high fiving each other convinced that Barney and his dinosaur friends are only a few thousand years old, when the argument between scientists and paleontologists is simply how in Hades did the bones remain in this state for so long.
            That’s the bottom line.
            No one is holding their breath waiting for scientists to suddenly throw up their arms and exclaim:
            ”Dammit to hell, Ken Ham was right all along – forgive me Jesus.”

            Is this what these YEC twits really expect is going to happen?

            Like

          • Well, on the bright side, Creationists finally have something they can predict and test for. You know, actual science. If they want to play in the science sand pit, then let’s see them demonstrate that their prediction is verifiable.

            I won’t hold my breath.

            Like

          • But if they want to play science, then this is their first actual chance to do so. Get to it, lads; there are tens of thousands of samples in universities and museums around the world ready for your testing…

            Like

        • I linked to the conference, John,
          because I thought it to be interesting that the Paleontologists who gave Schweitzer a hard time were British scientists. (Kim Beazley is an Australian by the way.) It is worth knowing where people are from geographically sometimes. In this case, there may be a correlation with Intelligent Design Theory since the British scientists who have adopted ID are mostly young earth creationists whereas the Americans are mostly not. Maybe/maybe not. If you don’t get your creationists sorted out — assuming you’re not just letting off steam — then you are doomed to waste lances tilting at windmills.
          You say:-

          At any rate, even if under exceptional conditions (and they would truly have to be mind-haemorrhagingly exceptional) some protein could survive fossilisation, then great! An interesting find. It serves the Creationist zero capital to their absurd beliefs.

          but I think it will prove to be more than just an interesting find. Also given that in this case Schweitzer herself is an evolutionary creationist, you’d have to distinguish which ‘absurd’ beliefs are the one’s not being served IMHO.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

        • @JohnK

          You made a prediction, based on your YEC beliefs, about reevaluation of current dating re dino fossils. I satirized the poor record of predictions when it comes to creationists on history and science. That was in no way intended to draw forth a lengthy, tedious Bible quote that stupidly talks of “sinful desires” and a mythical flood.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Actually, Chris,
            I’m not a ‘Young Earth’ Creationist, as they define themselves: I get on well with the scientist contributors to that particular way of thinking that I know and share a great deal of common ground with them but the young-earther hoi polloi would think me to be dodgy on the subject. As it happens, I was alerted to the soft tissue thing by a young earther and I’ve stuck my neck out to predict what? Let’s just say an anomaly in fossil dating but what I am really saying is that I think that this time the young earthers have a case to answer.
            Satire rather depends a shared knowledge of what is being satirised and as it happens, I know a bit about failures to find evidence for a universal flood. But you didn’t go there! Instead you talk about the second coming and make your own prediction about the demise of Christianity.
            Of course your post

            was in no way intended to draw forth a lengthy, tedious Bible quote that stupidly talks of “sinful desires” and a mythical flood.

            and nor was it intended to ‘draw forth’ a short, remarkably-to-the-point, quote from the Bible that rationally ties together a prediction of scoffing/satire just like your own performance and a reminder of the Flood (in which the scoffers of Noah’s day drowned.) But that is what you got and if the cap fits ….
            Of course I’m going to quote the Bible and thank you for inadverently preparing a way for me to do so instead of just staying on the subject of dinosaur soft tissue.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          • The problem being that, supposed YEC ”scientists” actually reject science wherever it conflicts with their YEC beliefs, even though they may have formal qualifications.
            How could they react otherwise without deconverting?
            Thus, they will actively pursue their YEC end game.

            And when the reason is finally explained – as it surely will, sooner or later – the YEC will deny the evidence and go to tea with Ken Ham blaming the Devil for corrupting everyone except them.

            Liked by 1 person

        • As I’ve said before, John,
          I don’t get it why atheists are so bothered about the idea of large dinosaurs and man being on Earth at the same time. It might not fit this particular case but I seems to me a regular failing that many of you can’t let go of your weak ideas about how other people think even when those ideas contradict your stronger arguments.
          Things creationists predicted against the consensus and were eventually proven right? How about that uniformitarianism is not the whole story in geology and that some things would be best explained as having been caused by global catastrophe. Also the fact that there was a beginning. No great deal: Dawkins himself said that there was a 50/50 chance of predicting that one. At least we have the quiet satisfaction that we got it right.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

          • Yeah, I suppose you’re right. What’s 65 million years to a good old delusion, huh? Why can’t we all just ignore reality and be happy. It’s not as if anything important is going on that requires us to actually face reality, after all….

            Liked by 1 person

        • Yeah, I suppose you’re right. What’s 65 million years to a good old delusion, huh? Why can’t we all just ignore reality and be happy. It’s not as if anything important is going on that requires us to actually face reality, after all….

          Touché, John,
          I did not mean to ridicule comparative dating and I admit that it is far too easy for us to take our eyes off the ball (or be ball-watching for that matter, to extend the metaphor.)
          On the other hand, I’ve changed my mind about the evidences since I’ve entered into debate with you all. I’m a presuppositionalist so it’s natural for me to point to the resurrection narratives and tell would-be sceptics to do their worst. Since Romans 10:8bf. is unequivocal —

          ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

          — and belief in the Resurrection is at the heart of Christianity: why would I direct an enquirer anywhere else?
          Moreover, I’d argue — and still do, actually — that some ‘evidences’ were destroyed because people have a tendency to worship the sign rather than the one the sign points to. And again, the strange coral formations that have been found at the bottom of the Gulf of Aquaba are evidence of something! but it’s much more likely that the wheels and axles that the corals grew on were dumped off a ship in antiquity than that they remain evidence of the drowning of the Egyptians. Similarly, any remains of a wooden structure high up on Ararat would most likely have been placed there by devout pilgrims at some time when the mountain heights were more accessible. If a sceptic is savingly persuaded by the ungainsayable nature of the Resurrection eyewitness testimony then they should be able to work out the rest without going back to scepticism. Finally, be anti-evolution as it may, if it becomes a different gospel it is anathema.
          However, the demand at this present time for evidence is insatiable and I dare say, demonic. I think the demand will be met, that the demanders will not see it for looking at it and the rest of the unbelievers will let requests for evidence get back to their proper place in human discourse. Maybe this is a twenty-year contest and If that’s escapism then so be it.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

          • And in the end you come clean and demonstrate to us that you are nothing but a Nob. Not that such a confession was ever really in doubt, of that you can be assured.
            How utterly pathetic, but sadly so typical of the disingenuous nature of your ilk.

            Like

      • @ John K.

        It helps to remember the bone was apparently found in Upper Cretaceous rock.

        To suggest such rock is only thousands of years old might be a tad silly, don’t you think?

        Like

        • @JohnK

          How can there be “scientific contributors” to YEC when we demonstrably know the earth and universe to be much older than 6000 years? You’re repeating the same mistakes on Ark’s site that you made on David R’s site: namely, a confusion between science proper and mere apologetics. And the same semantic equivocation over the word “rational”, especially in the context of accepting myth as unvarnished history.

          Anomalies exist in all scientific fields, but they don’t suddenly invalidate the prior established body of data and knowledge we’ve acquired. What might bolster a YEC paradigm in this soft-tissue scenario would be DNA in all fossil remains of dinosaurs. If they’re supposed to be no older than 6000 or so years, we should be able to extract DNA from samples, the way we do with Neanderthal fossils dated upward of 30,000 years, or mastodons, etc. Maybe your YEC scientist colleagues should be trying to establish this?

          There will always be nasty scoffers like me, but I’m sure my predecessors in biblical times lived out their lives peaceably enough, succumbing only to the usual ravages of that Age, completely unbothered by a mythical, annihilating global flood.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Your question is valid, Chris,

            How can there be “scientific contributors” to YEC when we demonstrably know the earth and universe to be much older than 6000 years?

            and much better than the usual a priori scientists cannot be creationists trope. There is a smart-Alecally simplistic answer to that which I resort to only because it gets to the heart of the matter better than a more reasoned-out answer. Scientists can believe that the earth was formed thousands of years ago despite the calculated age being in the billions simply because they are Creationists. The expansion of the universe is a process and we know enough about that process to calculate the age of the universe by measuring the time needed to get from the beginning to now. ‘Obviously,’ thinks your creationist, ‘Since God created the universe at a particular point in that process, the universe was as old on the day it was created as the length of time it would have taken to get from the beginning of the process.’ That, simplistically put, is how a scientist can function without equating the calculated age of the earth with the length of time since it was created. There’s more to it.
            Despite that simplistic answer, I can’t think why you should accuse me of confusing science proper with apologetics? Make a case, not just a claim.
            I agree that paradigm shifts don’t occur overnight and I’m certainly not predicting one here. I also agree that a real, annihilating global flood mush have been a lot more bothersome than a mythical one. However, you are demonstrably wrong in at least one respect: if our ancestors had lived out their lives unbothered by flooding there would not be such a plethora of flood stories from all over the world.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          • Of course scientists can be Creationists and some go the extra mile and become YEC.
            Some are even highly qualified.
            However, because of religious indoctrination, as mentioned above, they will approach every scenario with an a priori Goddidit attitude and then try to fit in everything around this belief.
            Just as archaeologists/egyptologists such as Kitchen and a YEC twit like Bryant Wood.

            Even Hugh Ross, and Francis Collins are
            both highly qualified, intelligent individuals, yet they are Creationists of one sort or another.
            The key iscompartmentalism .
            This way they can function in their daily lives almost like normal people and not having to stone their kids for giving them lip, or worry about wearing mixed fabrics or concern themselves about shellfish or having an anxiety attack if they forget they shouldn’t be boiling the kid in its mother’s milk – goats too for that matter. And neither do they have to worry about suffering judgement and damnation from Jesus for divorcing their Other Half.
            The law says you can so stuff Jesus, right?
            Of course!
            Long as you get to keep the golf clubs and the dog.
            The problem … well, one of them … is the unwillingness of some Christians to actually acknowledge the truth when it is staring them in the face..
            An archaeologist such as William Dever, who like Albright, went to dig in the sand to find all the biblical treasures so he could turn round and say: ”Aha! See! You bloody heathens,the Bible was right all along.”
            Alas this did not turn out to be the case and while Albright died a believer, albeit a slightly more confused one, Devers was honest enough to kick the God Crap into touch.

            Sadly, it is unlikely the majority of YECs will do this once the Dino Mystery has been sorted out, and it is unfortunate that they, like you, JohnK will remain shackled to the bible and its nonsense.
            And the disengenuity will only become more blatant, and such people will simply look like bigger fools.
            Is lying for Jesus really worth it, JohnK?

            Liked by 1 person

  1. The guy who put the dinosaur videos together is John Perry. He has some wonderful stuff on YouTube about Ken Ham and his Amazing Sailing Ship. He’s worth digging into.

    Love Wilma’s pearls.

    Liked by 5 people

    • @JohnK

      You’re not making as much sense as you seem to imagine. If a global flood had wiped out everything on the planet — apart from one old man and his family using Flintstones technology to preserve the live cargo — we wouldn’t have any ancestors with a “plethora of flood stories.” The Genesis “account” is merely one among many variants — certainly not the first — which probably has its origins in Mesopotamia, and clearly evolved from stories describing local floods, changing in its narrative details over time.

      The reason why Egyptian scholars haven’t found any evidence of their ancestors inventing SCUBA diving to work on the pyramids while they were submerged by a global flood, John, is because there isn’t any. If you believe humanity is descended from just eight individuals, then you are beyond all reason, and I”m only too happy to be accused of resorting to insults and ad hom by declaring you a crackpot.

      Good day, Sir.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Chris,
        you said:

        I’m sure my predecessors in biblical times lived out their lives peaceably enough, succumbing only to the usual ravages of that Age, completely unbothered by a mythical, annihilating global flood.

        and I merely pointed out that the plethora of ancient flood narratives proves you wrong that they were not bothered.
        Yours,
        John/.

        Like

    • Also, I find it very intriguing that Carbon-dating only goes back as far as 75,000 — it gets stuck there, always giving the dating-technicians and scientists 75,000 years. Hmmm, so since I am NOT a physicist or chemist with an expert knowledge of radioactive isotopes, why does Carbon-dating always stop at 75,000 years? 🤔

      I know the answer(s) will be fascinating! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • Carbon-14 makes up about 1 part per trillion of the carbon atoms around us, and this proportion remains roughly constant due to continual production of carbon-14 from cosmic rays. The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, so if we measure the proportion of C-14 in a sample and discover it’s half a part per trillion, i.e. half the original level, we know the sample is around one half-life or 5,700 years old.

        So by measuring the C-14 level we work out how many half-lives old the sample is and therefore how old it is. The trouble is that after 40,000 years there is under 1% of the original C-14 left, and it becomes too hard to measure it accurately. This isn’t a fundamental limit as more accurate measurements could go further back, but at some point you’d simply run out of C-14 atoms. With our current kit 40-50K years is about the limit.

        https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57679/why-is-carbon-dating-limit-only-40-000-years

        There’s more info detail in the link.

        Liked by 2 people

        • See! I knew there was a VERY cool reason! Thank you Victoria. I’ll include that into my To Do Reading List… down there at…

          #184. 😁

          No, seriously. It will take me awhile because as I indirectly implied, I am not a Molecular Chemist/Physicist familiar with radioactive isotopes. I’m only just now getting into the beefy stuff of Quantum Mechanics and Entanglement along with the social psychology of America’s dire, growing homeless populations in America’s richest cities. 😉 😛

          Liked by 1 person

      • If you’re curious as to how it all works, in a nutshell radioactive carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants will acquire this carbon-14 via photosynthesis, and animals will acquire the carbon-14 from eating said plants. When the animals or plants die, they stop acquiring carbon, and it radioactively decays, with a half-life of around 5700 years (as NN mentioned). If we know how much carbon-14 a dead organism contains, we can then calibrate backwards to estimate their age.

        Of course, 5700 years is a relatively short period of time. For dating things much older (eg rocks or minerals) we use other forms of radiometric dating, such as uranium-thorium dating, or rubidium-strontium dating, these elements have significantly longer half lives. I think the techniques used are a little different for each method though.

        Liked by 3 people

        • That is a great Molecular Chemistry & Physics for Dummies breakdown for me TCA! Thank you Sir! Can you do it in crayola with illustrated pop-ups for me? That would be awesome! 😁

          No, seriously. I do appreciate your explanation. Easy to understand. 😉

          Liked by 2 people

          • You’re welcome , I’m not often told that 🙂 Perhaps Youtube has some fancy colourful illustrations for radiometric dating (I’m also a terrible drawer, you won’t see much ‘art’ on my blog).

            Liked by 2 people

          • Ahh, so no Andy Warhol, Dr. Seuss, Richard Scarry, Walt Disney, or Charles Schultz in those hands, huh? Darn!

            Well, you do have talent for explaining sophisticated science, ala Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius and the Brain (of Pinky and The Brain fame), down to levels the less fortunate like myself can grasp. I thank you for that! 😜

            Liked by 1 person

          • Lol no you won’t unfortunately, but I do like to take lots of photos from time to time (that’s the closest you will see to ‘art’ on my blog).

            I do my best 😀 . I actually don’t think radiometric dating is that complicated though, it’s just that most people don’t really get taught it at school or uni (unless you did Chemistry or Earth science). So of course you get YEC bozos who say it’s inaccurate or ‘carbon has a half life of only 6000 years so you can’t date much older things therefore it’s crap’. I mean, OK, radiometric dating does have margins of error, and the samples can’t be contaminated, but that doesn’t rule out an old universe.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Ahhh, now THAT is exactly what I was circling around to (via the South Pole 😉 ) hoping someone would mention the severe LACK of broad, higher-education with critical-thinking and analysis included, but the ABUNDANCE of restricted and censored education and curriculums — particularly in Home-schooling families. Thanks TCA. 👍

            Liked by 1 person

        • If I remember correctly and unless things have changed — it’s now coming up to forty-five years since I studied Biology for credit — Carbon 14 dating was calibrated by dendrochronology but they had to recalibrate for Papyrus because monocots apparently take up Carbon 14 at different rates to dicots. I have no idea about what that means for animal tissue. Mass spectrometry has come on a bit since the early seventies — we were allowed to look at the department machine once — and the university computer still used punched cards.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

          • “I have no idea what this means for animal tissue”. Well I have no idea either, why do you bring that up? As I understand, an accelerated mass spectrometer can accurately measure levels of carbon-14 in a sample nowadays. If a sample has organic matter in it, then it can potentially be tested (eg bone, shells or peat).

            Like

        • Because we’re talking about soft tissue in dinosaurs, TCA,
          and I liked your explanation of C14 dating.
          Yours,
          John/.

          Like

          • Ah right, yes I had a read around that. I think the original discussion was on whether dinosaurs and humans could’ve coexisted. Anyways, finding soft tissue inside dinosaur bones is certainly unusual, since under normal rates of chemical degradation, there shouldn’t be any tiusse remaining after millions of years. However, there have been a few rare cases of this found, and it is shown that iron and oxygen found in the dinosaur fossils can preserve the soft tissue for much longer (several hundred times longer). Here’s a article which explains how this can happen, it is quite complex in parts though: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866414/ . Bear in mind that radiocarbon dating wouldn’t be much use for dating this tissue, but some of the other methods previously mentioned would be.

            Liked by 1 person

      • God only invented carbon for dating at that point, which is why carbon dating is so unreliable. For genuine early history you have to look at Genesis and stuff …

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Ark, I can’t remember who it was on another one of the 500 different Nutty Evandy-Fundy Xian sites you go a huntin’ for, but I told her when she too was pushing/boasting the “soft-tissue” concept and archaeological find you reference here — in favor, of course, of a YEC ideology — I reminded her of this.

    In all of the pre-historic fossils we have of many, MANY dinosaurs (and there are literally thousands or millions in museums, labs, university libraries, etc) from the Mesozoic, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Eras, many of which clearly show their last meals in the stomachs, very much like eggs or still-births that didn’t make it. Captured in a moment just prior to death. Nowhere, not in one single fossilized dinosaur stomach or bowels has ANYTHING like a bipedal primate been found in the stomachs. No bones or residue of primate bones. Furthermore, if the carnivorous dinosaurs did feed on humans/primates just a few thousand years ago, then their TEETH and bone marrows would show that type of diet.

    Ark… how in tha HELL do you find these people? 🤣

    Liked by 4 people

      • That must be SOME forensic honker you got there between your eyes and above your lips! Wow! 😮 And wouldn’t it be MORE than a mile… since most of the nutcases are across the Pond, over here. (gets out his trusty Steampunk calculator) …

        If my calculations are correct, the distance between Johannesburg, SA and Grant County, Kentucky (where dinosaurs lounged in luxury during Noah’s great flood) is about 13,680 km… give or take a few arms, legs, or Xian babies T-Rex will snack on.

        So I’d say Ark, you Sir have a remarkably STUNNING Paluxy Plonker Honker!!! Is there anything else on you that is so astoundingly potent and sensitive??? 🤩

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Hi, Ark,
    I’m writing this rather contritely, because I think I might have been wrong not to answer your questions this last while. You just wrote

    And in the end you come clean and demonstrate to us that you are nothing but a Nob. Not that such a confession was ever really in doubt, of that you can be assured.
    How utterly pathetic, but sadly so typical of the disingenuous nature of your ilk.

    I take it that by calling me a ‘Nob’ you don’t mean ‘a person of wealth or high social position’ as in the dictionary definition? No matter, the point is: when did I ever pretend to be anything other than I am? You accused me of being a presuppositionalist ages ago and I said I was but I didn’t think you knew what it meant. That also doesn’t matter for the moment, though, what does is that you might be showing signs of dementia. It can’t hurt to get it checked out.
    Yours,
    John/.

    Like

    • Yes, it was a dictionary definition, just not the one you are referring to. But you knew this already, didn’t you?

      And may the blessings of Quetzalcoatl shine down on beating heart for your online medical diagnosis.
      And may your presuppositional god go with you …

      Oh, would you like a link to Ron Wyatt or do you already have that info?

      Ark.

      Like

      • Okay, Ark,
        perhaps it does matter. A presuppositionalist is not an evidentialist. Trying to tease me about Ron Wyatt is a give away that you’re not listening. Mention of coral incrustations of artifacts on the bed of the Gulf of Aquaba triggers off a response in you but when I say ‘Evidence of something’, you don’t ask, ‘evidence of what?’ you just think, ‘Ron Wyatt.’ That’s just not good enough. Similarly, with the soft tissue case — I want to say soft-tissue issue and it just sounds wrong — I missed the start of your spat with Kim Beazley on theWeeFlea site so my posts on a(t)taleunfolds/untold were quite independent of the sites Kim referred to. To assume that my third hand account of the Ancient Proteins conference implies an agreement with an article that I hadn’t read is at best unhelpful.
        You told me once, sarcastically, that I should just pray for incontrovertible evidence and no doubt you were thinking of what you imagine an evidentialist’s dream-find to be. I felt resentful to be teased for being an evidentialist — which once again for the record, I’m not — but since then I keep finding incontrovertible evidence for things like new atheists being seemingly unable to drop poor arguments even after they find a better one that the first one contradicts. I wish you’d prove me wrong about that.
        Yours,
        John/.

        Like

        • Oh, I realise you would know all about Uncle Ron. Don’t get all fundy mental and pissy for the gods’ sake!
          Take the carrot out of your backside Mr. K. It is impairing you cognitive faculties.

          The issue with the soft tissue is not that there is no definitive answer …. yet, but rather you and your creationist chums back-slapping in that disingenuous fashion you love to gloat over that ”They’re gonna have to admit it ( nudge nudge) …sooner or later …” just makes you look like an arse.

          I felt resentful to be teased for being an evidentialist — which once again for the record, I’m not —

          Shame! Sorry, was it really me that hurt your feelings?
          In any case, I thought Creationists had thicker skin? What with basing their worldview largely on faith rather than any evidence.
          I shall try to keep in mind your sensitive side in our future chats.
          All better now?

          Kim Beazley is a YEC and thus, is a complete indoctrinated half-wit. He hasn’t got the integrity to admit he believes Dinosaurs and humans co-existed and he sure as Hades has no evidence to support such a ridiculous notion, yet he will, no doubt, feel compelled to pass such garbage on to kids when the mood takes.
          Do you think he has a signed photograph of Ken Ham on the wall of his office?

          To assume that my third hand account of the Ancient Proteins conference implies an agreement with an article that I hadn’t read is at best unhelpful.

          Was this not part of the discussion with John Zande, or is my dementia playing up again?
          Feel free to refresh my appalling memory.

          New Atheists?
          I can’t speak for new atheists. I don’t personally know any.
          And I am simply an atheist.
          I am not particularly interested in arguments for your cause. Most are pretty much the same old drivel.
          As I have oft mentioned, if you have evidence I will be more than interested in looking at it and we can discuss ’til the moo cows come home.

          Over to you, Senor Kilpatrick.

          Like

          • As I say, Ark,
            incontrovertible evidence.

            seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

            or if you want the rough English paraphrase of it: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          • *Smile* You wouldn’t recognise incontrovertible evidence if it leapt out from behind the burning bush and bit you in the arse.

            Say hello to Uncle Ken from me the next time you visit.
            And if you buy a fluffy T-Rex or have a ride on the Stegosaurus … you know, the one with the saddle, be a sport and please take photos and upload them. For me?

            Your’re a star.

            Thanks, JK.

            Like

          • You misunderstand, JK … I don’t say so, which is the whole point.
            I am NOT a paleontologist, and correct me if I’m wrong, neither are you.

            So the current arguments between those who are paleontologists and other relevant scientists is not to find a way to shoe horn Dinosaurs into a farking 6000 year Young Earth paradigm but to use science and their evolved intelligence to find out exactly what’s going on with these dinosaurs and how they managed to survive for millions of years.

            And silly creationists such as you can look smug and dance about and sing Songs of Praise to AIG and Ken Ham all the live long day.
            In the end you are all still going to look very foolish.

            Like

          • Touché, Ark,
            you’re right about me not being a paleontologist — one year of Geology at Bachelor’s level that I had to take because I failed Chemistry twice, hardly counts for anything — and you’re right that I’m predicting some sort of anomaly in dating dinosaur soft tissue. However, in spite of me saying that

            the demand at this present time for evidence is insatiable and I dare say, demonic. I think the demand will be met, that the demanders will not see it for looking at it and the rest of the unbelievers will let requests for evidence get back to their proper place in human discourse. Maybe this is a twenty-year contest and If that’s escapism then so be it.

            I’m not putting these two together. I don’t think the soft tissues will date as less than 4366 years old (which dates the Flood instead of the Creation) or anything like it for that matter.
            Let’s face it, if your caricature of high-fiving Creation Evangelists is a real possibility — and I have no reason to think it that unlikely — they would be cavorting about for something a lot less convincing than what I’m projecting. And for that reason I can’t think that any such serious challenge to the demands for ‘Evidence’ will come from that quarter: the temptation to turn anti-evolution into another gospel would be too great for many.
            Unbelief flourished even when people were generally sure that they had evidence; it is rampant now when even the most feeble of grounds for doubt gets pressed into Unbelief’s service; so even if one came back from the dead to tell, unbelief will remain.
            Hope that clears up the misunderstanding; the only thing worse than being pilloried for what one has not said is to be congratulated for it.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          • This is a beauty – like so many of your thinly veiled: ”I’m trying to be reasonable and sound clever when meantime I am a dirty rotten sinner , Jesus save me.” type comments.

            If your geology semi-qualification doesn’t even vaguely enlighten you to the idiocy of creationism in whatever form you pander to then at this stage the rocks are still firmly in your head and there really is little hope of salvaging anything from the indoctrinated mush you are immersed in.
            Come back when your creationist buddies find a bunny from the precambrian.

            Meantime I’ll just say:
            ”What’s up Doc?”

            Now, you go ahead and speculate all you want.
            Real scientists look at people like you and shake their heads.

            Ark

            Like

  4. I’ve never heard a demand for evidence referred to as “demonic.” Only an evangelical would use such an emotive, but essentially meaningless word.

    People coming back from the dead is more usually presented as “demonic”, at least if you go by the silly tropes beloved of popular culture.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s