Scientist fired from university after discovering dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 Years Old

the oldest ruins in the world in Turkey clearly showing large birds double the size of a horse depicted to the stone columns with animals that are completely different from current day animals.
is possible that every few thousand years all animals die in a big calamaty and whole new animals similar but quite different come just out of the blue. See the chicken how different and the dragon like animal. there was no animal drawn that is one of current day animals, why??

originally posted by: hydeman11
Why does everyone pick on carbon 14 dating?

Indeed. And the critics all tend to ignore one particular archaeological dictum: "One date is no date."

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: hydeman11
Why does everyone pick on carbon 14 dating?

Indeed. And the critics all tend to ignore one particular archaeological dictum: "One date is no date."

as for carbon dating it always come around 4-5000 years.
but since that is impossible because the fossible look very old then they choose Potassium dating they say it more appropriate because its half life is 100s of millions.
However in Fukushima they say the dangerous potassium is very short lived.?

the dinossours having still tissue that could still be inspected by microscope with red blood cell seen, means the dinossours as were firstly dated by carbon dating to 5000 years time of Noah flood.
is ironic.

all those species went extinct, while completely different looking species appeared after the deluge. totally new creations

problem solved

Is that what you did? Before taking up your new job as ats skeptic?a reply to: BiffTurkenton

originally posted by: reletomp
the oldest ruins in the world in Turkey clearly showing large birds double the size of a horse depicted to the stone columns with animals that are completely different from current day animals.

What makes you think that the ancients weren't discovering fossils in the ground? They certainly quarried quite a few rocks. I'm sure they stumbled upon a fossil or two in their time as well. I'm sure that they being just as intelligent as us, could reassemble said fossils and get an idea of what they originally looked like as well.

is possible that every few thousand years all animals die in a big calamaty and whole new animals similar but quite different come just out of the blue. See the chicken how different and the dragon like animal. there was no animal drawn that is one of current day animals, why??

There were 5 mass extinctions in the past, and no they didn't happen every few thousand years. They happened every few 100 million years followed by a period of punctuated evolution where all the empty niches in the environment are refilled with new evolving lifeforms.

a reply to: bbracken677



Look I do not completely discount strata dating. In fact I am comfortable with the principles of it and the idea behind it. What I have a problem with is the application of it. I just think the application of it assumes that geological processes are slow and consistant leading uniform local conditions. Dating the rocks really does not cause me any great frustration its dating the fossils within the layers and assumptions and conclusions that are drawn from that. I am more of the belief that catastrophic events and geological processes can happen very quickly that destroy local conditions and alter what is assumed to be evident from the layering and deposits. I just dont think the scientists give enough weight to the possibility that the Earth is way more dynamic than they assume. That even if you are looking at a layer that is composed of material that is millions of years old does not mean it has been in that location for millions of years. The entire local strata may have been picked up and laid down over and over again by catastrophic forces.

As for cosmology....I dont want to derail this thread but the reply that detailed the Big bang theory rests on the assumptions that the visible matter in the universe is expanding...That assumption is based on observations that overlook other observations inconsistant with that theory. I am very much of the opinion that we have no way of knowing how old the universe is or accurately determining the distance to stars.

For the record I am not a young earth or young universe creationist.

originally posted by: Dragoon01
a reply to: bbracken677
Look I do not completely discount strata dating. In fact I am comfortable with the principles of it and the idea behind it. What I have a problem with is the application of it. I just think the application of it assumes that geological processes are slow and consistant leading uniform local conditions. Dating the rocks really does not cause me any great frustration its dating the fossils within the layers and assumptions and conclusions that are drawn from that. I am more of the belief that catastrophic events and geological processes can happen very quickly that destroy local conditions and alter what is assumed to be evident from the layering and deposits. I just dont think the scientists give enough weight to the possibility that the Earth is way more dynamic than they assume. That even if you are looking at a layer that is composed of material that is millions of years old does not mean it has been in that location for millions of years. The entire local strata may have been picked up and laid down over and over again by catastrophic forces.

The thing about catastrophic forces is that we would see evidence of said catastrophic forces in the surrounding area. We can find evidence of campfires from thousands of years ago. There is a clear boundary designating the K/T extinction event (the one that killed the dinosaurs). So if what you said were to be true, we'd find evidence of it, and that usually isn't the case except for isolated places. But in those places we make note that an event caused things to lay down differently than usual.

As for cosmology....I dont want to derail this thread but the reply that detailed the Big bang theory rests on the assumptions that the visible matter in the universe is expanding...That assumption is based on observations that overlook other observations inconsistant with that theory. I am very much of the opinion that we have no way of knowing how old the universe is or accurately determining the distance to stars.

For the record I am not a young earth or young universe creationist.

We can see the universe expanding. Look up the cosmic microwave background as well as the cosmic neutrino background, they both help cosmologists trace the expansion of the universe back to right after the Big Bang happened. The CMB goes back to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang and the CvB goes back to about 2 seconds after the Big Bang happened.

Though I am curious, what observations are you referring to that are inconsistent with the Big Bang theory? Please cite some peer reviewed sources.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: jimmyx

Bingo. Everyone is free to be as ignorant as they like. They're not free to spread that ignorance by state-funded means.

Seems fair enough to me.

We can see here why the government can make "no law respecting the establishment of religion". Just look how it plays out in state and federally funded educational system. Official potions MUST be right to justify the tax expenditure and this troff would be heavily guarded with heretics being taken to the wood shed and periodically roasted at the stake.

Since fossils are mineralized, is it not possible that the carbon dating is actually measuring the age of carbon that became part of the fossil MANY MANY years after the animal died ?

a reply to: Phage

Very little. You're not even seeing this in real time.
See that pheasant over there? Not in real time.
See your hands? Not in real time.

Phage, you did not just leave me hang'n cliff side, with ears perked.
Or maybe you did? In which case I can at least still count on pacific standard
time. I hope?

If you're a Young Earth Creationist, you are not qualified for any sort of science job and should be fired on the spot. Really, I'm sick of these people who are trying to drag Christianity back to the Dark Ages.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Phage

Very little. You're not even seeing this in real time.
See that pheasant over there? Not in real time.
See your hands? Not in real time.

Phage, you did not just leave me hang'n cliff side, with ears perked.
Or maybe you did? In which case I can at least still count on pacific standard
time. I hope?

He's saying that since light takes time to travel to your eyeballs and then that signal takes time to be processed by your brain so you can interpret it, everything you see or hear has already happened. Everything you experience has already happened.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah, I see now. Brilliant deduction and thank you. I see
I'm only now acquiring a guage for such things.

a reply to: randyvs

I know right. Trippy isn't it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

I know right. Trippy isn't it?

I do agree.
I'll just bother you for one more piece of info
if I may? Just wondering about the focus we plunge thru
spacetime, with our most massive telescopes? Is that a game
changer as I might think? As per what our eye is capable
of viewing with such power. And a pre emptive thank you
to Krazyshot.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

you are aware not all bones turn to fossils right?... otherwise i would have a huge pile of pig bones in my pasture... they decompose just like everything else. If they were eating these creatures im sure whatever they did not use was piled up and left to rot.

Some carcasses found their way to be presserved by certain circumstances. Or are you suggesting that the amout of fossils we have found is all there was?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

What makes you think that the ancients weren't discovering fossils in the ground? They certainly quarried quite a few rocks. I'm sure they stumbled upon a fossil or two in their time as well. I'm sure that they being just as intelligent as us, could reassemble said fossils and get an idea of what they originally looked like as well.

The ancient Greeks were well acquainted with fossils

a reply to: R_Clark

If scientists discovered Dinosaur fossils that were only thousands of years old--that would not discredit the theory of evolution. That would simply provide evidence that not all dinosaurs were wiped out in the cataclysm that killed the majority of them.

It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that a dinosaur dated as thoudands of years old proves the young earth hypothesis when we still have dinos that have been properly dated as being millions of years old.

a reply to: R_Clark

One scientist making claims contrary to generally accepted scientific believes does not throw a wrench into all Evolutionary theories. If a hundred scientist come out and say yes, these new dino bones are actually only 4,000 years old, then you have a story. I'll keep my eyes peeled for that head line.

a reply to: Dragoon01

Howdy,

I see you're partially on the side of geology already. Perhaps I could convince you further by saying that geologists accept and can recognize paleoenvironmental conditions by strucural geological cues and fossil evidence?

There are environments of slow, gradual accumulation (in modern oceans, the deepest parts) of clay sized grains. Often these deep oceans are very low in oxygen. This area would become black shale, should it lithify (with radiolarian chert bands, maybe). "Sudden" sediment accumulation can be seen on floodplains after rivers flood and sediment spills over the flat lands adjacent to the rivers. A find mud is left behind, which would become terrestrial shale if lithified, and mudcracks may be preserved in these. You could also examine a swamp, where lots of sediment gets deposited with lots of organic material. This "rapid" burial of organic material keeps the organics from decaying completely by placing them in a reducing environment. This is the origin of coal.

If you want something more catastrophic, consider turbidites, ash flows, and storm beds.
en.wikipedia.org...

If you wish to consider the movement of large blocks of crust, consider thrust faults and glacial erratics.
en.wikipedia.org...

Nifty thing about mudcracks and certain other structural features, they can be used as "way up" indicators in isoclinal folds and thrusted blocks.

Have I quelled your fears in geologists? Should I mention that I am only a student, and yet I have seen and used most of this in the field at outcrops? This is intro level stuff, really. Do not be afraid of the strata, geologists know what they're doing.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman