Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[Mikeenders]

My post responded to your rebuke over me presenting the situation as a bijection. That we must chose between the hypothesis fossil being old or that the kinds of organic tissue found in the fossil have a significantly shorter maximum survival time than the hypothesised date. But in fact the two are mutually exclusive hypothesis. The fossil can't be old AND the tissue have a survival time orders of magnitude shorter than that same age.

Think Ox. what do we do in science when there are two lines of reasoning that contradict each other? we research until we find whats wrong. w e do not simply assume one over the other. We research it. As I mentioned before this is why I respect cosmology so much. Cosmologist have not simple assumed as fact dark matter is out there because of everything they know. They are willing to throw out what they know if they can't find the dark matter. What many here do not understand is that this is the CRITICAL consequence of saying that science is falsifiable. IF you say that option b is thrown out merely on the basis that A is right then you are saying that A cannot be wrong. Thats what has happened here. its nothing more than - soft tissue can definitely last 80 million years despite what we know about decay because the dates cannot be wrong

So if you wish to add the possibility BOTH are wrong, then we can indeed add a third choice. But THAT choice is no more palatable to the YEC

Which is totally irrelevant. It isn't about whats palatable, Since I am no even a YEC why would that be an issue?

And to be more to the point, my argument was addressing the implication irrational bias drive the rejection of the conclusion the preserved tissue casts doubt on the radiometric dates.

and with that you are right back to your own bias and rather obvious malarkey. If the scientists of the world had not objected to the idea of soft tissue lasting that long to begin with you might have been able to make the claim that creationist bias drove the rejection but unless all the world's scientist were creationists at the time you have no point whatsoever and are just revealing your own bias. IF Good scientists relying on what they knew of science thought it a waay out claim then ascribing rejection of it by any group as being irrational bias is just your own irrationality manifesting. YEcs quite rationally wish to see evidence that that science has been addressed not merely assumed - they may be wrong but claiming they have no point is intellectually dishonest.

[HMS_Beagle]

Think Ox. what do we do in science when there are two lines of reasoning that contradict each other? we research until we find whats wrong. w e do not simply assume one over the other. We research it.

That has already been done. The mineralized biological samples are 80 MYO. Try reading the primary scientific literature instead of AIG and Chick tracts.

YEcs quite rationally wish to see evidence that that science has been addressed not merely assumed - they may be wrong but claiming they have no point is intellectually dishonest.

It's in colleges and universities all over the planet. It's in libraries and natural history museums. It's in the professional scientific literature. It's on scientific sites all over the internet.

If YECs are ignorant of the evidence it's because, like you, they choose to be ignorant.

[Mikeenders]

Because they were heretics and compromisers not because they disagreed over what is essentially a minor issue that does not effect whether one is saved or not. And again, while you're squawking and squeaking and whining about non YECS you really ought to be looking at your own house.

Rogue you are so full of hate you can't even read straight. You are so incensed at being biblically rebuked for your hate you now have me as a YEC needing to look at my own house merely because i object to the vitriol form both sides /thats the case even after me saying a number of times I am no YEC .

It is among YECs that you will most likely find the "hate brimming over" for anyone who is not like them (a YEC).

Oh please give me a break. You are incensed at the idea that someone would not consider you a christian as the unapardonable sin . Both sides throw some serious dirt. OECs are most likely to call their brothers and sisters in Christ - idiots, fools, ignorant - all derivatives of words that Christ commands us to never call a believer. Worse many christian OECs like yourself align yourself with atheists in forums all over the internet as they attack other christians and call them the same. apparently the issue trumps being Christian. YECs are more likely to question salvation yes and more like to assume deception but this utter nonsense of you being more righteous because you don't question salvation is just not in bible. You need to repent before God.

Matthew 7:3-5; cf. Luke 6:41-42 springs to mind.

Please don't quote scripture as you defend yourself from being scripturally obedient to relating to your brothers and sisters in Christ with respect/love not hate. it only makes the sin worse. The first thing you should have done when thinking about Matthew 7:3-5 is think about how it applies to you.

P.S. No Apostle or first century Christian would consider how you take God's word literally or not as a minor issue. Using your standard anyone could call someone out of line for claiming to be a heretic or compromiser - even a real one.

[Mikeenders]

I and many other science professionals have followed the case in the published scientific literature from the beginning.

Kid, the way you write and have lied for no good reason - sorry its just not going to work. You could not convince anyone you are a professional at anything.

That has already been done. The mineralized biological samples are 80 MYO. Try reading the primary scientific literature instead of AIG and Chick tracts.

You should see someone about that fall you had on your head Beagle. You are barking (pun intended :) ) up the wrong tree trying to claim that the work that shows how soft tissue could have possible lasted that long has been done. Thats just another lie on your part. Right now all there is is an assumption based not on chemistry but radiometric dating. claiming radiometric dating proves that radiometric dating should not be questioned based on the soft tissue is forever circular no matter how much your brain cannot process what circularity is.

[Roy]

which the evidence of the rock strata has demonstrated that the earth is billions of years old and there is no evidence of a flood as portrayed in the Bible.

Sure there is particularly since the Hebrew word for earth is eretz and it does NOT have to be a worldwide flood spoken of in the Bible.

Not that you're going to actually provide any evidence, right?

[Mikeenders]

Not that you're going to actually provide any evidence, right?

Already did for anyone that has learned how to read - the word is eretz - means land not the whole world as anyone who can use Google can verify.

[Roy]

Total gibberish Jim. the claim that biological material does not last that long was not an outlier hypothesis made up by creationists.

Yeah, you said that before - but when asked for published references you skedaddled like an interrupted cockroach. Are you going to provide any references this time, or just scuttle under the door again?

[HMS_Beagle]

Rogue you are so full of hate you can't even read straight. You are so incensed at being biblically rebuked for your hate you now have me as a YEC needing to look at my own house merely because i object to the vitriol form both sides /thats the case even after me saying a number of times I am no YEC .

LOL! If projection were an Olympic sport you'd sweep the podium.

How old are you anyway, about 14? 15 tops?

[rogue06]

There certainly is a "YEC camp"; Snoeberger calls it "the young-earth creationist community", "the young-earth community", and "the YEC 'guild'". (I probably should have used his wording and said "guild"). If you haven't read all of his paper yet, I recommend it. Here is his last paragraph:

Fascinating read.

[Mikeenders]

Yeah, you said that before - but when asked for published references you skedaddled like an interrupted cockroach. Are you going to provide any references this time, or just scuttle under the door again?

If you don't have the brains to read the links that show the many publications that discuss why the find was controversial who even needs to bother with you Roy? scurry along like the cockroaches you referred to.

[rogue06]

Rogue you are so full of hate you can't even read straight.

Is that your only response? Anyone who dares disagree with you and provides facts to back up their position just must be "full of hate"? That is just sad.

[HMS_Beagle]

You are barking (pun intended :) ) up the wrong tree trying to claim that the work that shows how soft tissue could have possible lasted that long has been done.

Since I never said that it's you who are the bare-faced liar. Again. The work on radiometric dating has been done and verified 100x over. It is not in doubt even a little. Only a liar or a complete ignoramus would say its veracity has not not confirmed. I suppose there's nothing that prevents you from being both.

Oh, and you still "forgot" to provide your explanation for angular unconformities. Coward.

[HMS_Beagle]

Is that your only response? Anyone who dares disagree with you and provides facts to back up their position just must be "full of hate"? That is just sad.

With his obnoxious and insulting bluster this goober is trying to out-Jorge Jorge. I wonder if they're related?

[Mikeenders]

Is that your only response? Anyone who dares disagree with you and provides facts to back up their position just must be "full of hate"? That is just sad.

You haven't provided any facts rogue. Your entire thesis is that your YEC brothers and sisters in Christ are more evil than you because they attack you on the issue of your Christianity and you attack them in other ways. Theres nothing sadder than watching someone name the name of Christ trying to navigate themselves around a direct command of Christ to love all brothers and sister in Christ.

[Kbertsche]

In other words the belief wasn't an assumption, it was a conclusion based on observation.

It was a conclusion based on limited observation and extrapolated to situations which had never been observed or tested. This is a recipe for making wrong conclusions.

I
It did nothing to prove the assumption was wrong. What it did was cast doubts on the previous assumptions regarding the age of the bones.

Not at all. This cast no serious doubt in the scientific community on the various well-validated dating methods. It is only viewed this way by YECs, who want to find any and every excuse to reject good dating methods.