Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[CGM]

ok this post is long but read it carefully especially the bit about the bath as it explains my mindset. See if you can at least see where I'm coming from even though you may disagree. It's a fundamental difference of opinion regarding how the world came to be that leads to a total rejection of dating methods for me.


I gave some examples of bizarre dating results just to show how biased they are.

You may not realise but in recent years 'fresh' i.e unfossilised dinosaur bones have been found, especially in Alaska.

Some, most famously a specimen of T Rex even had remains of red blood cells in the tissue.

If you look on wikipedia you'll see it says it was preserved by some fossilisation process, as yet unknown to science. Obviously they still believe it's millions of years old because of their timelines, just that some hitherto unknown process of preservation has been at work.

What is the relevance to dating methods?

Well how are we expected to believe that they know for a fact the atomic clock rate of decay for potassium into argon, or that Carbon 14 has a half life of exactly 5,700 years when they are now finding unfossilied dinsosaur bones even with blood cells and collagen still present preserved for millions of years longer than previously thought possible by some as yet unknown method of preservation?

The dating methods cannot be tested or verified in any way accept by testing them on samples where we already know the date of creation.

Interestingly carbon dating on dinosaur bones has typically given dates of around 6000 - 20000 years. Of course scientists reject these dates as they are obviously at least 65,000,000 years old and hence they don't use carbon dating on dinosaur bones becuase it doesn't give them a usuable date.

Bascially they use a dating method that will give them the result that matches what they want based on the geologic column.

So for example if you dated the same fossil using 6 different dating methods you would get 6 totally different dates, millions of years apart.

They use the dating method appropriate for each rock strata and hence time period they are dealing with.

It's a bit like body fat monitors.

Obviously a body fat scale has no idea whatsoever how much fat is in your body. What it does is send an electrical current through your body and time how long it takes to go from one foot, up your leg and back down again.

Then in conjunction with certain measurments you give it, i.e height, sex, muscle mass it will give you a number that represents your body fat level.

This level will change hourly based on your hydration level, body temperature, whether you are wet, wearing socks or change any of your height, weight details etc.

The results will then be completely and utterly wrong.

It's exactly the same with dating methods. Based on a nice untouched sample that has not been interacted with in any way for millions of years and has suffered no contamination and had no enviromental or physical pressures put upon it, then you might be able to argue that the decay of potassium into argon has happened at a constant rate. If you knew exactly how much potassium was present to begin with and can guarantee the decay process has happened at exactly the same rate for the entire time you can get an accurate date, hypothetically. You could never actually test it of course as we have nothing that can be independently verified to be millions of years old to test it against.

It's like a finding a bathtub half full of water, and with a tap that is dripping at the rate of one drip every seven seconds.

A scientist could look at the bath, measure the volume of water and the rate of drip and then calculate how long the bath would have taken to fill based on how many water drips would have been necessary to fill it. He could then check how much water was being lost through evaporation, tiny holes in the bath etc and assuming all of these things remained constant give you a calculated length of time it took to fill the bath.

Of course his result would likely be utter bollocks. The bath wasn't filled by a tiny gradual drip of water into the bath over several weeks but was likely filled in a matter of minutes when the tap was turned on. Furthermore in the time frame of several weeks that the scientist gave the bath may have been emptied and refilled several times. It's even possible that the bath wasn't filled by the tap at all. Maybe the tap doesn't work as the water has been cut off and so someone filled it up with buckets from a well.

As you can see without knowing how the bath was filled in the first place any attempt to date when it was filled and how long it took are just impossible.

This is EXACTLY what it is like with the world. Without knowing how the world was formed, the processes involved and the history of the planet for the times we wern't here to observe it we simply cannot possible know or date how long it took for things to happen.

Does that make sense?

OK, I looked into the "famous" case of the Trex with apparent red blood cells found in the bone marrow cavity. The original research, published in 2005, is found here.

Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex -- Schweitzer et al. 307 (5717): 1952 -- Science.

This is very interesting, if true it does in fact shake things up a bit. This original research did not make any claims as to the age of the earth or the age of the dinosaurs that I can see. The only such claims that I can find are those made on websites dedicated to the "proving" of Genesis. For example this site,

Sensational dinosaur blood report! ,

says that this discovery supports claims that dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old.

Usually when there is this kind of discovery, it gets a lot of attention from other scientists, who do their own research, on the same materials and other materials, in an attempt to verify what has happened. In fact subsequent research has been done. Research published in 2008 points to an entirely different conclusion, something quite different from red blood cells. This 2008 research can be found here.

PLoS ONE: Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms

Ok, so at the very least the jury is still out, but as it stand it looks like something other than red blood cells and soft tissue.

OK, moving on to the bathtub example. I do indeed understand your point, more specifically it seems to be an analogy to what you referred to earlier as uniformitarionism.

I also understand what you say about the age of dinosaur bones being determined by the age of the strata in which the bones are found.

I really don't have a lot to say about these last two points at the present time, I intend to do a little more research into scientific dating methods first.

Yeah I never suggested for a second that evolutionary scientists regard the T rex with blood cells as being a few thousand years old.

Instead they believe they have discovered an entirely new form of preservation which has preserved these materials for 70 million years longer than previously thought possible.

Ok let's stay on topic. Forget Australopithicus (sp) for now, you're changing the subject.

You're the one who raised the issue of soft tissue, all I did was follow up and take a look at the available research. I don't think you even looked at the research, you didn't give yourself nearly enough time.

No, in fact the original scientists did not say that they believed they had discovered a new form of preservation.

Where exactly are you getting your info. You know, the occasional reference might be helpful here.

The subsequent research, which you seem to have ignored, did not make statements about these apparent conclusions about preservation, what this new research did do was dispute what the first group thought they had found.

See the difference?

[Kev]

OK, I looked into the "famous" case of the Trex with apparent red blood cells found in the bone marrow cavity. The original research, published in 2005, is found here.

Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex -- Schweitzer et al. 307 (5717): 1952 -- Science.

This is very interesting, if true it does in fact shake things up a bit. This original research did not make any claims as to the age of the earth or the age of the dinosaurs that I can see. The only such claims that I can find are those made on websites dedicated to the "proving" of Genesis. For example this site,

Sensational dinosaur blood report! ,

says that this discovery supports claims that dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old.

Usually when there is this kind of discovery, it gets a lot of attention from other scientists, who do their own research, on the same materials and other materials, in an attempt to verify what has happened. In fact subsequent research has been done. Research published in 2008 points to an entirely different conclusion, something quite different from red blood cells. This 2008 research can be found here.

PLoS ONE: Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms

Ok, so at the very least the jury is still out, but as it stand it looks like something other than red blood cells and soft tissue.

OK, moving on to the bathtub example. I do indeed understand your point, more specifically it seems to be an analogy to what you referred to earlier as uniformitarionism.

I also understand what you say about the age of dinosaur bones being determined by the age of the strata in which the bones are found.

I really don't have a lot to say about these last two points at the present time, I intend to do a little more research into scientific dating methods first.

Yeah I never suggested for a second that evolutionary scientists regard the T rex with blood cells as being a few thousand years old.

Instead they believe they have discovered an entirely new form of preservation which has preserved these materials for 70 million years longer than previously thought possible.

Ok let's stay on topic. Forget Australopithicus (sp) for now, you're changing the subject.

You're the one who raised the issue of soft tissue, all I did was follow up and take a look at the available research. I don't think you even looked at the research, you didn't give yourself nearly enough time.

No, in fact the original scientists did not say that they believed they had discovered a new form of preservation.

Where exactly are you getting your info. You know, the occasional reference might be helpful here.

The subsequent research, which you seem to have ignored, did not make statements about these apparent conclusions about preservation, what this new research did do was dispute what the first group thought they had found.

See the difference?

lol I've been following the debate for the last 3 years or so. Seriously I have read countless books on evolution both for and against.

The T Rex soft tissue is a sensational new find. It's been being debated for the past few years with many different opinions on both sides.

What you have to remember is that creationists will always see things one way and evolutionists will always see things another way.

Any examples presented will be interpereted according to the belief system of the person writing the article, it's up to you to decide (after a good few years of research ideally) which worldview makes more sense to you.

The T Rex blood cell debate is an excellent case in point.

If you research Mary Scheiwtzer directly (the discover) you'll see she and her team believe in some form of miraculous preservation going on.

[CGM]

LOL. I suppose you have no intention of providing refs to support your claim. Not only do I have to support my claims, I have to support yours as well.

[Kev]

LOL. I suppose you have no intention of providing refs to support your claim. Not only do I have to support my claims, I have to support yours as well.

Support what claims? It's a FACT that they have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. It's a FACT that they have found unfossilied Hadrosaur bones that for over 20 years were discarded as they assumed they were just fresh bison bones from a hundred or so years ago.

What interperations the evolutionists give to this is up to them and you.

I believe it's compelling evidence that they arn't millions of years old but if you wish to believe the scientific account that somehow bones can remain fresh and not deteriorate for 70 million years due to some unknown natural preservatin technique that is fine.

[CGM]

LOL. I suppose you have no intention of providing refs to support your claim. Not only do I have to support my claims, I have to support yours as well.

Support what claims? It's a FACT that they have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. It's a FACT that they have found unfossilied Hadrosaur bones that for over 20 years were discarded as they assumed they were just fresh bison bones from a hundred or so years ago.

What interperations the evolutionists give to this is up to them and you.

I believe it's compelling evidence that they arn't millions of years old but if you wish to believe the scientific account that somehow bones can remain fresh and not deteriorate for 70 million years due to some unknown natural preservatin technique that is fine.

OK Bilbo you talk a good line. You say it's FACT but you continually refuse to provide any supporting references. I provided refs that say otherwise, you provide nada. Zilch. Just some claims that you have carefully studied blah blah blah.

IMO, if there really was proven facts that provided compelling evidence that dinosaurs weren't millions of years old, there would be a lot more publicity, cause I do believe the general public is very interested in that kind of stuff. But I suppose you will say people don't want to know, or maybe just that I don't want to know. That's fine. Whatever you want to believe.

Under the circumstances, I see no point in continuing. I've got better things to do than debate aimlessly. Over and out.

[Kev]

LOL. I suppose you have no intention of providing refs to support your claim. Not only do I have to support my claims, I have to support yours as well.

Support what claims? It's a FACT that they have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. It's a FACT that they have found unfossilied Hadrosaur bones that for over 20 years were discarded as they assumed they were just fresh bison bones from a hundred or so years ago.

What interperations the evolutionists give to this is up to them and you.

I believe it's compelling evidence that they arn't millions of years old but if you wish to believe the scientific account that somehow bones can remain fresh and not deteriorate for 70 million years due to some unknown natural preservatin technique that is fine.

OK Bilbo you talk a good line. You say it's FACT but you continually refuse to provide any supporting references. I provided refs that say otherwise, you provide nada. Zilch. Just some claims that you have carefully studied blah blah blah.

IMO, if there really was proven facts that provided compelling evidence that dinosaurs weren't millions of years old, there would be a lot more publicity, cause I do believe the general public is very interested in that kind of stuff. But I suppose you will say people don't want to know, or maybe just that I don't want to know. That's fine. Whatever you want to believe.

Under the circumstances, I see no point in continuing. I've got better things to do than debate aimlessly. Over and out.

Seriously? If dinosaurs arn't millions of years old the entire foundation of evolution collapses. It's the absolute LAST thing they want you to hear about.

Interestingly this blood cell in a T Rex was actually reported in 1990, but didn't make it into any major peer review and Schweitzer herself was pilloried for it.

It was only after the creationist movement latched onto it and started to proclaim it as evidence dinosaurs were only thousands of years old that they even acknowledged it.

In the end they had to go public with it and so emphasized the similiarites between the T Rex and an Ostrich, to make it look like it was supporting evolution. But it's a serious challenge to it.

Your article about biofilms isn't really relavent. Even if the soft tissue and collagen is a result of bacteria it doesn't change the fact that the bones are still hollow and unfossilised.

If you want to hear what the discoverer had to say about it watch this video.

And yes she claims an entirely new form of fossilisation hithero unknown to science.

T Rex Soft Tissue Interview With Mary Schweitzer By Msnbc - Google Videos - YouTube MySpace Video - Noolmusic.com


At no point is the age of the bones questioned, but the link to ostriches is raised.

The evoutionary media is very carefully manipulated. Every discovery that supports evoution will make front page news around the world, and when they are shown to be wrong, and in time they ALWAYS are the evolutionary community is silent on the matter.

Go and look up Archeoraptor, the missing link between dinosaurs and birds for example.

But seriously you need to be aware of how the evolutionary community work. They are at war with creationists, even going to court to prevent any talk about creationism or intelligent design being heard in schools or given media time on tv.

It is indoctrination. Websites exist where you can report creationism and have the evolutionary atheistic society take legal action against them and hand out anti creation literature, seriously.

If a scientist says he does not believe in evolution he will lose his job, they will never draw attention to anything that discredits their theory

[Andre]

Support what claims? It's a FACT that they have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. It's a FACT that they have found unfossilied Hadrosaur bones that for over 20 years were discarded as they assumed they were just fresh bison bones from a hundred or so years ago.

What interperations the evolutionists give to this is up to them and you.

I believe it's compelling evidence that they arn't millions of years old but if you wish to believe the scientific account that somehow bones can remain fresh and not deteriorate for 70 million years due to some unknown natural preservatin technique that is fine.

OK Bilbo you talk a good line. You say it's FACT but you continually refuse to provide any supporting references. I provided refs that say otherwise, you provide nada. Zilch. Just some claims that you have carefully studied blah blah blah.

IMO, if there really was proven facts that provided compelling evidence that dinosaurs weren't millions of years old, there would be a lot more publicity, cause I do believe the general public is very interested in that kind of stuff. But I suppose you will say people don't want to know, or maybe just that I don't want to know. That's fine. Whatever you want to believe.

Under the circumstances, I see no point in continuing. I've got better things to do than debate aimlessly. Over and out.

Seriously? If dinosaurs arn't millions of years old the entire foundation of evolution collapses. It's the absolute LAST thing they want you to hear about.

Interestingly this blood cell in a T Rex was actually reported in 1990, but didn't make it into any major peer review and Schweitzer herself was pilloried for it.

It was only after the creationist movement latched onto it and started to proclaim it as evidence dinosaurs were only thousands of years old that they even acknowledged it.

In the end they had to go public with it and so emphasized the similiarites between the T Rex and an Ostrich, to make it look like it was supporting evolution. But it's a serious challenge to it.

Your article about biofilms isn't really relavent. Even if the soft tissue and collagen is a result of bacteria it doesn't change the fact that the bones are still hollow and unfossilised.

If you want to hear what the discoverer had to say about it watch this video.

And yes she claims an entirely new form of fossilisation hithero unknown to science.

T Rex Soft Tissue Interview With Mary Schweitzer By Msnbc - Google Videos - YouTube MySpace Video - Noolmusic.com


At no point is the age of the bones questioned, but the link to ostriches is raised.

The evoutionary media is very carefully manipulated. Every discovery that supports evoution will make front page news around the world, and when they are shown to be wrong, and in time they ALWAYS are the evolutionary community is silent on the matter.

Go and look up Archeoraptor, the missing link between dinosaurs and birds for example.

But seriously you need to be aware of how the evolutionary community work. They are at war with creationists, even going to court to prevent any talk about creationism or intelligent design being heard in schools or given media time on tv.

It is indoctrination. Websites exist where you can report creationism and have the evolutionary atheistic society take legal action against them and hand out anti creation literature, seriously.

If a scientist says he does not believe in evolution he will lose his job, they will never draw attention to anything that discredits their theory

Dont hold your breath, something is comming their way that cant deny.Should begin late June ,they'll hush it up cause it'll make em look like fools but once the effect takes hold we'll all know the score.