T-Rex DNA possibly discovered
- Thread starter Miramonti
- Start date
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
lol.
Seriously, though, we can barely get mtDNA out of 25,000 year old Neandertal bones. By barely I mean it's been done only a handful of times.
I've some experience extracting ancient DNA out of bones (usually teeth) that are 5,000-6,000 years old, and it is not easy!
If someone is able to get any form of useful mtDNA out of these TRex bones I will literally fall out of my chair - it would be one of the most (if not the most) impressive genetics technology accomplishments.
not my forte', hence the possible stupid question - if they can extract the DNA whats the possibility of clone?
What a crock. Everyone knows the Earth is only 6000 years old. God just put those fossils there to test your faith.
Because inevitably someone will weigh in with this viewpoint or something similar. If we're lucky they'll avoid this thread altogether and leave the science to rational people.
Yes, some do. I was watching a PBS special last night (the Evolution series) on Creationism vs. Darwinism. I almost thought it was a joke at first, it was so illogical and nonsensical to be idiotic.
glenn beck
Platinum Member
- Oct 6, 2004
- 2,380
- 0
- 0
Assumptions or Scientific Fact?
Here is a crucial question: is the claim of great age for earth/humanity, as alleged by most scientists, based upon solid, scientific evidence? Or is it grounded upon evolutionary-oriented assumptions?
1. There is no scientific ?proof? that the earth is billions of years old. The average layman thinks there is, but he is mistaken. Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: ?No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon. . . indirect reasoning? (p. 92).
Dr. John Eddy, an evolutionary astronomer, stated: ?There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old.? He continued: ?I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher?s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don?t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that? (p. 18).
2. The techniques for dating the earth result from uniformitarian (evolutionary) assumptions. Radiometric methods for dating the earth?s rocks are based upon the decay sequences of certain elements. For example, uranium-238 (called a ?parent? element) will, through a series of decomposition processes, ultimately produce lead-206 (called a ?daughter? element). Scientists believe they know the present decay rate. Thus, if a rock contains both uranium-238 and lead-206, the ratio of the two elements will be used to estimate the age of the sample.
It is conceded, however, that in order for this method to be valid, certain assumptions must be granted.
1. It must be assumed that no lead-206 was in the rock at the time of its formation. But what if lead-206 was a part of the original creation? That would invalidate the accuracy of the age-estimate.
2. It must be assumed that neither the parent nor the daughter element has been altered in mass since the beginning. However, there is an increasing body of evidence which indicates that both parent and daughter elements, under the proper conditions, can migrate in the rocks, thus radically affecting any result that might be obtained.
3. The assumption is made that decay rates have remained constant. Again, though, recent research has shown that while these decay rates appear to remain constant within narrow limits, under special circumstances they may be altered considerably. Evolutionist Frederic B. Jueneman declares:
?The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ?confirmation? may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.
?And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man? (p. 21).
Did he say: ?Global disaster?? What about the Genesis Flood?
3. Numerous evidences reveal that evolutionary dating methods are not reliable. The following examples demonstrate the folly of giving unqualified endorsement to the various ?clocks? that are reputed to require an ancient earth.
1. Studies on submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed less than two hundred years ago, when dated by the potassium-argon method, yielded ages from 160 million to almost 3 billion years (Funkhouser, p. 4601).
2. The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old (Keith, p. 634).
3. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years (Dort, p. 210). In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years! (Jackson, 1989a, p. 13). Clearly, the evolutionary ?clocks? are drastically in need of repair!
4. There is scientific evidence for a ?young? earth. Not only are the evolutionary claims regarding the age of the earth without adequate support, the truth is, there are a number of genuine scientific evidences that point to a relatively ?young? earth. Consider the following data:
1. Dr. Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, has done extensive research in the decay of the earth?s magnetic field. His findings indicate that the magnetic field was created only a few thousand years ago, and is decaying toward extinction (pp. 1-4).
2. Deep under the surface of the earth are huge reservoirs of oil and water. Many of these reservoirs are characterized by extremely high fluid pressures. These pressures are gradually diminishing (much like air seeping from the tire of an automobile). It is acknowledged that the rock above these pockets is porous enough to allow the pressure to escape in a matter of several thousand years ? yet the pressure is still there. Dr. Melvin Cook, former professor at the University of Utah and President of IRECO Chemicals (1968 winner of the Nitro Nobel Award), argues that this suggests that these pressure pools were formed only a few thousand years ago. He contends it is evidence for a young earth (p. 5).
Actually, there are many tell-tale features of the earth which suggest that its existence is not to be measured in terms of billions of years. In his recently published book, The Young Earth, Dr. John Morris devotes an entire chapter to ?Geologic Evidence for a Young Earth? (pp. 93-117).
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/earthAge.htm
Here is a crucial question: is the claim of great age for earth/humanity, as alleged by most scientists, based upon solid, scientific evidence? Or is it grounded upon evolutionary-oriented assumptions?
1. There is no scientific ?proof? that the earth is billions of years old. The average layman thinks there is, but he is mistaken. Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: ?No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon. . . indirect reasoning? (p. 92).
Dr. John Eddy, an evolutionary astronomer, stated: ?There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old.? He continued: ?I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher?s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don?t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that? (p. 18).
2. The techniques for dating the earth result from uniformitarian (evolutionary) assumptions. Radiometric methods for dating the earth?s rocks are based upon the decay sequences of certain elements. For example, uranium-238 (called a ?parent? element) will, through a series of decomposition processes, ultimately produce lead-206 (called a ?daughter? element). Scientists believe they know the present decay rate. Thus, if a rock contains both uranium-238 and lead-206, the ratio of the two elements will be used to estimate the age of the sample.
It is conceded, however, that in order for this method to be valid, certain assumptions must be granted.
1. It must be assumed that no lead-206 was in the rock at the time of its formation. But what if lead-206 was a part of the original creation? That would invalidate the accuracy of the age-estimate.
2. It must be assumed that neither the parent nor the daughter element has been altered in mass since the beginning. However, there is an increasing body of evidence which indicates that both parent and daughter elements, under the proper conditions, can migrate in the rocks, thus radically affecting any result that might be obtained.
3. The assumption is made that decay rates have remained constant. Again, though, recent research has shown that while these decay rates appear to remain constant within narrow limits, under special circumstances they may be altered considerably. Evolutionist Frederic B. Jueneman declares:
?The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ?confirmation? may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.
?And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man? (p. 21).
Did he say: ?Global disaster?? What about the Genesis Flood?
3. Numerous evidences reveal that evolutionary dating methods are not reliable. The following examples demonstrate the folly of giving unqualified endorsement to the various ?clocks? that are reputed to require an ancient earth.
1. Studies on submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed less than two hundred years ago, when dated by the potassium-argon method, yielded ages from 160 million to almost 3 billion years (Funkhouser, p. 4601).
2. The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old (Keith, p. 634).
3. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years (Dort, p. 210). In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years! (Jackson, 1989a, p. 13). Clearly, the evolutionary ?clocks? are drastically in need of repair!
4. There is scientific evidence for a ?young? earth. Not only are the evolutionary claims regarding the age of the earth without adequate support, the truth is, there are a number of genuine scientific evidences that point to a relatively ?young? earth. Consider the following data:
1. Dr. Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, has done extensive research in the decay of the earth?s magnetic field. His findings indicate that the magnetic field was created only a few thousand years ago, and is decaying toward extinction (pp. 1-4).
2. Deep under the surface of the earth are huge reservoirs of oil and water. Many of these reservoirs are characterized by extremely high fluid pressures. These pressures are gradually diminishing (much like air seeping from the tire of an automobile). It is acknowledged that the rock above these pockets is porous enough to allow the pressure to escape in a matter of several thousand years ? yet the pressure is still there. Dr. Melvin Cook, former professor at the University of Utah and President of IRECO Chemicals (1968 winner of the Nitro Nobel Award), argues that this suggests that these pressure pools were formed only a few thousand years ago. He contends it is evidence for a young earth (p. 5).
Actually, there are many tell-tale features of the earth which suggest that its existence is not to be measured in terms of billions of years. In his recently published book, The Young Earth, Dr. John Morris devotes an entire chapter to ?Geologic Evidence for a Young Earth? (pp. 93-117).
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/earthAge.htm
Young Earth? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html
That crap you posted just abuses and distorts the Bible to suit the feeble rantings of insecure idiots.
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html
That crap you posted just abuses and distorts the Bible to suit the feeble rantings of insecure idiots.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
When are the creationists going to realize that attempting to discredit evolution and science does not validate their ridiculous theories?
That young earth page is ridiculous. Notice how it evades making any concrete predictions whatsoever? All it does is try to cast aspersions on science and evolutionary theory, and does so very poorly by avoiding many of the details of its claims and ommitting the facts, such as:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html
Here's another lie dressed up as truth from that young earth site:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm
Sites like that young earth website make me ill. They mislead those who are too lazy to check the facts behind their statements into believing they are telling the truth when they are not. If you want to believe that young earth crap, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, feel free to mislead yourself.
That young earth page is ridiculous. Notice how it evades making any concrete predictions whatsoever? All it does is try to cast aspersions on science and evolutionary theory, and does so very poorly by avoiding many of the details of its claims and ommitting the facts, such as:
Well duh. They weren't dating the basaltic rocks themselves. The inclusions in the rock were being dated:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html
Here's another lie dressed up as truth from that young earth site:
Dr. Thomas Barnes is a creationist himself and has tried for years to develop theories to validate his own personal beliefs. His theory on decay of the Earth's magnetic field has been met with derision due to its complete lack of any real substance and its ommissions of other relevant aspects of the Earth's magnetic field that he somehow "forgot" to take into consideration. His theory is old to begin with and was debunked long ago:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm
Sites like that young earth website make me ill. They mislead those who are too lazy to check the facts behind their statements into believing they are telling the truth when they are not. If you want to believe that young earth crap, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, feel free to mislead yourself.
AHAHAHA i read that young earth post for about a second, then i promptly scrolled to see what "source" he was citing. :laugh:
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
The idea is to produce dozens upon dozens of "facts." Since just from a cursory reading of those facts, I could only debunk 3/4 of them based on my knowledge, then the other 1/4 must be true. Therefore, the earth is only 6000 years old
I especially like the one about pressure. That probably appeals to the average moron. Their conclusion is almost akin to saying "all of the gravity of earth should eventually leak out."
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Radioactivity decay rates vary? Well, that's news to me. There are certain experiments that can vary the rate of decay about 0.2 percent, but the conditions are not found in nature, and even if so, that isn't enough to change dating.
Back to DNA.
Sorry guys, but the problem with DNA is that natural radioactivity causes it to degrade. Unless this was protected by some unimagined process, the radioactivity should have destroyed it.
Back to DNA.
Sorry guys, but the problem with DNA is that natural radioactivity causes it to degrade. Unless this was protected by some unimagined process, the radioactivity should have destroyed it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter