Biblical Flood: Actual Event or Myth

You're right, I hadn't checked them....but now I have....the "huge flood" website is full of pictures that look just like the Grand Canyon! I am sure you would say I am a moron for saying that but I have to ask....don't those flood pictures look awfully similar to the Grand Canyon to you?

 

Slow your roll, Hondo...I'm doing the best I can here. I went back and checked it out after my initial reply.
I am aware that the language I am using is probably not real accurate. I am, admittedly somewhat of a novice on this subject.
My main point is not the Glen Rose find specifically but the behavior of the scientist regarding the dating results.
I didn't mean a living tree root, I meant a tree fossil.
I am trying to figure out on what basis some dating results are accepted and some are not.

 

Read this:

In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years. Now I don’t think they are even that old, but that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.
​

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070824133540AAhmInZ

same site:

In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed? ​

 

I agree, it's just a Internet forum discussion...I don't expect to become a qualified geologist here.

What about the dinosaur bones, soft tissue, etc?

 

I read the entire article. Your quote is the only line in the entire article in reference to Christians. We have no idea what that means or what happened between Schweitzer and whatever Christians that are referred to in that article.

How are they manipulating her data? I highly doubt that. I think what she means is they follow the logical course of her findings, that dinosaurs weren't extinct 60 million years ago.

Regarding the anonymous internet character named "questioner"....if you don't think the information was correct then maybe this source will be more acceptable.

Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He says that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination.

The researchers presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won't be restored.
​

How's that for being objective and not treating people "really bad"?

link:​

http://newgeology.us/Dinosaur bones dated by Carbon-14.pdf
and
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Just a question, I don't expect it to happen....if it were possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs were still around up until say, 60,000 years ago....wouldn't that pretty much blow up the current understanding of the age of the earth/geology/chronology required for evolution?

 

I swear to God, I think we have a different understanding of what words mean. Which data were manipulated by creationists? She is the one producing the data. How do they get in there and manipulate it? They use her data and draw a different conclusion from it, yes, but I doubt they are manipulating that woman's "data".

Look, this crap takes a lot longer for me to find than it does you. Slogging through this info to find a credible source and having it just dismissed out of hand by you on the grounds that it wasn't presented/published in a scientific journal is pretty exasperating. In my opinion you just keep moving the goalposts.

As far as speaking to a child goes, if you feel its gotten to that level then I would suggest we stop here. I am under no illusions about convincing you, I just think it is interesting to compare the points made on both sides.

Regarding Thomas Seliers' papers....I did cite one and linked it.

A presentation by a scientist. At a scientific conference. At a scientific conference on geology.

Here is another link:

https://sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/abstracts

this is an excellent point:

Reviewing the history of radiodating methods shows the oversimplified assumptions made at the beginning of the XXth century. The extreme simplicity of nuclear models, the lack of knowledge of radioactive decay series, the ignorance of isotopes, the “closed system” hypothesis, but above all, the choice of initial conditions far from realistic, gave rise to contradictory results. We will show that, despite huge improvements in measurement techniques, these weaknesses from the beginning were never corrected. Results discordant with the geological time-scale are systematically discarded. Worst of all, no forum is provided in which scientists can formulate objections to the validity of the initial hypothesis. ​

I highly doubt I will be able to find info better than that on the internet. Some of the cites I run into look like you have to pay a fee to access some of these papers. This is too much to expect from me.

 

I think you would agree that Evolution is a big subject. I thought evidence against the enormous time periods required for evolution would be a straightforward way address the topic. The genetic aspect of evolution strikes me as even more complex so I tried to keep it simple and talk about the Deluge and evidence of the earth's age. I do not intend to address the biological processes involved in evolutionary theory.

I now understand that dinosaur bones should not produce carbon 14 reading of roughly 30,000 years old when tested. Dinosaur bones producing dates of 30,000 years old does not fit with the chronology of evolution or with the dating techniques used in support of evolutionary theory.

I was not fully aware of this previous to this discussion. Furthermore, apparently when dinosaur bones are dated this happens often. It seems like this aspect of the discussion fits my purpose nicely. In my opinion I was making good progress.

Your objection that I should address biological processes is off the mark. This thread was started for the purposes of address the chonology involved in evolutionary theory, not the biology of it. If you want to talk about the biology of evolution start a thread, I would be interested to see how you go about making your case.