Scientists study rare dinosaur skin fossil at CLS | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 42087726 United States 06/29/2013 07:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 42322786 United States 06/29/2013 07:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 41811048 United States 06/29/2013 07:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As a Young Earth Creationism advocate, I question the veracity of this discovery. I feel the scientific community and evolution agenda planted this to discredit people of faith and piety. Their punishment will be swift and severe when Judgment comes. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 41910036 United Kingdom 06/29/2013 07:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As a Young Earth Creationism advocate, I question the veracity of this discovery. I feel the scientific community and evolution agenda planted this to discredit people of faith and piety. Their punishment will be swift and severe when Judgment comes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41811048 You should not look at what the people are saying, rather the results of the find. Dinosaur skin = young earth, my friend. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.smithsonianmag.com] 'It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.' |
Jon User ID: 27827665 United States 06/29/2013 07:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As a Young Earth Creationism advocate, I question the veracity of this discovery. I feel the scientific community and evolution agenda planted this to discredit people of faith and piety. Their punishment will be swift and severe when Judgment comes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41811048 There is no way earth is 'young.' Easily discreditable. Truth is hard to come by... |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As a Young Earth Creationism advocate, I question the veracity of this discovery. I feel the scientific community and evolution agenda planted this to discredit people of faith and piety. Their punishment will be swift and severe when Judgment comes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41811048 There is no way earth is 'young.' Easily discreditable. We are waiting. |
Jon User ID: 27827665 United States 06/29/2013 07:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As a Young Earth Creationism advocate, I question the veracity of this discovery. I feel the scientific community and evolution agenda planted this to discredit people of faith and piety. Their punishment will be swift and severe when Judgment comes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41811048 There is no way earth is 'young.' Easily discreditable. We are waiting. I will, just give me earth's age and your reason for believing it. I will debunk that accordingly. Truth is hard to come by... |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Bear with this cite please, the references are not biased as you may think the website is. [link to creation.com] 'Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon. The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.' |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As a Young Earth Creationism advocate, I question the veracity of this discovery. I feel the scientific community and evolution agenda planted this to discredit people of faith and piety. Their punishment will be swift and severe when Judgment comes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41811048 There is no way earth is 'young.' Easily discreditable. We are waiting. I will, just give me earth's age and your reason for believing it. I will debunk that accordingly. The burden of proof is on you and other evolutionists whose ideas are tax-supported in public schools. |
Jon User ID: 27827665 United States 06/29/2013 07:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I will, just give me earth's age and your reason for believing it. I will debunk that accordingly. The burden of proof is on you and other evolutionists whose ideas are tax-supported in public schools. According to the bible, there were six days of creation. On the first day he created the earth. On the fourth day he created the sun, moon, and the stars. Now let's say the earth is 6,000 years old. This pegs the universes age at 6,000 years old since earth was the first object created in the universe. For example, the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth meaning it has been there for at least 2.5 million light years. If the universe was only 6,000 years old, the light from the Andromeda galaxy wouldn't have reached us yet. In short, universe is freaking old and earth was not the first thing to happen. Last Edited by Jon on 06/29/2013 07:53 PM Truth is hard to come by... |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I will, just give me earth's age and your reason for believing it. I will debunk that accordingly. The burden of proof is on you and other evolutionists whose ideas are tax-supported in public schools. According to the bible, there were six days of creation. On the first day he created the earth. On the fourth day he created the sun, moon, and the stars. Now let's say the earth is 6,000 years old. This pegs the universes age at 6,000 years old since earth was the first object created in the universe. For example, the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth meaning it has been there for at least 2.5 million light years. If the universe was only 6,000 years old, the light from the Andromeda galaxy wouldn't have reached us yet. In short, universe is freaking old and earth was not the first thing to happen. Light-years are units of distance, not time. Look up gravitational time dilation. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 07:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Jon User ID: 27827665 United States 06/29/2013 08:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | *Light-years are units of distance, not time. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 Look up gravitational time dilation. Light year = the distance light has traveled in a (earth) year. It's a measure of both distance and time that light travels. Point is, if 2.5 million years hadn't passed, we wouldn't see the Andromeda galaxy. If the universe was only 6,000 years old, it would take 2,4994,000 years for observers on earth to see the light from the Andromeda galaxy. Truth is hard to come by... |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | *Light-years are units of distance, not time. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 Look up gravitational time dilation. Light year = the distance light has traveled in a (earth) year. It's a measure of both distance and time that light travels. Point is, if 2.5 million years hadn't passed, we wouldn't see the Andromeda galaxy. If the universe was only 6,000 years old, it would take 2,4994,000 years for observers on earth to see the light from the Andromeda galaxy. That 5 minute vid answers that. Dr. Jason Lisle will explain it better than me here. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 08:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 08:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 'The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available. Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower. What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below: In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant) Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s.' |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 36938205 United States 06/29/2013 08:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.lightsource.ca] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 'One of the only well preserved dinosaur skin samples ever found is being tested at the Canadian Light Source (CLS) synchrotron to determine skin colour and to explain why the fossilized specimen remained intact after 70-million years. Answer: Because it is NOT 70 million years old. Scientists are so attached to the lie of evolution that they cannot even comprehend reality when it is right in front of their face - or in their hand, as it were. |
Jon User ID: 27827665 United States 06/29/2013 08:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Not only does gravity affect time, but the speed of light is not constant. There have been several experiments indicating that the speed of light is slowing down (Setterfield, etc). Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 I find it comical that you use the theory of relativity to confirm your creationist claims. I'm not saying your deity isn't real, I'm just saying the six creation days is utter bullshit. Last Edited by Jon on 06/29/2013 08:10 PM Truth is hard to come by... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 42024822 United States 06/29/2013 08:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I will, just give me earth's age and your reason for believing it. I will debunk that accordingly. The burden of proof is on you and other evolutionists whose ideas are tax-supported in public schools. According to the bible, there were six days of creation. On the first day he created the earth. On the fourth day he created the sun, moon, and the stars. Now let's say the earth is 6,000 years old. This pegs the universes age at 6,000 years old since earth was the first object created in the universe. For example, the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth meaning it has been there for at least 2.5 million light years. If the universe was only 6,000 years old, the light from the Andromeda galaxy wouldn't have reached us yet. In short, universe is freaking old and earth was not the first thing to happen. You made a giant assumption there boy. You assumed that the light from the Andromeda galaxy started at the earths creation and that it traveled at a known constant rate. None of that is in evidence. It is an assumption, just like there could be no tissue left in fossilized bones. Yet assumptions are not facts. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 42550941 United States 06/29/2013 08:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Bear with this cite please, the references are not biased as you may think the website is. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 [link to creation.com] 'Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon. The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.' radiocarbon dating is baloney anyway. it is based on ASSUMPTIONS that aren't true. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34884778 United States 06/29/2013 08:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24702889 United States 06/29/2013 08:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.wnd.com] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 'The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available. Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower. What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below: In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant) Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s.' I would tend to disbelieve that particular scientist's findings that the speed of light has slowed down, because it would be safe to assume that if it had it still is, and modern science having instrumentation capable of measuring the speed of light to within .0000001% accuracy, they would have observed a difference in results over the last few years. 7% over 300 years equals 0.7% over 30 years. they would have seen that and it would be in all the textbooks. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 08:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Not only does gravity affect time, but the speed of light is not constant. There have been several experiments indicating that the speed of light is slowing down (Setterfield, etc). Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 I find it comical that you use the theory of relativity to confirm your creationist claims. I'm not saying your deity isn't real, I'm just saying the six creation days is utter bullshit. Is that how you explain gravitational time dilation? How do you explain obligate symbiotic relationships? |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 08:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Jon I will, just give me earth's age and your reason for believing it. I will debunk that accordingly. The burden of proof is on you and other evolutionists whose ideas are tax-supported in public schools. According to the bible, there were six days of creation. On the first day he created the earth. On the fourth day he created the sun, moon, and the stars. Now let's say the earth is 6,000 years old. This pegs the universes age at 6,000 years old since earth was the first object created in the universe. For example, the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth meaning it has been there for at least 2.5 million light years. If the universe was only 6,000 years old, the light from the Andromeda galaxy wouldn't have reached us yet. In short, universe is freaking old and earth was not the first thing to happen. You made a giant assumption there boy. You assumed that the light from the Andromeda galaxy started at the earths creation and that it traveled at a known constant rate. None of that is in evidence. It is an assumption, just like there could be no tissue left in fossilized bones. Yet assumptions are not facts. Please provide some facts, thank you. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 08:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Bear with this cite please, the references are not biased as you may think the website is. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 [link to creation.com] 'Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon. The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.' radiocarbon dating is baloney anyway. it is based on ASSUMPTIONS that aren't true. I admit C14 dating has assumptions like every other method, especially regarding a constant decay rate. However, the fact that we find C14 in fossils tells us those objects are NOT millions or billions of years old. Yet evolutionists always turn a blind eye to this data. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 39092863 United States 06/29/2013 08:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.wnd.com] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39092863 'The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available. Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower. What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below: In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant) Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s.' I would tend to disbelieve that particular scientist's findings that the speed of light has slowed down, because it would be safe to assume that if it had it still is, and modern science having instrumentation capable of measuring the speed of light to within .0000001% accuracy, they would have observed a difference in results over the last few years. 7% over 300 years equals 0.7% over 30 years. they would have seen that and it would be in all the textbooks. This data is an example of us noticing that difference. Please provide some other examples if you can, thanks. |