Scientist fired from university after discovering dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 Years Old

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Here's what I don't get. When I look at a star that's seven
light years away. I'm only seeing the light it gave off seven
years ago. Doesn't this mean that we see very little of the
universe in real time?

yes, it might not be even there anymore! lol.

that has always had me thinking, where are they now?

200 million years ago, they were right there in the sky.

which way did they go? where in the sky are they now!

i'm serious.

It's actually pretty cool that this is going on for a couple different reasons. But before I get into that I'd just like to say I personally have heard both sides and I myself don't know what to believe anymore. Why?

Because nobody knows.

Radio carbon dating is NOT exactly very accurate, yet modern day scientists still use it to pretty much ESTIMATE how old things are. The problem is, it's a bunch of guess work. Why? Mainly because nobody alive today lived back then; nobody knows how much carbon dioxide was in the Earth's atmosphere in the past, but it's pretty safe to assume that there was a LOT more, considering the size of plants and animals -- I'll let you do your own research here.

On the other hand, it is VERY hard to believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old when we have things like tetonic plates, the idea of Pangea, volcanoes.. and things like diamonds; where some people feel take millions or billions of years to form, yet others think can form in a matter or hours or days depending on heat and pressure...

Despite all of this stuff, there are however carvings of "dinosaurs" along side other animals in the walls of at least one jungle temple found in Cambodia - pretty amazing stuff. I realize there will always be people who will say something like "well this was probably because of stories passed down of monsters / dragons / whatever" but that seems very unlikey and is very difficult for me to believe. Something happened.

Dinosaurs in ancient cambodian temple

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
oy. just read Genesis in Hebrew and with a good concordance and the young earth theory is destroyed by a single word; which is mistranslated in the English version. you cannot really be a fundamentalist if you cannot read the fundamentals properly in the first place. The Bible does not say the earth is any specific age and supports a vast geological age easier than a young age once you take that mistranslated word into account and correlate it to verses elsewhere in the bible such as in Isaiah and 2nd Peter; etc.

As Muhammad said, "The Christians are sincere people, but have been mislead by their leaders".

a reply to: Time2Think

The other thing I wanted to bring up is that scientists have been lying in our faces about things for years. To put it simply, knowledge is power. Some great examples of this are the medical industry. the power infrastructure, modern day transportation.... and of course, all of this stuff about "global warming".

If you want to be a successful scientist these days and get funded by big bro, you simply agree with whatever they want you to believe.

If, on the other hand, you'd rather think for yourself and try to come up with something new on your own or prove their theories are wrong - good luck getting any funding for it. Not to mention if you actually DO succeed at coming up with a fantastic new idea, who knows what the hell will end up happening to you. My guess is nobody will ever even know who you were, and you'll simply disappear.

a reply to: Time2Think

Howdy,

I know you are just throwing ideas out, so please do not be offended, but this needs to be said to clear a few things up...

Why does everyone pick on carbon 14 dating? Are people even aware that C-14 is useless after about 60,000 years? And certainly, it has limitations. Well known, well accounted for limitations within scientific study. For these two reasons, it cannot be used to date most rocks/fossils.

What methods are used to date rocks? Well, relative dating is based on faunal succession and absolute dating often employs other radioisotopes. I'm a fan of the reliability of the Potassium-Argon method in granitic rocks and Uranium-Lead in Zircon. I'd like to see someone's arguments against those. (And if you wish to claim non-constancy of decay rate, I want a cited scientific source, and you best be sure you got a study with the right elements. ) For some background, check wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org...

For the record, you can make diamonds in a day with the right laboratory conditions. That said, the optical qualities of those artificial diamonds would differ noticeably (be too perfect) from a natural diamond, I think. Or, at least, that's usually how it goes with lab grown minerals.

As for the "dinosaur" carving, didn't someone demonstrate that that looked more like a chameleon than a dinosaur? I'm afraid I can't remember who that was, but it certainly wasn't my idea. (Although I agree.)

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: johngrissom
In all honesty...I could careless what year this thing dates to.

I believe in God, Jesus and read the Bible. No dinosaur finding is going to change that; even if the individual is of my belief.

Still do not care

Why would you not care what date it is ?

You do not see the power of being told how things are, What time it is, what time to do everything has over every aspect of your life ?

Next you will be telling me Jesus will be here for the next age as well, even though your own Bible says that he will NOT.

But something WILL change your belief, to a state of KNOWING..........it is called REVELATION.

P.S. It is now Aquarius, get ready to see the next great opening stage show for the masses!!!!

a reply to: randyvs

It's quite a paradox. You have to understand how the universe is expanding. Expansion is not happening in a direction. It's happening within itself.

So when we see a star 7 light years away, we see what that star looked like in that moment seven years ago.

Yes, we see very little of realtime. The reason that is, is because of the sheer size of the universe. It's beyond normal comprehension. Take the sun, we only see what it was doing 8 minutes ago. If you want to know what's going on right now on the sun, you have to wait 8 minutes.

AAC

Armitage is a know creationist, he is to be ignored

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?

He didn't have a rebuttal.

AAC.

easy, the earth was created 6000ya, not the universe. right?

i am not a young earther.

This could be true if the same bible didn't say he created the heavens and the earth the same 6 days.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Been on this site for a good while and just now
thought to confirm that thought I was thoughting.


Thank you

a reply to: Time2Think

Scientists have found preserved wood samples with ring circles older than 6,000 years. Sediment layers and current erosion times prove beyond a doubt that earth in older than 6,000.

AAC.

Here's something that tricks my mind...

If everything we see is from the past, but we are moving towards locations in space light-years away, are we racing back in time?

AAC.

a reply to: randyvs

Doesn't this mean that we see very little of the universe in real time?

Very little. You're not even seeing this in real time.
See that pheasant over there? Not in real time.
See your hands? Not in real time.

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?

He didn't have a rebuttal.

AAC.

easy, the earth was created 6000ya, not the universe. right?

i am not a young earther.

This could be true if the same bible didn't say he created the heavens and the earth the same 6 days.

AAC

the bible does not give an age for the earth or the universe. additionally in the original texts you would find that the word translated as day has multiple meanings. The Old testament was not written or dictated in english. therefore the original language's usage dictates the meaning.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Patent nonsense - the King James version is the inerrant truth revealed.

a reply to: Phage

Yup. Hold your hand out at arm's length. You're seeing it as it was roughly two nanoseconds ago.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Just looked at the loon link you posted, its just a blog by some degenerate leftist loon labeling anything he/she disagrees with as looney. They also posted Dr. Savage on there who has a pretty prestigious education. The other was a blog by some Christian bashing atheists.

Congratulations to you sir, I have been on this site for a while now and those may be the two worst sources I have ever seen. Not saying the professor is right or wrong, or that I agree with him, just that what you posted was the worst thing I have ever seen linked.

When I saw the links I was thinking "hey this might be interesting....", I could not have been more wrong.
I would normally say this is just lazy, but it must have taken some work to find sources that terrible, its like you just linked to some random guy on the street.

Maybe you were joking, if you were I apologize for misinterpreting it.

a reply to: pyramid head

And yet nothing those loons said is actually wrong......wow....go figure!!

a reply to: johngrissom

So you don't believe in science or facts? Is that what you're saying?

(Facepalm)