The real Noah's ark!

[hlawrence]

I wish I could answer the question for you, but I am no biblical scholar nor a scientist. you may try researching it.
Harel

[Flann 5]

Brontosaurs and most dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. Is that when the flood was?

I wish I could answer the question for you, but I am no biblical scholar nor a scientist. you may try researching it.
Harel

Hi hlawrence. The widespread discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is a major embarrassment for evolutionary theory with it's claim that these bones are 70 or so millions of years old and yet somehow the soft tissue did not decay and degenerate.

They attempt to explain this as being due to iron acting as a preservative but this is not a good or reasonable 'explanation' scientifically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMqQmkoJXMYft=499s

You raise a common question about extinction. 99.99% of species are extinct*. Why did Yahweh bother to create them?

Evidence for this claim please? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtqdZKeyY1Y&t=1410s

[LanDroid]

More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

Wikipedia lists four sources supporting that statement.

Why would God go to all that bother of arranging for Noah to collect dinosaurs just 5000 years ago at the Great Flood, especially two babies of every species, if there are none around today?

Evidently you don't like my question, so do you want to answer his?

[Flann 5]

Quote:
More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction


Wikipedia lists four sources supporting that statement.

OK. So what evidence do these sources provide for their claim? The article references their books. It seems reasonable that if 99.9% of all species that ever existed have become extinct their fossil remains should vastly outnumber the .01% of currently living species in the record.
However this does not appear to be the case and Dr Jones points out that the ratio is more like 10 to 1 in favour of living to extinct species in the record.
So you might find those statistical references to the relative presence of living to extinct species from your sources rather than a broad reference to books without citation of the statistics for living to extinct species in the fossil record.
Find the statistical evidence from your sources for this claim Landroid.

Mr. Tulip wrote:
Why would God go to all that bother of arranging for Noah to collect dinosaurs just 5000 years ago at the Great Flood, especially two babies of every species, if there are none around today?



Evidently you don't like my question, so do you want to answer his?

First of all the biblical definition of kinds is broader than that of species. Secondly God never promised the perpetuation of all species any more than he promised that you would live forever. Universal death is the penalty of human sin ultimately.
Personally I think these 'explanations' for soft tissue in dinosaurs smack of desperate evasion of the scientific evidence. Obviously post mortem all living things decay and degenerate and the iron preservation argument doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. After 68 million years this soft tissue ought to have decayed and utterly degenerated but the evidence speaks against this.

[geo]

Personally I think these 'explanations' for soft tissue in dinosaurs smack of desperate evasion of the scientific evidence. Obviously post mortem all living things decay and degenerate and the iron preservation argument doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. After 68 million years this soft tissue ought to have decayed and utterly degenerated but the evidence speaks against this.

What you mean is, the iron preservation argument doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, according to Creationists. You are hardly qualified to assess the validity of the science, Flann.

The so-called "soft tissue" found in T-rex bones is actually a primarily inorganic compound of iron oxide. They are not red blood cells, but the iron oxide from the blood.

Other elements referred to broadly as "soft tissue" are amino acids, short peptides, and amino sugars which are believed to be able to persist within fossils—especially in the pores of bones—over geological periods.

Quite a lot of info here:

https://letterstocreationists.wordpress ... ft-tissue/

This stuff is well beyond your pay grade, Flann, as it is mine. But as I always say, if you want to learn more about science, get it from the scientists, not the Creationists!

[Flann 5]

What you mean is, the iron preservation argument doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, according to Creationists. You are hardly qualified to assess the validity of the science, Flann.

The so-called "soft tissue" found in T-rex bones is actually a primarily inorganic compound of iron oxide. They are not red blood cells, but the iron oxide from the blood.

Other elements referred to broadly as "soft tissue" are amino acids, short peptides, and amino sugars which are believed to be able to persist within fossils—especially in the pores of bones—over geological periods.

Quite a lot of info here:

https://letterstocreationists.wordpress ... ft-tissue/

This stuff is well beyond your pay grade, Flann, as it is mine. But as I always say, if you want to learn more about science, get it from the scientists, not the Creationists!

It's beyond your pay grade too Geo. You resort to the standard ad hominim that creationist scientists are not scientists when many like Armitage very clearly are. If you read on in the comments section of the article you linked by Scott Buchanan you will see he is challenged on some of his assertions.
He ultimately adopts the have your cake and eat it line of we don't know how some things are preserved over long periods and that this all amounts to an argument from ignorance.
http://www.crev.info/2016/08/fossil-dna ... geologists

OK. So what evidence do these sources provide for their claim? The article references their books. It seems reasonable that if 99.9% of all species that ever existed have become extinct their fossil remains should vastly outnumber the .01% of currently living species in the record.
However this does not appear to be the case and Dr Jones points out that the ratio is more like 10 to 1 in favour of living to extinct species in the record.
So you might find those statistical references to the relative presence of living to extinct species from your sources rather than a broad reference to books without citation of the statistics for living to extinct species in the fossil record.
Find the statistical evidence from your sources for this claim Landroid.

Quoting myself there. The incompleteness of the fossil record argument is not one accepted as valid by many distinguished paleontologists. Of course fossilization is a rare event relatively speaking nonetheless it is highly representative. The high percentages for currently living species in the record shows this.
It is completely unreasonable that if the evolutionary theory was true we would find a ratio of 10 to 1 favouring living species over extinct species in the record given the claim that out of vast millions of supposed species only .01% are currently living and 99.9% extinct.
The onus is entirely on those making this claim to substantiate it with evidence not assertions.

And incidentally your friend Donald Prothero has admitted he can not explain why many bird species did not change dramatically over millions of alleged years of massive climatic and environmental changes. If fact he could not cite any example of significant evolutionary changes in the record for birds in the considered period.
Stasis is the rule rather than the exception.

[geo]

It's beyond your pay grade too Geo. You resort to the standard ad hominim that creationist scientists are not scientists when many like Armitage very clearly are. If you read on in the comments section of the article you linked by Scott Buchanan you will see he is challenged on some of his assertions.
He ultimately adopts the have your cake and eat it line of we don't know how some things are preserved over long periods and that this all amounts to an argument from ignorance.

It's very likely that we don't know precisely how this material survived over long periods of time. We don't fully understand quite a lot of the mechanisms of the real world. This is not an argument from ignorance, this is reality.

Either this material is actual soft tissue or its the residual traces or something else not yet well understood. The realm of the not known will never be an argument in support of young earth creationism, despite your continued efforts to make it so.

My original point stands. Your comment that the "the iron preservation argument doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny" is your highly uninformed opinion only. It bears no resemblance to the actual state of the science.

Here's a shorter, more cogent response from Scott Buchanan, who is a Christian, trying to show that "we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science."

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fai ... really-say

[Taylor]

The Buchanan article completely obliterates young earth creationism and it follows old earth creation as well. Without a young earth verification old earth arguments are weakened as well because the goal post are moved toward even lesser provable ideas.

The fact that there is so little soft tissue DNA available from dinosaur fossils is a big strikeout for young earth creationist. It follows that if dinosaur fossils were buried by a great flood only 4500 years ago, a portion of those fossils would be loaded with gobs of sequential DNA. Dr. Schweitzer's research easily demonstrates as much.

[Taylor]

Dr. Prothero in his book 'The Story of Life in 25 Fossils' easily demonstrates the evolution from retile to bird. There is a discussion of that book on another thread. I suggest people get the book and join that discussion.

[Interbane]

It seems reasonable that if 99.9% of all species that ever existed have become extinct their fossil remains should vastly outnumber the .01% of currently living species in the record.

Sure, if the world worked in a perfectly logical fashion that would be reasonable. But we know the world is quirky, so you need evidence. What evidence do you have that says the ratio should be prima fascia reasonable?

Start a list of all the limitations of fossilization. What size does a species need to be(how likely is it for insects to fossilize? How about various species of bacteria? Fungus? Rodents? What are the odds for certain population sizes over n number of years? What geographic regions aren't prone to fossilization?

Estimates from scientists are based on variables you haven't even considered, and the quantity of information is massive. It's pure arrogance to think you can raise a valid objection with armchair reasoning. Do an actual peer review. Read the books, study the material. If you're not willing to, then stop asking for the evidence. Bits and pieces of evidence lead to faulty conclusions. At some point, we must place trust in the experts.