Re: [asa] Fw: Re: [MKnet] T- rex closest living relative - the dangerous....chicken

Iain,

I believe that the method for estimating the age of the earth most
accurately uses radioactive decay. Whoever wrote what you posted seems to
want to focus on other methods that indicate a very old earth but would
produce less precise estimates.

I also don't believe that the Bible really teaches what he claims it does.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, IW wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I posted the below article from the bbc to another list and received
> (to my surprise) the below response. I am not qualified to reply. Is
> there anyone here who can advise me witha reply?
>
> Iain (the other one)
>
> Di bawah ini adalah email/pesan yang asli:
>
> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:08:46 -0600
> From:
> To:
> Subject: T- rex closest living relative - the
> dangerous....chicken ID: 4620EE7E.5040600@mknet.org
>
>
> IW wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6548719.stm
>>
>
>> The discovery of protein in dinosaur bones is a surprise - organic
>> material was not thought to survive this long.
>
> ...
>
>> According to theories of fossilisation, original organic material is
>> not thought to survive as long as this; finding them in a fossil this
>> old is a genuine surprise. They are by far the oldest such molecules
>> extracted from fossils.
>>
>> "It has always been assumed that preservation of [dinosaur bones] does
>> not extend to the cellular and molecular level," said co-author Mary
>> Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, US.
>>
>> "The pathways of cellular decay are well known for modern organisms.
>> And extrapolations predict that all organics are going to be gone
>> completely in 100,000 years, maximum."
>>
>
> This is not the first such attempt, I recall reporting on an effort to
> extract organic material from dinosaur bones a while back. (Or maybe,
> this is the research results from that earlier effort).
>
> A couple of obvious things come to mind however. First, "the pathways
> of decay are well known for modern organisms" has an implied assumption
> that "the pathways of decay" have remained virtually the same over
> millions or billions of years -- without any real evidence of that. The
> Bible implies, at least, that the "pathways of decay" have perhaps not
> been the same even over the past few thousand years.
>
> Second, the whole theory of the earth being four billion years old is
> based on scientific research that is at least 120 years old. Nobody has
> though to go back and look at the old evidence in the light of current
> research to see what happens to the timeline then. Specifically, the 4
> billion years age is based primarily on the idea that currently
> observable processes (such as erosion or volcanic activity), primarily
> in their modern, observable forms, can account for everything we see.
> So when we measure the current rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon (ok,
> the pre-dam rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon) by the Colorado river,
> and we take that and divide the rate of erosion by its depth, we come up
> with the number of years the Grand Canyon must have taken to form.
> Similarly, if we look at current sedimentation rates where we can
> measure them in the ocean floor, we come up with a value of how long it
> takes to form the layers of rock that make up the Grand Canyon, so we
> can add those years to the number of years it took to carve the canyon,
> and we know about how old the canyon must be. The problem with this is
> that nearly any scientist today accepts that "catasrophism" is a more
> accurate scientific model. IN catastophism, you have long periods or
> relative stability in in the earth, including climate, etc, followed by
> brief periods of "catastrophe", for example, when the supposed asteroid
> hit in the Yucatan that wiped out the dinosaurs, or Krakatoa, or the
> Yellowstone major eruptions. On a more local scale, events like Mount
> St. Helens that don't necessarily have major global impacts, but
> regionally have catastrophic effect on the local ecosystem, including
> erosion rates, sedimentation rates, all sorts of fun stuff like that.
> But no scientist wants to revisit the "gospel" 4 Billion year old date
> in the light of how much we know about how erosion and volcanic activity
> REALLY take place.
>
> Finally, the third point is so obvious it is almost painful. Maybe
> organic material really doesn't survive more than 100,000 years? Maybe
> - - -- I know this is a stretch -- maybe the fossilized remains are *gasp*
> NOT MORE THAN 100,000 YEARS OLD. I know its a shocking thought, but,
> perhaps it is the assumption of the age of the fossil that is wrong, and
> not the assumption about the rate of decay. (especially when the rate
> of decay is measurable objectively, but the age of the fossil is not
> (ok, I know that's going to stir up controversy)). Occam's Razor
> dictates that the simplest solution is most likely the correct one. The
> simplest solution is that the fossil remains are less than 100,000 years
> old. But this attacks the virtual "holy grail" of evolutionary theory
> right at its core. You will never see studies or real research done on
> this, because you'd never get published in a peer review journal,
> regardless of the correctness of your claims. And in today's scientific
> environment, if you don't get published, you don't have a job, so,
> people are pretty much only going to do research, and report results,
> that they know will get published. That, of course, is a different
> topic entirely :)
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Email me for public key
>
> iD8DBQFGIVUL90Gf33Iu52URAqd1AKCelu3gbH7dr3ISzCeXgx5Jdx6yKwCgvQtv
> XWu3SnV7hS0V14O64NDoeU4=
> =mpPg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 14 18:50:02 2007