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

First, the person who discovered the preserved tissue in T. rex bone is a
committed Christian. What needs to be emphasized about this discovery is
that special conditions can produce unexpected results--in this case,
apparently quick burial that prevented bacterial action. The first tip
off was that stuff in the marrow canal was springy. Now they have
examined collagen.

Second, the earth is over 2x10^9 years old. This can be shown from the
Oklo natural reactor. There were two articles in /Scientific American/
(June 1976; November 2005) that spell out the special conditions,
including the percentage of U235 necessary to produce fission. The amount
available can be calculated from the half-lives. Also required are a
large enough deposit (it washed down from the highlands), and a moderator
(water). This last of course boils off very quickly when the reactor
heats up, so the activity has to be intermittent over some time. Also, I
found a lot of additional material when I googled "Oklo."

There are, I believe, only two possible explanations for the reactors at
Oklo in Gabon. They are reactors because they give evidence of heat and
the byproducts of fission were found. Either they occurred in the remote
past, or they are the product of a miracle designed to mislead. The
source of such a miracle is either God or Satan, who is powerful enough
to undo what God created. No such miracle fits my theology.

I went along with the young earth notion until I read the journal
articles on radioactive dating and discovered that they could be off no
more than a factor or 2 or 3, not double that in orders of magnitude. The
attempt to get around this in RATE necessarily cooks the earth at the
time of the flood.
Dave

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:26:19 +0900 IW <iain@secure.holuwon.com> writes:
> -----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 23:48:39 2007