3.27.2005

Bloody T-Rex bones found!!!!

Talk about sensational!!! At a recent secular dig, scientists found a huge T-Rex fossil. Upon lifting a thigh bone by helicopter, the bone broke. This is what they found inside: This is incredible! Soft, bloody tissue in a supposedly 70,000,000 year old bone! Researchers were amazed! "We need to re-think the way that cells decay!" Sure. Don't question the assumption that the bone was 70,000,000 years old. Question the FACT that blood doesn't stick around for millions of years! It makes me question whether the bone really was 70 million years old. Hmmmm. There's a problem with the emperor's clothes. To read the rest of the story, click here.. In Him,

59 comments:

Kendra said...

Nastyness!!! Looks like raw steak.

David S. MacMillan III said...

How long, in your opinion, does raw steak look like that?

Definitely not millions of years.

Derrick said...

You said we should "Question the FACT that blood doesn't stick around for millions of years," but you also said it wasn't millions of years old. Why then, if it's not millions of years old, should we question that "fact?" Shouldn't we wait a few million years before making accusations as to other people's "facts?"

David S. MacMillan III said...

"You said we should "Question the FACT that blood doesn't stick around for millions of years," but you also said it wasn't millions of years old. Why then, if it's not millions of years old, should we question that "fact?" Shouldn't we wait a few million years before making accusations as to other people's "facts?""

The fact is, there is no evidence that the bone is really millions of years old. Carbon-14 and other radiometric dating methods are highly inaccurate and yield many varying ages.

For instance, Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophysicist) got permission to climb Mt. St. Helens and get a soil sample. He took a piece of lava that he knew was formed just a few years before, and gave it to the "scientists" without telling them what it was. They told him that it was between 800,000 and 2.4 million years old!

The scientists who discovered this based their "70 million years" date on the Darwinian timescale that has no evidence to back it up.

"It was found in 70 million year old rock though!" they say. "We know that the rock is this old because this dinosaur lived that long ago!"

This is circular reasoning, plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

But can bloody T-rex bones last for even a few thousand years?

David S. MacMillan III said...

But can bloody T-rex bones last for even a few thousand years?

No, they can't. In blood banks, blood cells can only last a few months. The rate of decay for blood cells would say that, if fossilized, T Rex tissue could NEVER last more than 1500 years at the most.

Apparently, this T-Rex died pretty recently.

Anonymous said...

"T Rex tissue could NEVER last more than 1500 years at the most."

That "fact" assumes that the rate of decay is constant, and as far as I know, there are no studies relating to the decay of tissue in dinosaurs is constant.

derrick said...

then why should we "Question the FACT that blood doesn't stick around for millions of years," if the sample isn't millions of years old? If you believe the sample is not millions of years old, than your statement is utterly irelevent to your arguement.

David S. MacMillan III said...

The rate of tissue decay is pretty simple. If we put tissue in a semi-fossilized bone, it decays rapidly. I can't think of anything that would slow down the rate of decay besides freezing. Even if the bone was frozen for a few thousand years, scientists know that the tissue would still break down in much less than 70 million years. Besides, this bone wasn't frozen (though it may have been in the past). Stretchy soft tissue cannot last millions of years.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently, this T-Rex died pretty recently."

But according to the news story it was dug out of sandstone. Could sandstone form that quickly?

jonCV said...

"Stretchy soft tissue cannot last millions of years."

How do you know that if you say the world has not been around for millions of years? If the world is not millions of years old, we haven't had enough time to see whether or not tissue can last millions of years.

David S. MacMillan III said...

1. Yes, sandstone can form very quickly. I don't have the pictures here (they're somewhere at Answers In Genesis, but I've seen hats and batteries encased in sandstone. Almost all stone is formed quickly.

2. You're right, the world hasn't been around for a million years. But we know that soft tissue can't last more than 100 years in most circumstances, and we know it can't last more than a 1000 years tops. Therefore, it can't last a million years if it can't last 1000 years, right?

Anonymous said...

But the hats you've seen were probably not encased in sandstone. They were probably encased in a mineral that precipitated out of water. Sand cannot dissolve in water, and so it cannot precipitate.

I don't think that most rock is formed quickly. Sediment is laid down on the Mississippi delta at about one inch per year. At this rate, it would take about 400,000 years for the seven mile thick deposits to form. This process cannot be sped up because the crust under the delta has to give way in order for the delta to continue forming. And there wouldn't be enough material on the land to support faster sedimentation.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Sediment is laid down on the Mississippi delta at about one inch per year.

That is the current rate of deposit. An increase in the amount of water flowing through an area (example: Noah's Flood) would substantially increase the rate of mineral deposit. I believe most rocks were laid down during or directly after Noah's Flood in a relatively short amount of time.

Anonymous said...

But if more material were laid down, the earth's crust wouldn't have enough time to give way and make room for the extra sediment. So the material would instead form a several-mile-tall mountain.

David S. MacMillan III said...

But if more material were laid down, the earth's crust wouldn't have enough time to give way and make room for the extra sediment. So the material would instead form a several-mile-tall mountain.

This is all very well and good, except for one thing. Water doesn't lay down mile-high mountains. When the crust refuses to "give way" under the pressure of rock that is being laid down, water simply spreads out. If I pour a cup of water on the floor, it goes to the lowest energy state. Rather than piling up under my feet, the water spreads out as thin as its surface energy allows.

If that water that I'm pouring out is filled with sediment, the sediment spreads out with the water and is left in layers after the water has dried. Same principle.

That's what happened at, for instance, the Grand Canyon. When the entire earth was covered in water and the ground was being churned up by the rupturing of artesian wells, etc., the sediment spread out over the whole earth. That's why we have rock layers. Put gravel, sand, and mud in a jar full of water and shake it up. You'll get neat sedimentary layers.

When the water level went down after the Flood, massive quantities of moving water carved natural wonders like the Grand Canyon. Simple really.

Anonymous said...

I know that sediment laid down by water can't form mile-tall mountains. The point that I was trying to make was that Noah's flood couldn't have laid down the sediment that formed the rock under the Mississippi delta. Any sediment more than about the amount being laid down today would merely get washed away by the current.

That's why I think that the only explanation is that it was formed by the Mississippi River. The process simply couldn't be sped up.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Any sediment more than about the amount being laid down today would merely get washed away by the current.

What current? You forget that in the worldwide flood, everything was covered in water. Everything was, in a sense, "washed away" and redeposited under the massive quantities of water that covered the earth. Remember, Genesis tells us that the water reached about 25 feet over the tops of the highest mountains. That's a lot of water! The rain stopped falling and the water stopped churning after 40 days. Sediment settling underneath the ocean had almost a year to harden before the waters receded, which carved the Grand Canyon in the newly hardened sedimentary rock.

Anonymous said...

What current? You forget that in the worldwide flood, everything was covered in water. Everything was, in a sense, “washed away” and redeposited under the massive quantities of water that covered the earth.

But then it would be even more impossible for the flood to form the seven miles of sedimentary rock found under the Mississippi delta. The flood would just spread the sediment evenly over the earth.

Sediment settling underneath the ocean had almost a year to harden before the waters receded, which carved the Grand Canyon in the newly hardened sedimentary rock.

But the rock of the Grand Canyon couldn't form that way. The Coconino Sandstone is made of desert sand, and it is on top of the Hermit Shale. (In case you are wondering, scientists can tell desert sand from underwater sand. Desert sand is blown around by wind, and hence is smoother than underwater sand, which doesn't move fast enough for the grains to be smoothed.) So these layers couldn't be formed by settling out. If they were, the Coconino Sandstone wouldn't be there, and even if it were, it would have to be underneath the Hermit Shale.

David S. MacMillan III said...

The flood would just spread the sediment evenly over the earth.

Amazing! That's exactly what we find! There are strata rock layers all over the earth! Of course, 40 days of mixing wouldn't yield a perfectly homogeneous mixture, so that's why there is variation between the layers on different continents. In the words of Buddy Davis, an Answers In Genesis speaker:

"If there really was a worldwide flood,
what would the evidence be?
Billions of dead things,
buried in rock layers,
laid down by water,
all over the earth!"


What do we find?

Billions of dead things,
buried in rock layers,
laid down by water,
all over the earth!"


So these layers couldn't be formed by settling out.

It's not just sand. It's tons and tons of variegated sediments. True, sand underwater has ripples in it . . . if it's on top of the bottom. If it is a few layers down in a gigantic jar of sediment (remember the experiment?), it is flat 'cause no water can reach it.

If they were, the Coconino Sandstone wouldn't be there, and even if it were, it would have to be underneath the Hermit Shale.

Shale is formed from mineral-rich mud. Sandstone is formed from tons of sand totally saturated by water. Which would sink to the bottom of the sediments? Definitely the thick mud. Besides, continental uplift and earthquakes have happened since Noah's Flood. It won't all be perfect, but it will be close.

Remember that according to the idea of Creationism, almost all rock was laid down at Noah's Flood.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey guys,

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the time y'all are putting into this and I'm glad to be debating!

God Bless,

David

jonCV said...

"But we know that soft tissue can't last more than 100 years in most circumstances, and we know it can't last more than a 1000 years tops."

How the crap do we know that?

Anonymous said...

But we don't find that sediment is laid down evenly over all the earth. In some places, (such as the Mississippi delta area), the sedimentary rock is seven miles thick. That is seven times the normal one-mile-thick layer of sedimentary rock found on the continents. If you believe that Noah's Flood would have laid down an even layer of sediment all over the earth, it wouldn't have laid down the much deeper layers around the Mississippi delta.

You said that
“Billions of dead things,
buried in rock layers,
laid down by water,
all over the earth”

could be explained by a flood, but could they? If the Flood stirred the sediment up, it wouldn't form into distinct layers. It would be more of a gradual shift from larger particles to smaller ones.

Shale is formed from mineral-rich mud. Sandstone is formed from tons of sand totally saturated by water. Which would sink to the bottom of the sediments? Definitely the thick mud. Besides, continental uplift and earthquakes have happened since Noah's Flood. It won't all be perfect, but it will be close.

But if you mixed sand and mud (or clay) together in a bottle and allowed them to settle, would the sand settle on top of the mud?

Remember that according to the idea of Creationism, almost all rock was laid down at Noah's Flood.

If that's true, then you weren't defining it correctly when you described it to Ryan. You said that the main idea of Creationism was that God had to have created the universe because it could not have been “created” by purely naturalistic processes. This has nothing whatever to do with how rock was formed.

David S. MacMillan III said...

"But we know that soft tissue can't last more than 100 years in most circumstances, and we know it can't last more than a 1000 years tops."

How the ---- do we know that?


Dig up great-great-grandpa. He's been in a coffin for 150 years. There really isn't much left of him! Give him a few thousand years and he'll just be dust, if that. BTW, please don't use even semi-rotten language on my blog.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

JonCV,

If you put some bread in a hot oven and it was cooked after 30 minutes, wouldn't you assume that it would be even more cooked after 15000 days, assuming the oven temperature stayed the same? Similarly, if the tissue of an animal will rot in 100 years, won't it be even more rotten in 70,000,000 years?

David S. MacMillan III said...

In the case of mummies, there is a specific process that preserves the flesh. Parts of their tissue can last a few thousand years. No doubt partly fossilized dinosaur bone is an excellent preservator, but there is absolutely no way that any tissue would be left after 70,000,000 years! Do you know how long that is? 70 million years is at least 35,000 times as old as the oldest mummies ever!

Gabriel Bertilson said...

In a previous post, you gave an example of radiometric dating giving an extremely inaccurate age. But the example you gave only shows how dating can only be used with objects of certain ages. You can't expect all dating methods to work in every situation. Some dating methods will work with “young” rock, and some won't.

Gabriel Bertilson said...

Here's a link that explains how semi-fossilized T-rex bones could have been preserved with biomolecules still intact: Dinosaur Blood Revisited.

jonCV said...

you guys are betting on yur chips on assumptions. and like my mom says, "When you you assume you make a donkey out of u and me. That better, davey Mac?

P.S. "Crap" is not a bad word, and I don't appreciate you saying as much. The surname "Crapper" is an old Yorkshire name meaning cropper. The word crap derives from the name of Sir John Crapper, the inventor of the first flushing toilet who was knighted by Queen Victoria for his invention. Over the years, fecal matter has come to be known as crap, after the beloved Sir Crapper. gawsh, you guys, get it right! Bad words are randomly assigned by society! they mean nothing! It's the intent behind them you should be complaining about. cv out.

David S. MacMillan III said...

So what you're saying, CV, is:

"How the fecal matter do you know that?"

How does a term for human excrement add to the meaning and syntax of this sentence?

If the word doesn't have to be used, don't use it.

If you're unsure, use this little trick: Would you use the word in personal correspondence with George W. Bush (or Senator Kerry if you are a lib)?

Not that I'm a VIP, but unfortunately for "bad" language I have standards.

If there is any further language that I don't like, I will delete the comment and post it myself with the objectionable material scratched out.

Sorry, guys. Rules are rules.

David S. MacMillan III said...

In a previous post, you gave an example of radiometric dating giving an extremely inaccurate age. But the example you gave only shows how dating can only be used with objects of certain ages. You can't expect all dating methods to work in every situation. Some dating methods will work with “young” rock, and some won't.

So what you are saying is, you have to know the age of the rock in order to tell whether the date is correct or not.

Circular Reasoning!

Gabriel Bertilson said...

So what you are saying is, you have to know the age of the rock in order to tell whether the date is correct or not.

No, that's not what I said. Obviously you don't have to date something if you already know what age it is.

What I meant was that you can't date a rock that is only a few years old by an element whose half-life is many times longer.

David S. MacMillan III said...

What I meant was that you can't date a rock that is only a few years old by an element whose half-life is many times longer.

If we don't know whether a rock is just a few years old or millions of years old, how can we know whether to trust the dating method???

Example:

Rock A is of a known age.

Rock B is of an unknown age.

The dating method gives a wildly incorrect age for Rock A. It gives a certain age for Rock B. What reason do we have to trust the dating method for Rock B if it didn't work for Rock A? In order to be able to trust the age, we would need to know that Rock B was old enough to yield a correct answer . . . which would defeat the purpose of dating in the first place!

Gabriel Bertilson said...

The dating method gives a wildly incorrect age for Rock A. It gives a certain age for Rock B. What reason do we have to trust the dating method for Rock B if it didn't work for Rock A? In order to be able to trust the age, we would need to know that Rock B was old enough to yield a correct answer . . . which would defeat the purpose of dating in the first place!

Here's what one Christian geologist wrote about the story you gave (or maybe a similar one):

“Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.”

Here's the article that I took this quote from, in case you want to know a little more.

jonCV said...

what i'm saying is bad words aren't bad, its the feeling bhind them. so if yur gonna complain complain that i'm angry with my brother, not that i said a bad word, bcuz bad words don't exist.

David S. MacMillan III said...

CV:

I'll still delete your post if you post junk :-).

David S. MacMillan III said...

Gabe:

So what if the T Rex bone was only a few years old? Then the dating method wouldn't have been reliable, right?

Gabriel Bertilson said...

So what if the T Rex bone was only a few years old? Then the dating method wouldn't have been reliable, right?

But there isn't only one dating method; there are many. If they all agree, either God is a deceiver or they're correct.

David S. MacMillan III said...

But there isn't only one dating method; there are many. If they all agree, either God is a deceiver or they're correct.

According to Dr. Terry Mortenson, an AiG scientist who I spoke with recently, dating methods almost never agree. What he told us (and gave examples of that I can't post in a comment due to length) is that whenever they date a rock, they do several trials with several methods. Then, the one result that they "like" is reported as a dating result. Rarely do they get the "right" answer the first time; that's why they run multiple trials to attain the age that they already think the rock should be.

By the way, I read the RTB article on the "Squishosaurus". I didn't have the space or the qualifications to reply in full, but Carl Wieland (another AiG scientist) did. Here is his article. It's kinda long (16 pages) but it's an easy read and shouldn't take long. He thoroughly smashed the RTB article.

Gabriel Bertilson said...

Another thing about the T-rex bone: It couldn't be a few years old. The Hell Creek Formation (where it was found), was discovered (if I am not mistaken) in 1902.

So if it was fossilized more recently than 70 million years ago, it would have to have been fossilized at least a century ago.

According to Dr. Terry Mortenson, an AiG scientist who I spoke with recently, dating methods almost never agree.

I don't know enough about radiometric dating to know whether what you say about it is true or not. But I know that there are many rock-forming processes that would take a lot more time than 6000 years to form the rocks there are, and on that I base my belief in an old earth.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Of course it was fossilized before 1902! This is old, old, bone! I'd say that it is about 40 centuries old!

Since we think that most fossils were formed in Noah's Flood, this bone (and just about everything else) is probably about 4,000 years old. I believe that this is less than the half-life of most substances used in dating rocks. So, rocks can yield any "age"; but rarely are radioactive decay dating methods reliable. I think you mentioned "parentless argon", argon that was in the rock when it was formed and therefore messes up the date. Since it's virtually impossible to distinguish parentless argon from parent-ed argon, this makes most, if not all potassium-argon dates unreliable.

I think that Carbon-14 dating is usually reliable up to about 1,000 years because we have a basic idea of atmospheric Carbon-12 levels through archeological comparisons. Anything much over that is too sketchy to trust.

David S. MacMillan III said...

But I know that there are many rock-forming processes that would take a lot more time than 6000 years to form the rocks there are, and on that I base my belief in an old earth.

So you would deny Genesis based on the fallible interpretation of certain evidences?

I know, I'm being hard on you, but that's really what it comes down to.

Also, just because we see a certain rate of rock formation today doesn't mean that this rate was always constant. During the Flood (here we are back at the flood again), tons and tons of sediments and mud were mixed that formed some pretty mineral-rich stuff. I'm sure that, given the right conditions, rock can form MUCH quicker without much trouble.

Gabriel Bertilson said...

So you would deny Genesis based on the fallible interpretation of certain evidences?

Not necessarily. All I'm saying is that my fallible interpretation of nature says that the earth is old, not that I know for sure that my interpretation is true. I'll never really know how old the earth is until I can ask God in heaven.

Also, just because we see a certain rate of rock formation today doesn't mean that this rate was always constant. During the Flood (here we are back at the flood again), tons and tons of sediments and mud were mixed that formed some pretty mineral-rich stuff.

But there are some rocks (such as rocks formed from coral) whose growth would be slowed down by the Flood. The only way to account for the thousands-of-feet-deep deposits of coral is to say that the earth is old.

jonCV said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David S. MacMillan III said...

See what I mean, CV! (Private Joke)

David S. MacMillan III said...

The only way to account for the thousands-of-feet-deep deposits of coral is to say that the earth is old.

Coral? No problem. If that's the only difficulty, let me do a quick search at Answers In Genesis. . . .

Aha! I knew that they would have an article on coral growth rates.

It's a pretty short article from an old Creation magazine. Quick read.

For proof that, given the right conditions, coral can grow very quickly, click here.

I assure you that this picture is not a hoax. I personally know several people at AiG (Answers In Genesis), and they would never fake a thing like this. They even released a couple of books detailing what evidences YECs shouldn't use (hoaxes, misinterpretations, etc.).

Gabriel Bertilson said...

OK, I guess coral can grow pretty quickly, given the right conditions. But the question is whether the right conditions would be present in all the places where coral is thousands of feet deep.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Exactly! One of the things that increases growth rate is separation from ultraviolet light and from heavy swell/tide/wave action. This is exactly what happens deep in the ocean, which increases the base rate of growth. The growth rate that we normally measure is that at the surface, where ultraviolet light and waves chew away at the coral growth.

Gabriel Bertilson said...

I didn't mean deep in the ocean; I meant depth of coral deposits. I'm sorry for being a little vague.

Anyway, exactly how deep in the ocean are you talking about? Corals require certain kinds of algae in order to grow, and one of those kinds of algae requires more sunlight than would exist at more than 300 feet of depth. Because of this, the reef would only be able to grow as long as the water was neither too deep nor too shallow, and the reef's growth would be controlled by how fast the earth's crust gave way.

So could earth's crust give way at a little more than two-thirds of a foot per year to allow the Eniwetok reef, which is about 4,600 feet thick, to form in 6,000 years?

jonCV said...

"See what I mean, CV! (Private Joke) "


yep, absolute supression. I accept your challenge. We Shall Duel!

David S. MacMillan III said...

So could earth's crust give way at a little more than two-thirds of a foot per year to allow the Eniwetok reef, which is about 4,600 feet thick, to form in 6,000 years?

I'm no coral reef expert; I'm just repeating what I heard from AiG. Anything else (like what I'm about to say) is mostly speculative.

In the case of Eniwetok, I would say that probably it is sitting on top of an extinct volcano that once gave tons of heat deep under the ocean. The heat provided allowed the algae to grow without the weakening effect of ultraviolet light. The result? Rapid growth of the coral.

Or perhaps the algae grew at the surface where there was light, and the dead particles of algae drifted down to the coral deep beneath the sea. I don't really know.

The inherent problem with any dating method is this: We've only scientifically recorded 150-200 years of earth's history. What the conditions were for the 6,000 (or 6 billion) years before that is anybody's guess. That is what makes dating methods so easy to turn around! All you have to do is to talk about a possible variation in the conditions that could move the date in your favor.

Any other proofs of an old, old, earth?

Gabriel Bertilson said...

Well, I didn't know too much about this myself before I started debating you. Here's a link that explains why algae are needed for a reef to form. There are several kinds of coral that grow deep in the ocean, but they are not the kind that build reefs.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Nice link!

I don't know the exact information about this subject, but according to AiG the earth's crust can drop rapidly.

There are so many variables in the growth rate of coral that I don't think it's wise to base an entire old-earth ideology off of it alone.

Gabriel Bertilson said...

Well, how about the Green River formation?

Here is an AiG article that gives a possible young earth explanation for it, but here is an article that tells why that explanation doesn't work.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey man, I'm going to be pretty busy this summer, so I don't know if I can research it all. But I do know this: I believe the Bible first and man's fallible interpretation of the evidence second.

Anonymous said...

You don't seem to be making a distinction between your interpretation of the Bible and the Bible itself. If your interpretation of the Bible is correct, why can't my interpretation of nature be correct the same way?

- Gabriel (The "Other" identity doesn't work.)

GabrielB said...

I don't accept AiG's fallible interpretation of the evidence just as you don't accept evolutionists' and OECs' fallible interpretations of the evidence.

David S. MacMillan III said...

You don't seem to be making a distinction between your interpretation of the Bible and the Bible itself.

Of course not! You don't have to have a seminary degree to interpret the Bible. I simply take the Bible the way the author seemed to intend it from the context, and I use the rest of the Bible as a guide. I never let "science" influence my interpretation of the Bible like Hugh Ross does.

If your interpretation of the Bible is correct, why can't my interpretation of nature be correct the same way?

The Bible is the Special Revelation of God. It means exactly what it says, no less and no more.

Nature is general revelation; it is open to many different interpretations. You've probably heard my Grand Canyon analogy on this account.

We must use the Bible to interpret nature, not the other way around.

DragonFly said...

David: Nice defense of your position. Keep up the good work!

~EA