Detaching evolution from time

[CrowCross]

Yes, 65 million years is a long time, but the misunderstandings that creationists have over biomaterail doesn't make it a closed case for science.
What creationists consider supernatural, scientists working in paleontological research consider biomaterial, aka body fossils, fascinating. It’s a growing field of study, with as you point out, many questions that remain unresolved. Its discovery opened up new avenues for research into how soft tissues might be preserved over very long time periods. The presence of biomaterial doesn’t contradict the fossil’s great age but rather provides valuable insights into dinosaur biology.

The beliefs creationists have over biomaterail doesn't make it a closed case for science. For example, see: Biomaterial Research - an overview

Biomaterials research and science is rapidly evolving with the aim of providing solutions to vexing medical problems. Emerging technologies including nanotechnology, stem cell research, and tissue engineering...​

Hey, you can take that route..go ahead...but the biomaterial strongly suggest it hasn't been laying around for over 65+ MY's but deposited not to long ago. Now, where have we read about the dinosaurs being put into a situation for being fossilized? the bible...the world wide flood.
But, you simply dismiss it.

The following comes from the following CRS article...
However, the presence of intact tissue presents a significant challenge to the assigned date of these fossils. Can tissue (aggregates of interconnected cells) retain its natural, flexible characteristics in so-called ancient fossils? Can cells within this tissue retain their structural integrity and morphology? Can biomolecules (such as protein and polysaccharides) actually survive 60 million years inside a fossilized and buried bone? What is the natural process that enables such preservation? The answer to these questions directly challenges the current, evolutionary biased, standard timescale.

 

[Frank Robert]

Hey, you can take that route..go ahead...but the biomaterial strongly suggest it hasn't been laying.

I would say it overwhelmingly suggest a young earth to creationists who need something to reinforce their belief in a young earth. Paleontologists use the scientific method, not belief to study biomaterial.

Now, where have we read about the dinosaurs being put into a situation for being fossilized? the bible...the world wide flood.
But, you simply dismiss it.

There is nothing in the Bible requiring Christians to disregard the science of the age of the earth and believe in a young earth or a world flood.

Some Christians believe the flood was global, others believe it's a narrative to show God can create and uncreate. His willingness to do so is out of a concern for righteousness and justice

The following comes from the following CRS article...
However, the presence of intact tissue presents a significant challenge to the assigned date of these fossils.

Challenges are the essence of science while belief is the essence of religion.

Can tissue (aggregates of interconnected cells) retain its natural, flexible characteristics in so-called ancient fossils? Can cells within this tissue retain their structural integrity and morphology? Can biomolecules (such as protein and polysaccharides) actually survive 60 million years inside a fossilized and buried bone? What is the natural process that enables such preservation? The answer to these questions directly challenges the current, evolutionary biased, standard timescale.

Science knows that in rare instances dinosaur fossils are millions of years old and that soft tissue can exist in fossils for longer than 4 million years, though scientists are divided on what leads to its preservation.

Not knowing mechanisms of preservation does not offer proof of a young earth. What would be needed to prove a young earth?

To "prove" a young Earth, you would need to find substantial evidence that contradicts the current scientific consensus on Earth's age potentially including: a lack of radiometric dating data supporting ancient ages in rocks, a significantly different geological record with rapid formation of features like canyons and mountains, and a lack of fossil evidence consistent with deep time; however, the overwhelming scientific consensus based on multiple lines of evidence strongly supports an ancient Earth, making such a claim extremely difficult to substantiate. Source...​

 

[CrowCross]

I would say it overwhelmingly suggest a young earth to creationists who need something to reinforce their belief in a young earth. Paleontologists use the scientific method, not belief to study biomaterial.

LOL....and creationist don't use the scientific method? Surely you jest and insult me.

There is nothing in the Bible requiring Christians to disregard the science of the age of the earth and believe in a young earth or a world flood.

Other than the bible presents those events as literal. But, if you need them to be 'make believe" go for it.

Some Christians believe the flood was global, others believe it's a narrative to show God can create and uncreate. His willingness to do so is out of a concern for righteousness and justice

Some "christians" believe it didn't happen or was local so they can force fit evolutionism and OE into the bible.

Challenges are the essence of science while belief is the essence of religion.

OE and evolutionism is a belief....a form of religion. You do understand that?

Science knows that in rare instances dinosaur fossils are millions of years old and that soft tissue can exist in fossils for longer than 4 million years, though scientists are divided on what leads to its preservation.

There's a long way between 4 BY and 65+ BY's.....I fail to see your point on preservation.
I'm kinda waiting for you to present one of those preservation processes. Right now all I hear is claims...and to be honest your claims don't convince me or anyone.

Not knowing mechanisms of preservation does not offer proof of a young earth. What would be needed to prove a young earth?

To "prove" a young Earth, you would need to find substantial evidence that contradicts the current scientific consensus on Earth's age potentially​

And there has been substantial evidence...data points. Science. I'll quickly address some of them in answering your next comment below.

including: a lack of radiometric dating data supporting ancient ages in rocks,​

I've already talked about parent and daughter decays schemes and pointed out some of the problems...that you never addressed.

a significantly different geological record with rapid formation of features like canyons and mountains,​

You wanna go there again? You didn't fare to well last time. It has been shown that that the Grand Canyon could not have been carved out by the "underfoot" Colorado River...A rapid removal of sediment by a breached dam releasing the contents of the Grand and Hopi lakes is a much, much better scenario.
Concerning mountains...I've already pointed out the recumbent folds. Remember? Those folds seen in the mountains especially when driving through road cutouts show the strata must have been some what plastic during their formation. You may ask why??? Hard strata would snap crackle and pop if bent....that means the rock was soft as in recently deposited by the flood and folded quickly which indicates rapid mountain formation.

What makes me laugh is you keep on claiming there is no science behind young earth/creation science. Then again if that's what you need to do, go for it.

and a lack of fossil evidence consistent with deep time;​

Not quite sure what you mean but the sudden appearance of fossils seen in the Precambrian rock with no ancestral linage present seem to be a bit contradictive of descent with modification.

however, the overwhelming scientific consensus based on multiple lines of evidence strongly supports an ancient Earth, making such a claim extremely difficult to substantiate. Source...​

You need to get away from WIKI. I could easily post a list of around 100 evidences that support a young earth.

One last point....it's seems funny to me a bunch of christians can believe a man can rise from the dead on day 3 after suffering the death of a cross....yet deny the creation that He made because according to you "mans" science says no to Genesis...yet at the same time "mans" science says when you die...you stay dead and don't rise on day 3 yet can believe that. They pretty much turn the bible into a pick and choose miracle book. So sad.

 

[Frank Robert]

LOL....and creationist don't use the scientific method? Surely you jest and insult me.

If they used the scientific method do study dino bones they would know that the bones on millions of years old.

If you creationists science claims dino bones are only 6,000 years old they need to produce the scientific evidence not just belief.

Other than the bible presents those events as literal. But, if you need them to be 'make believe" go for it.

You are making a claim without evidence that reputes the scientific consensus. If you have scientific evidence that the bones are 6000 years old please share it with us.

Some "christians" believe it didn't happen or was local so they can force fit evolutionism and OE into the bible.

Those "some Christians" have evidence supporting evolution across multiple scientific disciplines, validating the theory

The scientific method:

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

OE and evolutionism is a belief....a form of religion. You do understand that?

OE is based on a religious belief. Evolution is based on scientific evidence.

There's a long way between 4 BY and 65+ BY's.....I fail to see your point on preservation.
I'm kinda waiting for you to present one of those preservation processes. Right now all I hear is claims...and to be honest your claims don't convince me or anyone.

And there has been substantial evidence...data points. Science. I'll quickly address some of them in answering your next comment below.

I've already talked about parent and daughter decays schemes and pointed out some of the problems...that you never addressed.

You wanna go there again? You didn't fare to well last time. It has been shown that that the Grand Canyon could not have been carved out by the "underfoot" Colorado River...A rapid removal of sediment by a breached dam releasing the contents of the Grand and Hopi lakes is a much, much better scenario.
Concerning mountains...I've already pointed out the recumbent folds. Remember? Those folds seen in the mountains especially when driving through road cutouts show the strata must have been some what plastic during their formation. You may ask why??? Hard strata would snap crackle and pop if bent....that means the rock was soft as in recently deposited by the flood and folded quickly which indicates rapid mountain formation.

Radiocarbon dating and the fossilization process can be consistent with dinosaur bones being millions of years old.

What makes me laugh is you keep on claiming there is no science behind young earth/creation science.

Your claim that there is scientific for a young earth is easily discarded and without difficulty or much effort as there are no widely accepted scientific studies that support young earth creationism. Compare that to the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that the earth is billions of years old, directly contradicting the central tenet of young earth creationism which posits a young earth based on biblical interpretations.

Most studies that attempt to support young earth creationist ideas are considered pseudoscientific due to their lack of methodology and inconsistency with established scientific evidence.

You need to get away from WIKI. I could easily post a list of around 100 evidences that support a young earth.

Perhaps there are 100 evidences but are they scientific? To be credible you will need to list the scientific evidence of a young earth or at least provide a reference so we can check their relevance.

One last point....it's seems funny to me a bunch of christians can believe a man can rise from the dead on day 3 after suffering the death of a cross....yet deny the creation that He made because according to you "mans" science says no to Genesis...yet at the same time "mans" science says when you die...you stay dead and don't rise on day 3 yet can believe that. They pretty much turn the bible into a pick and choose miracle book. So sad.

You are confusing Christian faith in Christ with a literal belief in Genesis. According to a Gallup poll, 58% of Christians believe the Bible is the word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally.

 

[CrowCross]

If they used the scientific method do study dino bones they would know that the bones on millions of years old.

If you creationists science claims dino bones are only 6,000 years old they need to produce the scientific evidence not just belief.

You are making a claim without evidence that reputes the scientific consensus. If you have scientific evidence that the bones are 6000 years old please share it with us.

Face-palm...they have....the evidence is still soft biomaterial. When will you address that issue?

Those "some Christians" have evidence supporting evolution across multiple scientific disciplines, validating the theory

The scientific method:

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

OK?????

OE is based on a religious belief. Evolution is based on scientific evidence.

No, evolutionism is based upon wild speculation, assumptions and plaster of paris.

Radiocarbon dating and the fossilization process can be consistent with dinosaur bones being millions of years old.

How's that?

Your claim that there is scientific for a young earth is easily discarded and without difficulty or much effort as there are no widely accepted scientific studies that support young earth creationism. Compare that to the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that the earth is billions of years old, directly contradicting the central tenet of young earth creationism which posits a young earth based on biblical interpretations.

More word salad? All I've seen from you is "quotes" and NO SCIENCE.

Most studies that attempt to support young earth creationist ideas are considered pseudoscientific due to their lack of methodology and inconsistency with established scientific evidence.

Perhaps there are 100 evidences but are they scientific? To be credible you will need to list the scientific evidence of a young earth or at least provide a reference so we can check their relevance.

LOL....If I presented you with a list and references you would only post "scientist disagree with your list"...then move on. All the while never refuting the list with actual science.

You are confusing Christian faith in Christ with a literal belief in Genesis. According to a Gallup poll, 58% of Christians believe the Bible is the word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally.

Are you still claiming to be a christian?

 

[Frank Robert]

There is nothing in the Bible requiring Christians to disregard the science of the age of the earth and believe in a young earth or a world flood. howverr, there difficulty lines in

Here you make the same incongruent argument. Certainly YE Christians can disregard the science of the age of the earth and believe In a youny h8