Proof of God?

[Questatement]

Where did I place a range for C-14 beyond 60,000 years?

Also, I addressed other elements used for dating including K40/Ar40, among others. Please point out my 'nonsense' without resorting to nonsense yourself... thanks.

[Dave In Canada]

Q,

What are the sources for your research?

Secondly, are you able to name any legitimate biologists, geologists & anthropologists that agree with your fundamental creationist views?

The problem with creatonist science is that they start with a conclusion and work backwards. They have no interest in seeking the truth, or following science where it leads them.

Instead of following science where it leads them they just continue to twist science and the facts to meet their agenda.

[Questatement]

Yes, and welcome to the world of origins-related science.

Now, which do you prefer... naturalism which begins with the assumption that there are no gods/supernatural or creationism which assumes a God (usually of the Protestant bible) and the supernatural?

Or, show me origins-related science with no a priori, philosophical assumption.

[Angry Citizen]

LIke you, I tend to rely on the experts. However, to be fair... this is from an evolutionist source.

Dinosaur-Bird Link: Ancient Proteins Preserved In Soft Tissue From 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur



My favorite part is how the accepted range for soft tissue to exist went from 10k-100k years, up to 80 million+ with these discoveries and how pourous sandstone is now the magic, sealed barrier by which it is possible.

Can you say "assumptions over reality" ten times fast lol.

So two reports is suddenly 'many'? Can you say 'exaggeration of claims' ten times fast internet lexicon for laughter.

[Angry Citizen]

Now, which do you prefer... naturalism which begins with the assumption that there are no gods/supernatural or creationism which assumes a God (usually of the Protestant bible) and the supernatural?

Which do you prefer: naturalism that logically operates from the basis of 'evidence or bust', or nitroism that assumes all atoms are really nitrogen atoms being sneaky?

[Dave In Canada]

Let's start by you naming legitimate biologists, gelogists, and anthropologists who share your views that the earth is 10,000yrs old or less?

[Questatement]

So two reports is suddenly 'many'? Can you say 'exaggeration of claims' ten times fast internet lexicon for laughter.

I offered five such cases, initially providing two, in the event that such evidence even mattered to you... I see it does not.

[Questatement]

Let's start by you naming legitimate biologists, gelogists, and anthropologists who share your views that the earth is 10,000yrs old or less?

Whose definition of legit?

What if I were to say all naturalists were illegitimate? Not exactly fair now is it?

How about we define legit as level and area of education, credentials, whether or not one is working in related fields, number of years in those fields, etc?

[minorwork]

You rely on these fossils to protect you from an otherwise angry God and you don't even know about this issue?

Google it yourself and get back to me, eh?

The central personality in your referenced links on soft tissue in T rex bones, is Mary Higby Schweitzer. She does not seem to agree with your and other's efforts to prove religious beliefs thru empirical evidence. I agree. In your zeal, you have not thought out the negative results of scientific proof of the supernatural.

From the Discover article: Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery | Dinosaurs | DISCOVER Magazine

While scientists struggled to make sense of the bones, another community had no doubt about how to interpret the results. The reports were quickly embraced by biblical literalists who believe God created life on Earth less than 10,000 years ago. For decades they have been working to place a scientific patina on their ideas. The Institute for Creation Research runs a graduate school near San Diego with 11 instructors who hold doctorates in biochemistry, geology, and other sciences. Conferences offer papers on topics like the physics of the Genesis flood. "Any time there's empirical evidence, that's gold for them," says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. "My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."

[Dave In Canada]

Whose definition of legit?

What if I were to say all naturalists were illegitimate? Not exactly fair now is it?

How about we define legit as level and area of education, credentials, whether or not one is working in related fields, number of years in those fields, etc?

How about those who have a PhD in either Biology, Anthropology or Geology who has passed a peer review & published a paper stating where the results showed that the earth is only 10,000 yrs old or less?

I am not interested in any further rhetoric, a list of names is sufficient enough.

[grandpa]

The central personality in your referenced links on soft tissue
in T rex bones, is Mary Higby Schweitzer.
She does not seem to agree with your and other's
efforts to prove religious beliefs thru empirical evidence.

She has been explicit about that, but her reasoning is rather quaint: "He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

Grandpa h.

[Questatement]

The central personality in your referenced links on soft tissue in T rex bones, is Mary Higby Schweitzer. She does not seem to agree with your and other's efforts to prove religious beliefs thru empirical evidence. I agree. In your zeal, you have not thought out the negative results of scientific proof of the supernatural.

Soft-tissue in 80 million year old fossils is not proof of the supernatural. It is one of many areas which refute the dogma of uniformitarianism... no more an "attack" which "wounds" then any other scientific discussion. I think it's a shame that Ms. Schweitzer takes the differing interpretations of her findings so personally offensive.