Mitochondrial Eve was 6,000 years ago (the math is simple)

How do you get new fossils today ? Is there any new fossils being created in the present, by the billions in single uniform sediment layers spanning areas covering entire continents ?
Dr. Kurt Wise have excellent presentations on the subject.

has

“Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless… We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.”

Evolutionary collateral damage again.

1 Like

Libel in fact.

Calibration that makes only small differences in the ages established. No where near large enough to push the dates up to 6,000 years ago. C-14 is only good for up to 50,000 years I believe.

And if you accept Carbon-14 then what about the other dating methods that can go back millions and billions of years? YEC like to talk about Carbon-14, which is like a 6 inch ruler, and ignore the other methods that are more like a laser range finder and cover very large date ranges.

Think about this question a bit. Fossils don’t form on dry land so no you can not see fossils being formed on the current continents. Fossils also require a long period of time to undergo the process that turns something into a fossils. We have only been aware of fossils for a few thousand years so even if something was deposited back then it still wouldn’t be a fossil yet.

1 Like

This is true.

1 Like

And are. Not is.

We’ve been through this before and I’m going to start deleting your posts when you do this because they don’t add to the discussion. Use the quote function to provide a context, and say something comprehensible, and refrain from these ridiculous word salad one-liners that nobody understands.

1 Like

Sorry Christy. I’m being lateral. You don’t get it because you aren’t the recipient. The recipient understands full well. As for the ‘discussion’…

Everyone on the thread is a recipient of every post, and we are asking you once again to keep that in mind. A discussion thread is not intended to be a chaotic collage of side conversations, it is supposed to be a group discussing a topic together. Together, we are producing reading material that someone should be able to read in succession and follow the train of discussion. If your reply is meant only for one person, use a PM.

You seem have the internet forum equivalent of Tourettes; It’s like whatever words pop into your head, as you are reading, you post. I am once again requesting that you stop this behavior. It does not contribute to the discussion, it derails it. Once in a while it is fine to respond to someone with a very brief reply to clarify or acknowledge something, but in general if all you have to add is a one sentence retort, just don’t. All that does is clutter up the threads and make it harder to follow the substantive posts that are actually moving the discussion forward.

Not a problem.

1 Like

Being someone with an (arm chair) interesting in Roman history and a childhood fascination with dinosaurs, I find this very interesting, and, if true, worth exploring. Please could you provide links to some of primary historical sources that make up these numerous accounts.

I’m also assuming here that we are not discussing dragons or any such things as that, but actually, recognisable, descriptions and depictions of identifiable dinosaurs? By that I mean I’ll be able to read these accounts and look at these depictions and recognise real dinosaur species?

1 Like

Joel Duff has a great post on this:

You should check out the stuff by Adrienne Mayor, it’s super fascinating.

3 Likes

You assume that there is no background. There is 14C background. We would expect to find trace amounts of 14C in any sample of any age, even those that are billions of years old.

There is no reason to doubt the model they are using. Radiometric dating is one of the most well understood and reliable methods there are. What you would need to demonstrate to us is how these dinosaurs found themselves in rocks that were 65+ million years old and why all radiometric dating methods are wrong. Until then, the solid conclusion is that the features seen in these bones can survive for 65 million years.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.