According to my reading of Wikipedia, mineralization is when an organism lays down minerals in its living body, e.g. building a shell. Permineralization is the replacement of tissues with minerals during fossilization. The interesting thing with those dino fossils is that they showed little permineralization, but were still fossils.
The YEC seized on this, transmogrified it to them being unfossilised, and said ergo the world is young. But it takes more than one finding like this to overturn the wealth of evidence for great age!
I am following this thread with interest, having been on a journey with some similarity to ThinAirDesign's. I started out looking for why the scientists got it wrong, and couldn't find it, with this site being a big help to find reality. Like he and others here have found, I find for most YEC the Bible trumps everything, blow the evidence.
I mentioned this in the Bully thread but this is probably a better place to bring it up. On March 21 I will be attending the second of two sermons on the Flood at my wife's SDA church, after which the speaker said he would take questions. I don't know how many of my dozens I will be able to raise, so I am interested in other folk's ideas on the best ones to start with.
I thought to start by asking how the Flood could sort fossils of all sizes including microscopic ones, pollens, different sediments, and chemicals especially specific isotopes in such a way that it allows all the standard long age deductions to be made because you see the same ones associated together and in the same geologic order.This could touch on carbon dating and ice ages which are sure to be topics on the day.
Most of the congregation are pretty conservative, and there are several teenagers, including two recently baptised. Any suggestions for better starters?
Hi NoNukes Thanks for your concern. My views are well known to the members, who remain my friends. My wife is a believer and I attend for her sake and for the fellowship. She doesn't go every week. I "came out" a few years a go, and resigned my membership at a business meeting held to discipline another member with similar views.
I guess a good outcome would be getting people to start to think about what they are told.
Hi Taq, This is a good one for me to consider because this dating concordance was mentioned in an early article in Origins, which is the journal published by the SDA Geoscience Research Institute. GRI was set up by the church to study creation issues, and after 50 years they still can not explain what is observed in a YEC/Flood paradigm. In their early days they were more upfront with mentioning problems with YEC, but the church hierarchy is now more strongly conservative.
To the others who have responded, thank you and I will thoughtfully consider your suggestions.
A church member can be placed under censure or disfellowshipped for reasons that could include promoting ideas contrary to church teaching.
"Bob" I'll call him, wanted to transfer his membership to a different SDA church he was attending, and the approval for this was being held up while church members were trying to get him to state he believed in YEC. When he would not the meeting was called to censure him.
The idea of this is the member is supposed to be worked with so he can change his ways. While under censure you can not hold church office, or transfer your membership.
Bob wasn't going to change his views, so the next thing would have been a meeting to disfellowship him. He short-circuited that by resigning his membership.
He then applied to be accepted at the other church on profession of faith. The local church decides who they will have as a member, so he was accepted by a majority vote of its members. However some were sufficiently unhappy with that to leave and go to another SDA church.
There is a range of degree of conservatism among SDA congregations. In some Bob's transfer would have gone ahead without a murmur.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put in the blank lines.
Hi kbertsche, I am familiar with Wonderley's excellent writings. They are a mine of good information. It is interesting reading more on this subject and learning more geology along the way. I know the main reaction I am likely to get next week is "I will still believe the Bible" but I hope to be able to talk with the speaker -who is not the regular pastor,- and get his reactions to the various problems with the Flood.
Hi ThinAirDesigns I have found something which should be good for your and my purposes. It is an article in GRI's Origins http://www.grisda/origins/04076.htm In it the writer looks at sea and land cores and how O isotopes, foraminifera species, CaCO3, and sizes of micro-organisms vary in step in the different cores in a way reflecting temperature changes. He brings in how RMD appears consistent with long ages and how it is all a challenge for YEC, requiring work to explain.
He brings in how some tektites have short age in Australia and ones that seem to be from the same event have long age in the sea, and hopes to find a way to collapse all the long ages, but seems to realise it is a tall order. (It is now taken that the Australian tektites were reworked into younger sediments) It was written in 1977 so does not go into ice cores, but I think that time is before Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, accelerated nuclear decay, and one recent ice age were invented.
With it being a church sponsored publication, people may be more ready to hear what it is saying than they would be with some other literature.
Since my speaker tomorrow is almost certain to claim one Post-Flood Ice Age, I plan to focus on the evidence for and against that, especially using the GRI article. This will also bring in radiometric dating. As I read more about this, I find it mind-boggling the amount of research that is done on land, sea, and ice cores.
Another set of data that relates to ice ages and long ages for life is that of the Huon peninsula in Papua-New guinea. The peninsula is slowly being raised by plate tectonics. Coral grows until the sea level drops in an ice age. The land continues to rise so with the next warming a new reef is formed below the previous one which is now stranded above sea level. There are at least nine reef terraces spanning 95,000 years, with RMD reflecting Milankovitch cycles.
Fairly typical outcome I guess. Ecological zonation and ability to flee the Flood accounts for the fossil record; most fossils rapidly buried; sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian with no Pre-Cambrian fossils; C14 in coal and diamonds; soft tissues in dino bones;one recent Ice Age; Neanderthal fossils post Flood(!); low sea levels and vegetation rafts allowed post-Flood dispersal.
I spoke to him privately afterwards. I mentioned how ice cores and deep sea and land cores show similar climate variations, how C14 is calibrated by dendrochronology and Lake Suigetsu, and sea-mount chains verify RMD. However it is all a matter of interpretation, and soft tissue in dino bones, and the fact that only post-Flood conditions can cause ice ages show it is all recent.
He has said he will look up sea-mounts and Suigetsu.
I only had 10-15 mins with the speaker(C) so could only cover a fraction of what I would have liked to, so can just reproduce his bald assertions. He was not announced as affiliated with any YEC organisation - he just seems to have done his own reading. He indicated he may be back later so I may be able to engage with him again.
The post-Flood ice age is caused by the massive volcanism of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics heating the ocean so there is more evaporation, all the volcanic ash blanketing the sun, ergo more snow and an ice age! I guess Noah had special cool weather grapes for his vineyard!
"C" did mention an interesting deposit of whale fossils at Cerro Blanco. There are hundreds of fossils many articulated and some still with attached baleen, which apparently separates quite quickly after death. He implied that it indicated they were all buried quickly by the Flood. What I can glean from my reading only relatively few have intact baleen, they are mainly buried by a diatomaceous deposit which does not seem like a Flood deposit to me. However the reports' authors comment that the diatom development is unusually rapid.
Someone more knowledgeable on these matters than I am may be interested in checking it out and commenting.