Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,216 Year: 5,473/9,624 Month: 498/323 Week: 138/204 Day: 8/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
nator
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 138 (194639)
03-26-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by simple
03-25-2005 1:32 PM


Re: fresh blood
Including lots of evidence that decay rates haven't changed.
quote:
I don't think they have. I think the physical process of decay itself was not the same process at all before the fall. It was recorded to have been one of regeneration, leading to eternal life, rather than decay and death. As I see it, there is only a several thousand year window of time, when the physical only decay process exists at all. Before death entered the world, and after the new heavens are revealed, the present processes are non existant. But now, sure they exist, and are constant. Of course this aspect needs the evidence of the bible, which is not accepted at the moment as we know by science. But neither do I accept unprovable assertions of belief that there was no spiritual effect that resulted in a different process altogether! So not much on that point to debate about.
At least the 'bleeding dino' ought to echo a warning that something is rotten in Denmark, with the old age philosopies!
Simple, you do understand that when we talk about "decay rates" in geology, we are talking about radioactive decay, not biological decay, like rotting, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by simple, posted 03-25-2005 1:32 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 1:13 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 138 (194706)
03-26-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by simple
03-26-2005 1:13 PM


Re: splitting the difference
OK, why don't you give a brief explanation of what "radioactive decay" is, because nothing in your reply makes any sense at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 1:13 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 6:10 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 138 (194783)
03-27-2005 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
03-26-2005 6:10 PM


Re: splitting the difference
OK, so please, in your own words, explain how radioactive decay is different from biological decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 6:10 PM simple has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024