What's the creationists thought on this?

quote:

---

You can't use Carbon dating to date in the thousands. Creationists claim the age of the Dino's due to the Genesis account of Creation. If you follow the geneologies and the literal six day creation it says Dino's are only 6000 years old. The word dino is "new" and wasn't used in Bible days. The beasts of the field were the dinos. And the average size of Dino's is about that of a sheep which isnt all that crazy to think man lived at the same time as them.

---

Welcome to EvC.I don't hang out on the science side and haven't really gotten into carbon dating, etc. Could you (and only you) explain the carbon dating process and why it can't be used to date something that could be over a thousand years old?I agree that the Genesis 1 account of creation referred to six 24-hour days, but I have a problem with the size of the dinos. I assume you mean dinosaurs. I agree the word dinosaur didn't come about until the 1800's.Given the size of dinosaur bones found, what makes you say the average size is about that of a sheep? That's still a rather large lizard.So if we didn't have the Genesis 1 account how would one figure out how old the dinosaur bones were?

quote:

---

Im sorry prurpledawn, I meant Millions....NOT thousands.

​

Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.

---

Common Sense would say no, soft tissue can't last millions of years unless the tissue was mummified and/or fossilized.Where have they unearthed dinosaurs with soft tissue?You aren't helping me understand the weakness you claim in carbon dating. So could you (and only you) explain the carbon dating process and why it can't be used to date something that could be over a million years old? At what timeframe does it stop being accurate?Given the size of dinosaur bones found, what makes you say the average size is about that of a sheep? That's still a rather large lizard.So if we didn't have the Genesis 1 account how would one figure out how old the dinosaur bones were?Edited by purpledawn, : Double sentences.

Since I'm also a moderator, I'm going to give you a few words of wisdom.
1. Always provide a link to articles you pull from the internet. Don't tell people to go look for themselves. This is a debate board. You provide support for your statements.
2. It is better to provide a quote from the article and not post large portions of the article.
3. When you pull a quote from another post on this board, provide a link. Use the Practice Makes Perfect forum to practice links and quote boxes. Using a quote box separates your words from the article's and other members.That said, thank you for the information.Per the articles, the tissue found was preserved in some fashion. As I understand this article NC State Paleontologist Discovers Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Bones the common theory was that dissolving the minerals from fossilized bone would leave us with nothing.It looks like Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team tried it to see what happened and they found preserved soft tissue.

quote:

---

-This proves that Dino's are not "millions" of years old no matter what spin they want to put on it. Oh, and there wasn't a lot of fan fare about it as you can guess as to why...nor is it even talked about. Hmmmmmmm

---

They still stated that the T Rex was millions of years old. The articles don't prove that dinosaurs are not millions of years old. From what I've read it only shows that they discovered a way to get more info out of the fossils.You still haven't explained why the dating process used to determine the age of the dinosaur bones is not accurate beyond a certain amount of time.Again, if we didn't have the Genesis 1 account how would one figure out how old the dinosaur bones were?Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

puprledawn, I have no clue how to put the pretty little quote in the nice blue box or I would have. Also, I was simply suggesting for anyone curious what to search for if they wanted to about the soft unfossilized Dino tissue. Lastly I wasnt sure I could just post the link here, I've been here a week.

---

I understand that. That's why I gave you the words of wisdom and a link for a place to learn and practice. Also make sure you read the rules of the site. (#6: Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line. ). I'm giving you helpful advice, not writing you a ticket.

quote:

---

Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.

---

You're not explaining anything to me. I told you in my first post: I don't hang out on the science side and haven't really gotten into carbon dating, etc. Could you (and only you) explain the carbon dating process and why it can't be used to date something that could be over a thousand years old? Which per your correction should be millions of years.What is the process and what circular reasoning did Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis) find?Doesn't he have a preconceived idea since he is basing his timeline on the Bible?As I've asked before, if we didn't have the Bible how would we date the dinosaurs?