Some Facts To Consider For The Science Minded...

(1/2) > >>

Ben Framed:
Are dinosaur bones 'really' 75 million years old? Maybe some things to consider for the Science minded...

Hi Ben,

We have a few old fossils on this forum that have a pile of soft tissue inside that rock-hard bone that sits upon their necks.

I wouldn't have believed this,... yet there it is.

Don't hate me just because I'm handsome.

C'mon folks! It's a joke.


Ben Framed:
:shocked: :wink:
Which part is the joke part Sal, the handsome part?  lol  :cool:  J/K

Personally, I have no beef with 75 million year old  trace amounts of soft tissue. If it gets sealed off to the point of chemical reactions stopping, you might as well look at it as time stopping. It's an incredible long shot, but so is our existence. .. or the universe existing the way it does, for that matter.
I do have a problem with young earth creationism that tries to use discoveries like these for their own ends. I think they're trying to do the equivalent of making applesauce from oranges ... or a burger out of veggies .. all disgusting stuff, imo. I happen to like apples, oranges, burgers, veggies, the Bible, and Sciences ; and don't think there's any reason to spoil one with the other. I do think there are ways that they go together nicely.

A bit of trivia for the heck of it .. The first person to estimate the age of the universe as being "finite" and comparable to the numbers arrived at by the big bang theory was Moses ben Maimon (1138 ?1204 AD), a Sephardic rabbi. His calculations were based on the various cycles and references to time differentials between man's and God's perspective (mentioned in books which are today found in the OT and Talmud) .. to arrive at 15.3 billion years. I haven't been able to find anything with a comparable number between his estimation and the big bang theory ... doesn't really mean anything, but I think it's cool. Also, he didn't insist he was right on the estimation, just presented it as an idea.


--- Quote from: animal on August 23, 2023, 12:27:00 pm ---Also, he didn't insist he was right on the estimation, just presented it as an idea.

--- End quote ---
This is why I find prehistoric dating science so incredibly frustrating.  All sides seem to work off of an agenda even more so than is usual, and present their findings as "factual" with far too many holes in their methodology and reasoning.  This is the only branch of science I am essentially uninterested in, exclusively because the real answer is that we probably will never know for sure exactly how old all of these things are, since all dating methods are based on a lot of suppositions (except for carbon dating, which can only date back 50,000 years, give or take, with accuracy).     


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version