BBS,
I'm not sure where you see ba1, but you wonder why eight would be relevant? Paste from
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/1pet3.htm minus bold font maybe:
3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of YHWH waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
And what is really only one Chinese character? How about we look around and see if there seems to be a general theme present? Is it not apparent that there are great flood legends that stem from an actual historical event whether Genesis has a correct version of one or not?
Neoteny,
Is there not a thin layer of sedimentary rock scattered basically all across the earth?
Why would you expect there to be one specific layer that looked exactly the same across the earth if the flood mostly came from below and some places had more change to landscape than others? What if there was a more violent shaking of mud and water in western U.S. compared to most places on earth? Notice turbidites kind of spiraling out away from Yellowstone?
"7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm
"The research team surveyed the volcanically active Yellowstone region, home to 80 percent of the world's geysers and half of its geothermal features."-http://cips.berkeley.edu/newsclips/17MICR.html
And you mention Stone Mountain? What washed away surrounding landscape from it if not the flood?
"The amount of time suggested by the previously cited authors for the cooling and exposure of the Stone Mountain granite (i.e., 71 Ma) is quite rapid considering the timeframe for its emplacement and subsequent exposure. The overburden and surrounding rocks, which at one time covered the pluton, are gone (Figure 2). Today, when looking at Stone Mountain, two obvious questions come to mind: Where did all the overlying and surrounding sediments go and when did it happen?
Once again, from the creationist perspective, the Flood event was a time of intensive tectonic (orogenic) activity. Magma, created as a result of plate tectonic collisions and associated heat and pressure, would have been squeezed into the overlying rocks, causing them to be uplifted. The author believes that Flood waters eroded away both the overlying and surrounding sediments and rock from the quickly cooling granitic pl-ton. Eventually, due to the rapid erosion which was occurring, the cooled mountain surface would be exposed to the Flood waters which would further erode the granitic mass. With the release of the overburden weight (which served to compress the cooling magma mass) the mountain would expand, resulting in exfoliation. The Flood waters might even have eroded away the outer exfoliated layers of the exposed granitic surface."-http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4b.html
I'm not sure how you define evidence, but for you to say there isn't any evidence for a worldwide flood is beyond me? How about address everything I have already referred to and we discuss "all other calibration methods and objective evidential sources?" Want to start with uranium-lead dating if that is an example?
"Radioactive dating explained
Some types (technically known as ‘isotopes’) of ‘parent’ elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium and rubidium are said to be radioactive because the nuclei of the atoms are unstable, resulting in readjustments between the ‘particles’ (primarily neutrons and protons) in the nuclei with time. To achieve stability, some ‘particles’ are ejected from the atoms, and these moving ‘particles’ constitute the radioactivity measured by Geiger counters and the like. The end result is stable atoms of the ‘daughter’ elements lead, argon, and strontium respectively.
Thus the first step in the radioactive dating technique is to measure the amounts of the parent and daughter elements (isotopes) in a rock sample via chemical analyses. This is done in specially equipped laboratories with sophisticated instruments capable of very good precision and accuracy, so in general there is no quarrel with the resulting chemical analyses.
However, it is with the interpretation of the chemical analyses of the radioactive parents and resultant daughters that the problems with radioactive dating of rocks begin. In order to interpret these chemical analyses, geochr-nologists must make three vital assumptions, otherwise the radioactive ‘clock’ cannot be made to ‘read’ the ‘age’ of the rocks. These assumptions are:
the initial conditions are known;
the system has been closed; and
the radioactive decay rate has remained constant.
So that these assumptions are easily understood, they are best explained in the context of the hourglass analogy (see Figure 1). Grains of fine sand fall at a steady rate from the top glass bowl to the bottom. At time t = 0, the hourglass is turned upside-down so that all the sand starts in the top bowl. By time t = 1 hour, all the sand is supposed to have fallen into the bottom glass bowl.
Now this ‘clock’ works because the initial conditions are known—that is, all the sand grains are in the top glass bowl and none are in the bottom one. If there is already some sand in the bottom glass bowl, then unless this amount is known the hourglass ‘clock’ cannot ‘tell’ the time. Similarly, if the system has not remained closed (for example, if sand were somehow added or subtracted), then the calculation of the elapsed time, based on comparing the amounts of sand in the two glass bowls, will again lead to an incorrect conclusion. And finally, if the rate at which the sand grains fall from the top glass bowl to the bottom one varies (for example, moisture causes some clogging of the sand in the constriction between the two glass bowls), then again the hourglass ‘clock’ will be inaccurate.
Unproven assumptions
The radioactive decay of ‘parent’ isotopes of uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium to ‘daughter’ isotopes of lead, argon and strontium respectively is analogous to our hourglass ‘clock’, including these three assumptions. However, in the case of these radioactive ‘clocks’ these three assumptions can be shown to be not only unprovable, but invalid, rendering these ‘clocks’ virtually useless.
In the case of the initial conditions, no scientist can ever be sure as to what they were, because no scientist was present here on the earth at its origin. Thus the amount of daughter isotope that has actually been derived from the parent isotope by radioactive decay is unknown, since some of the daughter isotope might have been present with its respective parent isotope at the time of the earth’s origin.
So geochr-nologists have assumed that the uranium, thorium and lead isotopic composition of particular meteorites is equivalent to the initial composition of these isotopes when the earth came into existence. This is assumed because it is supposed that these meteorites represent fragments from another planet in the solar system similar to our earth that disintegrated very early in the history of the solar system. However, not all meteorites have the same uraniumthorium- lead isotopic composition, so why should the isotopic composition of these particular meteorites be considered to be the ‘correct’ composition for the earth at its origin rather than some other composition found in other meteorites?"
"Furthermore, even if today’s scientists believe they have the methods, for example graphical and mathematical, for determining how much of the daughter isotope might have been present either at the origin of the earth or the origin of the rock being dated, no one can ever be sure that these ‘answers’ are correct, because there was no scientist present at the beginning to observe those initial conditions, even though the scientists’ calculations may be extremely logical.
Similarly, there is no way that it can be proved that these radioactive systems have been closed through all the supposed millions of years of decay of parent isotopes into daughter isotopes. Again, the main reason for this is because no scientist has been present to observe everywhere these radioactive systems and so report that they have been closed through all their history. Indeed, the evidence indicates the very opposite, that is, that these systems have been open to all sorts of external influences.
For example, it is known that uranium is generally a mobile element in the natural environment, particularly in groundwaters near the earth’s surface. Thus, if a rock sample is analysed at or near the earth’s surface for its uranium and lead isotopes, it would be incorrect to assume that all the uranium and lead in the sample were there only because of the amounts placed in the rock at its origin and because of undisturbed radioactive decay from uranium into lead. Some of the uranium might have been leached out of the rock sample, hence making the rock appear older than it really is according to this radioactive ‘clock’. Or, some uranium might have been deposited by groundwaters into the sample, thus making it appear younger than what it really is.
Indeed, geochr-nologists often plot the chemical analyses of the isotopes, expressed as isotope ratios, on graphs, and these often show that the parent-daughter systems have not been closed, but open. Furthermore, by interpretation of these graphs they often claim to be able to quantify the loss or gain and thus overcome this difficulty to still ‘read’ the radioactive ‘clock’. However, once again this interpretation to overcome this problem of the invalidated closed-system assumption cannot be proved, but is merely assumed to be correct because it makes the radioactive ‘clock’ work.
The final assumption is, of course, that the radioactive decay rates have remained constant. However, once again, this assumption can in no way be proved, because there were no human observers present right throughout the earth’s history to be constantly measuring the radioactive decay rates and to have recorded them.
It is special pleading on the part of geochr-nologists and physicists to say that the radioactive decay rates have been carefully measured in laboratories for the past 80 or 90 years and that no significant variation of these rates has been measured. The ‘bottom line’ is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago. That is an enormous extrapolation. In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally ‘laughed out of court’ by fellow scientists and mathematicians. Yet geochr-nologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists require, and because it makes these radioactive ‘clocks’ work!
So we have seen that none of these three basic assumptions which are foundational to all the radioactive dating techniques can be proved. Indeed, we have also seen that each of these three assumptions is invalid, not only because no scientist has been present from the origin of the earth to see what it was like then and to report as an eyewitness all that has happened everywhere since, but because we know of observations contrary to these assumptions."-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n2/radioactive
So you are a Georgia guy getting ready to move to Florida? What is truly random? : ]
Crispy,
1. What makes Shermer or Waggoner any more of a scientist than Hovind? Do you not really help support a following point without trying by making one or more statement as if Hovind is not a scientist? How much space are young earth creationists going to get in anything you would consider a respectable science journal or paper or publication even if some have been featured before? Who determines who is a scientist and what is "science of good quality" that is worthy to be published?
How about we actually look at what can be observed and try to figure out who is being contradicted by observable evidence if you are trying to make a claim that I would have to make several very significant assumptions that contradict what we know about all sorts of different fields of science to make a scientific creationist argument as a whole?
"The Shrinking Sun
Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.
The Moon's Dust
Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.
The Magnetic Field
The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.
The Earth's Rotation
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of S-turn.
The Missing Helium
Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth's atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn't. Where did it go? It can't escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn't really that old.
The Comet Mystery
Comets, as they orbit the sun, are literally torn apart by gravitational forces, internal explosions, and solar winds. Short period comets can't exist for more than 10,000 years. Most astronomers believe that comets originated at the same time as the solar system. That limits the age of the solar system to about 10,000 years."-http://www.sodahead.com/living/proof-that-the-earth-is-not-as-old-as-many-people-want-to-believe/question-1401785/
"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation."-http://www.halos.com/
Also, what do you define as evolution if we are going to talk about disproving it?
"There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution" as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer's expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as "descent with modification") is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth "after their kind" in Genesis 1."-http://carnivalsage.com/articles/hovind-kent-250000-evolution-offer.html
I'm not sure who has tried to claim that things do not bring forth variety through reproduction, but who shares common ancestry? Is it not true that similarity among creatures on even a genetic level can be attributed to both common ancestry and a common designer? If you were to design several different types of creatures on a computer program you might end up having an artistic signature in your work. You might end up finding eyes and arms and more to be both functionally useful and aesthetically pleasing and end up using eyes and arms on several original designs from a start. Should we look at eating utensils or limbs of living creatures and assume any similarity between either of the two groups would automatically be the result of common ancestry?
And what does the fossil record actually have to say? Pastes below from
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html with color added by me?
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.) "Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist) "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician) "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science) "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."
(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168) "That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."
(H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.) "Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422)) 
You might argue life didn't come from a rock, but is that not essentially what many hold to be true if many figure that a big bang occured and earth cooled down and formed a hard rocky crust before being rained on and bringing forth life from amino acids?
What suggests to you that roses and dogs share common ancestry, if you stand by universal common descent or a theory of punctuated equilibrium that was proposed largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record that cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages? What would you even theoretically consider to be debunking evolution or proving creationism?
2. What would have boiled if there are pockets of non-boiling water inside the earth even now? And where did the water go?
"This passage tells us that mountains rose and valleys sank during the Flood. Mount Everest rose up during the Flood, so the Flood did not need to reach the height that Mount Everest is today.
There is enough water on earth for a global flood. If the earth was smoothed out, the water in the oceans would cover it to a depth of about 8,813 feet (2.6 kilometres). This does not include the water in rivers, lakes, glaciers, and other sources. They would add about another 2–3 thousand feet (600-900 metres). In reality, the Flood would only need to be a little over 7,000 feet (2.1 kilometres) deep."-http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood
If layers of mud were not compacted rapidly while in a putty like state to help form the Rocky Mountains and other places, then what is shown here?
3. Notice a column on your page three table or whatever that refers to dating methods? Jumps from layer counting data and ash dated to 140 and 163 years old to radiometric dating and ash dated to 8,200 years ago and beyond without any ash in between? Have you found something with hard data where known volcano eruptions were used to determine when ash is from by counting layers above it?
And see reply to Neoteny if you want to discuss uranium-lead dating or radiocarbon dating in general?
"By the way,
they then use the ice core sampling, the oxygen O18 and O16 ratios, to try to
validate Carbon 14 dating. So here we have two rubber rulers measuring against
each other."-http://excoboard.com/The_Lighthouse_Baptist_Ministries/113206/1334730
4. What would it take to convince you that there was actually gene splicing (root-cutting?) taught by one or more rebel angel before the flood?
"...taught enchantments, and root-cuttings..."
-http://qbible.com/enoch/8.html
"...the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord..."
-http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/4.htm
"...he looked and behold, a large animal was devouring the ox; from the middle upward it resembled a man, and from the middle downward it resembled an animal..."
-http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/61.htm
Perhaps He created some diseases out of nothing and there are created beings who designed some of their own too. I'm not sure what survived the flood and what came to exist after it.
5. How many rings do you count here?
Who knows how many times separate disturbances have been lined up in error and or how many times missing rings have been inferred if that's common in the BCP chr-nology?
"Unfortunately, this dating method leaves much to be desired. Ring patterns vary considerably between trees of similar ages. To resolve the discrepancies, patterns are compared between several trees, with the attempt made to identify common years in several ring patterns. The key rings that are used to align different trees are the rings for drought years, or the narrowest rings. In some cases, however, a drought year ring may be missing altogether, falling on the ring for an adjacent year.
This leads to what is known as the ''missing ring'' problem. To solve this, the scientists fall back to radiocarbon dating to identify the rings more completely. This, in turn, leads to circular logic; if the radiocarbon dating is incorrect, the resulting ring dating will also be incorrect. In the final analysis, the BRISTLE CONE Pines still hide their secret."-http://www.sodahead.com/living/proof-that-the-earth-is-not-as-old-as-many-people-want-to-believe/question-1401785/
"For illustrative purposes, imagine the simplified situation of only three trees, (A), (B), and (C), which started growing at exactly the same time, and each of which lived exactly 500 years. If nothing happened, the tree-ring series would normally crossmatch according to climatic signal, with the crossmatch point starting with the first ring each of Tree (A), Tree (B), and Tree (C). All the constituents of the 3-tree chr-nology would overlap completely, creating a chr-nology that spans exactly 500 years.
Now suppose that an external disturbance causes rings 2, 6, 9, 14, etc., in Tree (A) to grow much bigger or smaller than they otherwise would. At about this time, rings 1, 7, 10, 13, etc. are perturbed in Tree (B). 300 years after the disturbance of the growth of the rings in Tree (A), the sequence of disturbances repeats in Tree (B), affecting rings 302, 306, 309, 314, etc. (The repetition doesn’t have to be exact, because the discrepancy can be covered by inferred missing rings, which are common in the BCP chr-nology). 400 years after the disturbances in the early rings of Tree (B), similar disturbances occur in Tree (C), affecting rings 401, 407, 410, 413, etc. Identical reasoning can be applied to many more trees, and over a much longer period of time.
The net result is the fact that Trees (A), (B), and (C) will no longer crossmatch across their 500-year common growth history. They will now only crossmatch at their ring-perturbed ends. The result is an illusory chr-nology that is 1200 years long. Crossmatching experiments that I had performed show that it is only necessary to disturb 2–3 rings per decade, sustained across at least a few decades, in order to override the climatic signal, and to cause the tree-ring series to artificially crossmatch at the ring-perturbed ends."
"What Talk Origins does not tell you is that the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total, this leaves an error of at least 15% too old.
Both extra and missing rings are detected by comparisons with other trees. This is a somewhat subjective process, since even trees of the same species growing side by side do not produce absolutely identical ring patterns. The fact that there can be extra rings and missing rings only increases the subjectiveness of dendrochr-nology."
"Morris's reference was to the dating of single trees by their ring count and does not refer to the entire dendrochr-nological record.
The problem is that comparisons between trees are somewhat subjective, since even trees of the same species growing side by side do not produce absolutely identical ring patterns. Therefore finding errors is also subjective, adding to the overall subjectiveness of dendrochr-nology.
Furthermore, conventional dendrochr-nology does not consider the after effects of the Genesis Flood. Climate instabilities immediately after the Flood would probably have resulted in additional rings across the entire dendrochr-nological record."
"Not surprising since dendrochr-nology is used to to calibrate carbon-14 dating. Not only that but carbon - 14 dating is used in tree ring matching. As a result the two are not independent dating methods, but are actually mutually dependent."
6. Got thoughts on the Palestrina Mosaic now?
7. Do you have a source you can provide that suggests that the Chinese character for eight or whatever can also mean person and the person or mouth one or whatever can also mean space?
And does China not have history concerning a Fuhi who escaped a great flood with eight humans total?
Edit Note?: I did reading even before post and Talk Origins disputes one or more thing and there is some confusion about what is legit about a the Hihking story maybe. How about we address what is a Chinese word for large boat even if we do not know where a the Hihking story comes from or what should be in one though?
Does France have ancient history that concerns eight and night? Nice to bring up seven day week either way? Where does a seven day week come from?
8. Did you thoroughly investigate each of these before asking where is there any evidence of this beyond potentially fanciful tales?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=118764&p=2620353#p2620353http://s8int.com/dinolit1.htmlhttp://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htmAnd how long does it really take for something to fossilize?
But are you sure even non fossilized dinosaur remains haven't been found by man?
http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-reporthttp://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... saur-bones"There is also physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from Montana State University found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were tens of millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated.26 Also, there should not be “fresh” bones if they were really millions of years old.27 A report by these scientists stated the following:
A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope ... . The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center ... . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur ... . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 ... . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized ... . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.”28
Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope in Alaska.29 Also, creation scientists collected such (unfossilized) frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska.30 Evolutionists would not say that these bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to evolutionary theory). Yet the bones could not have survived for the millions of years unmineralized. This is a puzzle to those who believe in an “age of dinosaurs” millions of years ago, but not to someone who builds his thinking on the Bible."-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs
And see stuff here that suggests even recently deceased dinosaurs have been found as of late?
http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/evolutio.htm9. Is there anything you want to discuss for 9?
10. Here is a conclusion section of a skeptic page concerned with the London hammer?
"Conclusions
As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact."-http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
What would be considered clear evidence linking the hammer to an ancient formation if there is a location of where it was found shown here?
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-hammer.htmAnd is it not kind of reaching if someone skeptical of the flood is trying to suggest it would contradict preflood artistic style?
Also, what is really being hidden in someone's pocket like a diamond if it's in a museum and there has been detailed research carried out independently of one another by two different institutes?
""This ancient tool has a simple form, similar to the type of hammer that is still common in Germany today. The handle now is a very hard petrified crystal with an intact structure. It was possible to ascertain that the interior of the handle had partly turned into porous coal.
There is no way to scientifically explain this combination of carbonization and petrification. I have not heard of a similar piece, found anywhere in the world. Two very different processes must have occurred simultaneously or in short succession. Crystal petrifaction requires an ecosphere of running water whereas for the development of porous coal, one could, for example, assume that fire was the necessary agent. Water and fire, it goes without saying, are two very different and mutually exclusive elements.
The analysis of the subsiding of the Flood, to be undertaken at a later point in this book, will explain what now looks like a contradiction. The outer layers of the hammer handle reminded me of the petrified stumps and piles of wood I had seen earlier at the "Petrified Forest National Park" in Arizona, on a visit in 1988.
The exhibits there, pieces of the cut up piles of wood, had completely petrified and displayed a homogenous crystal structure. I do not know of one piece discovered in that park to contain a coal interior comparable to that of the fossil hammer. The age of the trees there is officially estimated at between 100 and 200 million years.
Wood petrifies when it is buried in silt deposited by flooding rivers or seas and silicates, such as are found in volcanic ash, dissolve and impregnate it. These substances replace the hydrogen and oxygen portions in the wood and begin the petrifaction process by silicification. This may produce very solid opal or quartz minerals. The final product is approximately 5 times as heavy as common pine wood.
This short description of the hammer handle should make it obvious that the fossil hammer must be authentic and very ancient. In spite of all our modern technical abilities, it has never been possible to produce petrified wood with porous coal inside.
It therefore is out of the question that such a hammer could be a hoax. I must clearly emphasize this point, as most artifacts which contradict the accepted view of the world we are accustomed to, are accused of being forgeries. Our traditional
schools of thought, however, are at a loss to explain this hammer.
Petrified wood, and therefore this ancient tool, is supposed to be at least 140 million years old. Official scientific authorities, however, say that humans capable of manufacturing high quality tools have only existed for a few recent millenia. Something concerning these datings and the enormous time intervals of the geological era must be erroneous.
Is humanity really many millions of years old or is it a young species? Did the processes of rock formation take place more recently than is believed?
Examination of the hammer.
Before I look into these questions, I would like to give a more detailed description of the hammerhead's characteristics in order to make the full extent of the mystery clear.
Detailed research was carried out independently of one another by two different institutes. John Mackay, Director of Australia's "Creation Science Foundation", analyzed the hammer thoroughly during his visit to the United States.
A number of Australian metallurgists, as well as those working at the respected metallurgic Institute "Batelle Memorial Laboratory" in Columbus, Ohio (USA), took part in these analyses.
Sophisticated electron microscopes served to examine the structure and composition of the steel the hammerhead was made of.
The results of the examinations were as mysterious as they were bewildering. The hammerhead, chemically speaking, consisted of 96.6 % iron, 2.6 % chlorine, and 0.74 sulphur. Incredibly, this material is almost entirely solid iron!
Other additives or impurities were not detectable. Non-destructive testing methods of steel quality comprise x-ray examination, magnetic testing as well as ultrasonic detection. X-rays showed no evidence of inclusions or irregularities in the hammerhead steel. This means, it was tempered and hardened in some way.
In general, chemically genuine and unworked steel is rather soft. The even structure determined, however, suggests that this hard steel that was manufactured by some sophisticated technology. The results of the examination are as sensational as they are unbelievable. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of steel manufacturing knows that every modern steel-making process, inevitably leads to carbon or silicon impurities! I emphasize the word inevitably. Steel production without these impurities is simply unthinkable!
No other known ingredients used for refinement such as copper, titanium, manganese, cobalt, or molybdenum, vanadium, wolfram or nickel could be traced. We employ these and other elements in steel manufacturing to achieve different properties needed for different fields of application.
The high quantity of the chlorine in the fossil hammerhead is remarkable, as well. Chlorine plays no part in modern steel manufacturing. It is not used at all today, so it is impossible to produce the high steel quality of the type found here by today's manufacturing methods.
This leads us to the question; who manufactured this hammer and when? Based on the standpoint of accepted research and science, it is impossible for this hammer to exist, much less to have ever been manufactured. For the reasons given, it is thus out of the question that we are dealing with a "hoax" hammerhead.
Much the same has been shown concerning the hammer handle. Two forgery-proof materials for which we have no scientific explanation, combined in one tool.
This is extraordinary evidence of a very different history of earth and humankind! If our school teachings are correct, there is no other conclusion than that an alien visiting earth must have lost the hammer.
Still, I have one other more logical explanation to offer and I will present it in the further course of this book: My explanation, however, is not in accordance with traditional scientific theory. The fossil hammer shows still more peculiar features. In breaking open the hammer's original stone enclosure in 1934, the upper edge of the metal head was damaged, leaving a small notch. The inside of the notch revealed a shiny silvery surface.
Until today, more than 60 years later, the color of the notch has not changed. No traces of rust are perceptible. The relatively high concentration of chlorine combined with a total absence of carbon, which would cause corrosion by reacting with oxygen, may be responsible for this phenomenon...." Hans Zillner from his book: Darwin's Mistake"-http://www.s8int.com/page6.html
Note: Not sure how to get pastes right in here for quotes and this and earlier stuff has misquotes and dashes replacing one or more thing by me and there is messed up spacing and there are missing hyperlinks and numbers and images and messed up font related stuff perhaps. How about look for a source or ask me where something is from?
