@sonship said
@Proper-Knob
Be fair and also explain more recent discoveries of SOFT organic tissue found in fossilized bones supposedly 60 millions years old.
Soft tissue (blood cells, hemoglobin) preserved for 60 million or plus years ? Maybe dinosaur populations are not as old as assumed.
Soft Tissue Dinosaur Bones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eoxZvV6YY8
H ...[text shortened]... KellyJay ?
I don't think either viewpoint (OEC / YEC) can fully ignore some of these things.
There was just a foal found almost 50,000 years old, the absolute end of the usefulness of radio carbon dating and they found liquid blood still inside and liquid urine. So saying soft tissue was found in a 100 million year old dino bone is not that big a deal. It does not prove they had to be only 5000 years old or some such rot.
You jump on the slimmest evidence and ride it to death in your zeal to prove Earth is only a few thousand years old yet totally ignore ANY data saying no such thing, because Earth is in FACT billions of years old. For instance, the splitting apart of the America's from Europe has been going on for LITERALLY millions of years and there is a continuous record in the magnetic field of the magma seeping up where the continents are seen ripping apart, like two conveyor belts running in opposite directions. The liquid rocks, when they cool down, pick up the direction of magnetic field lines of Earth and they keep that field PERMANENTLY and you probably noticed the shape of South America, like where Brazil sticks out into the Atlantic, matching the inward bending of Africa? That is no coincidence. The magnetic data reads like a cassette tape, recording the entire movement of continents. That is a proven fact and no amount of bible thrashing will change that. THAT ALONE shows Earth in in actual fact MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. That is only ONE line of data showing that.
For instance, how can you look at rock formations showing bending of 180 degrees in the rock formations and think that could somehow come about in a few thousand years? Totally ignoring the fact there would have to have been a permanent Richter ten earthquake all across Earth to make those rocks fold like taffy in such a short time period.
There are MANY such data points like that yet you diss ALL of that in your zeal to make the BIBLE the only proof you need to say Earth is only a few thousand years old, yet that statement is NOWHERE in the bible, and only those dudes who analyized ROBERT BEGAT SUZIE who begat Mary who bagat BILLY who begat, who begat, and down the line as if all those begats were 100 % accurate yet covered a period of time of thousands of years. SURE, I can believe that, but I also have a GREAT bridge for sale, CHEAP.
You hang your entire thesis on such flimsy evidence, you have to know there was no way for any book to be accurate in that begat deal for thousands of years. There are many other plot problems in your bible but you think they are all 100 % written by god when in fact they were all 100% written by men with no input needed from a god.
You dis the intelligence of humans when you imply humans are WAY too stupid to have EVER written such a sublime work.
Even though there are THOUSANDS of such works of other religions with just as pithy advice as in the bible. Human intelligence, the best of us, is closer to godhood then you give credit for.
You ABSOLUTELY CANNOT ACCEPT THAT so you are stuck replaying the record, skipping back to the past grooves forever unable to get off that groove.