Did dinosaurs die out 65 million years ago, or only thousands of years ago?
I’ve been reading up on this today, because I came across a startling claim that Carbon-14 has been found in dinosaur fossils and can be used to date them. C-14, an isotope of carbon, has long been useful and reliable for dating archeological finds. The thing that makes it useful is that C-14 decays into nitrogen at a consistent, predictable rate. The thing that makes it less useful is that after 100,000 years ago or so, tops, there’s no C-14 left to measure.
A site called “newgeology” has a long article about C-14 dating of dinosaur fossils, an article which makes some eye-popping claims (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html). Let me very briefly discuss three highlights.
One: Creation scientists who found C-14 in eight dinosaur fossils presented a paper to a conference of the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society. This is the right protocol to follow. The paper was at first accepted, but then abruptly deleted from the program without a word to the authors. Because, said the chairman, “There is obviously an error in these data.” An error not even worth discussing.
Two: Creation scientists submitted samples of dinosaur fossils to the Center for Applied Isotope Studies, without revealing what the samples were. After allowing for the usual variations, the lab found the samples to be about 30,000 years old.
But when someone informed them that the items they’d tested and dated were dinosaur specimens, the lab president hit the ceiling. “The scientists at CAIS and I are dismayed by the claims that you and your team have made with respect to the age of the earth and the validity of biological evolution. Consequently, we are no longer able to provide radiocarbon services in support of your anti-science agenda.” Which does not address the issue of whether their testing procedures are all they’re cracked up to be.
Three: A part-time employee studying C-14 in dinosaur fossils at the Biology Dept. at Cal State U. Northlands was swiftly sacked after the department head found out what he was doing. “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!” raged the objective scientist. No emotional commitment to atheism here. That was in 2013. In 2016 the–ahem–university paid $400,000 to settle the employee’s wrongful termination lawsuit.
Can I vouch for my source, “newgeology”? No, not really. It’s a creation science website. That does not mean its writers are incapable of any kind of prevarication; nor does it mean that their claims here aren’t true.
I want to believe my fellow Christians, but the Old Earth/Evolution paradigm was so deeply instilled in me, for so long, that it’s hard to break away. And who am I to say that my interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 is the one and only right interpretation? I’d be laughed out of the room.
At the same time, I confess to a deep distrust of Establishment Science. The Global Warming/Climbit Change Scam has abundantly demonstrated a profound lack of integrity among scientists as a subculture. Anything for politics! Anything for power! High priests of a New World Order! (And those who know me well, will understand that I have to be pretty riled up to use that turn of phrase.) Plus the fact that this subculture is riddled with atheists of the most rabid variety.
The supremely funny thing about it all is that it really doesn’t matter when the dinosaurs died out. And yet this question has been turned into an emotional battleground, with other things at stake that do matter, that matter very much: like whose word has authority, God’s or man’s? Is science divorced from God still science, or just a kind of idol worship? And so on.
I can’t prove that anybody’s telling the truth, and that does trouble me.
True science should be about discovering the truth, whatever it may be. But scientists are people, and not above being corrupted and having their own biases and prejudices cloud their judgment. The problem is that science has become more than about science, it has become an ideology, a worldview. It is treated with a sort of infallibility and reverence, and anyone that questions it is labeled a heretic.
There is also the issue of elevating the scientist to that of the politician, as technocracy seeks to do. Actually, technocracy goes a step further, it seeks to replace the role of the politician with that of the scientist. But in doing so science becomes positions of power and prestige, and power, as they say, has a way of corrupting.
The idea of “scientific management” of society by anointed Experts has been around since the 1930s, and hasn’t gotten any better since then.
Watchman, you worded my thoughts on this subject very well. I
An interesting paradox you suggest here. Does not the Bible perpetuate Creationism, we place our faith in the Bible, and you are perplexed as to which to believe, Creationist science or that other science that actually makes an attempt to explain our environment? Are you doubting the Christianity you’ve been professing all this time? The truth is always what the Bible says, correct? So, what’s your dilemma… the fact you can’t shake off some aspect of public education because your brain was washed decades ago to the idea that you descended from apes and not from Adam & Eve?
Be that as it may… the one sentence in your post that encapsulates your entire feeling toward any kind of disciplinary science, that more than assures your solid footing in needing to be a Creationist to be a devout Christian, that places you in the hierarchy of well-founded and balanced thought-provoking Conservatism……………
“The supremely funny thing about it all is that it really doesn’t matter when the dinosaurs died out.”
Sadly, sir… yes, it damn well does. Science is a DISCIPLINE; by proving one hypothesis we can prove others… and this has allowed humanity to be what it is today. No question science has been used for ulterior political motives in past world history, the problem with that, it’s subject to correction down the line… because science is always building upon itself. The thing is.. ultra-Christians think science is a challenge in the belief of God. I contend that science represents God’s encouragement to mankind to explore His wonders on as many levels as possible in order to reinforce His involvement in our lives. Science is not a threat to God… it helps to assure His existence. Modern conservatism now presumes to think that true science is a liberal plot to make conservatives lives miserable and make powerful people more powerful, richer people more rich, poor people more poorer, and idiots more idiotic… all in a world of one grand conspiracy by the dark state members
You can be a conspiracy theory loving science denier all you wish… Trump hasn’t yet removed the First Amendment (at least up until the latest Tweets). Creationist science is trying to prove God right and physical science wrong. Disciplinary physical science is trying to find mankind’s place in the universe for the betterment of mankind… using the tools God has given us.
By the way… your cat pics make more sense than this last post.
Gee, you really know how to hurt a guy…
All things serve God’s purposes even though we mortals are unable to discern all of them. Science was birthed in Christianity. Today’s modern Science has lost sight of the purpose of human life “To glorify god and enjoy Him forever.”
If you’re an atheist, you deny there is any purpose. And too many scientists are atheists.
Nah. I like cats.
Creationism is a man made interpretation of the scriptures. I’ve heard opinions voiced by creationists which do not in any way represent my opinions on the subject. There is one fundamental distinction that must be made, and that is what is stated in the Bible as opposed to what is said about the Bible.
A few decades back, a movement identifying itself as “Scientific Creationism” surfaced and came up with its own interpretation of matters, applying scriptures and scientific ideas as they see fit. I have never seen matters their way and I don’t care to be cast in that mold.
I believe that the Bible explains WHY things happened as they have, but now the mechanism. It doesn’t explain DNA, and it deals with genetics in the most general of terms. Long before science understood the mechanism of genetics, the Bible did prohibit marrying close relatives, just as it prescribed washing our hands before we eat and the proper disposal of excrement long before microbes were understood. I really don’t care all that much about the details because they are certainly beyond my influence. Even if I knew every detail of how life came into existence, I couldn’t duplicate the feat.
There are dinosaur legends throughout civilization, including some that seem to predate the discovery of dinosaur fossils. Reptiles can grow throughout life and I don’t find it hard to believe that some reptiles, or reptile-like may have grown to immense proportion in a world which was less populated by humans and perhaps conducive to a longer life-span for some creatures. There are all sorts of theories, but that is what they are theories. Mine, yours, those of various scientists.
I do find it amusing that from a fraction of an entire skeleton an entire animal is hypothesized including behaviors. One could hypothesize from my pickup truck that I must be a tradesman, but that would be completely wrong. When you are making up a story, anything becomes possible.
In no way do I see science, the pursuit of truth, as being in opposition to God. Once again, it becomes a matter of labels. If a cigarette company hires some PHDs to do research which makes cigarettes seem less harmful, to what extent does that deserve to be called science? Take a position and you are very likely to be able to find a scientific study which supports your position. They all claim to be scientific, but interpretation is everything.
Thirty to forty years ago, it was decided that dietary fats were the enemy and we should eat a lot of complex carbohydrates. Now there is an epidemic of obesity and that scientific conclusion about carbs is proving false. We were better off before that theory emerged. Was it science, or an opinion. Did this finding come from research which was funded by people that wanted to promote carbs because that was the business they were in. Archives found in the closed Great Western Sugar Company plant in Longmont, CO reveal some very damning evidence that the sugar industry was trying to promote itself through such research. Is that Science?
Newton, Faraday, Galileo and many others along the way were devout men and saw the search for truth about the physical realm as totally compatible with their beliefs in God. I agree. The absolute age of the Universe makes little difference in my day to day life. The Bible never said that things had to be a certain age. The six days of creation have never meant 144 hours, from the perspective of the earth, to me. If someone chooses to believe that, I’m not going to oppose them, we can disagree.
I believe our live Earth is 13,000 years old. “A day is but a thousand years” – 7 days of creation. Plus these last almost 6,000 years. My proof is the literal translation of the Bible, but that doesn’t trouble me. All science without creation is unreliable.
Whenever the macro-evolutionists come across facts that don’t fit their scheme of things they just ignore them. Scientists had concluded the surface of the moon would be deep in dust because of the age they had assigned to it. Neil Armstrong said his greatest fear was the space module would sink on the moon’s surface like water. Turns out the surface dust on the moon is only a few inches deep indicating a young life by the scientists own calculations – but they just ignore it.
It’s amazing how convenient their take on things is to their prejudices. If you account as significant only facts that agree with your conclusions you can “prove” anything.
Be careful–you don’t want to be called a Science Denier and conspiracy theorist.
Conspiracy theorist–me! That was the most unkindest cut of all.
I don’t think that conspiracies are necessary to explain most of this. It’s just the cumulative effects of self-delusion.
You wrote…
“At the same time, I confess to a deep distrust of Establishment Science. The Global Warming/Climbit Change Scam has abundantly demonstrated a profound lack of integrity among scientists as a subculture. Anything for politics! Anything for power! High priests of a New World Order! (And those who know me well, will understand that I have to be pretty riled up to use that turn of phrase.) Plus the fact that this subculture is riddled with atheists of the most rabid variety.”
All this is speculative accusations as best as I can find anywhere. Media hasn’t supported this.. although I am sure your “gospel” is some self-aggrandizing conservative site. This is the stuff of conspiracy theory. Why? Because you are claiming the entire scientific community (ok.. let’s say.. even half) has decided to get together to create this ruse for a singular purpose… which is? So what is the motivation for all these individual people to row their oars of deceit, without flinching, surrendering their ethics and perhaps morality, much less career credibility, simply to push some bogus science, and keep it a secret no less, for a few puppeteers wanting power, political influence, and a few bucks through market?
You see all this as fact.. because it’s convenient to the Conservative cause. Look at it this way.. I’m personally offended that you believe in this stuff.
We both know this is going nowhere… and we are who we are.
You’re a liberal. Of course you believe in all that stuff.
You’d think, in an environment devoid of air, wind, and water, dust could build up and lie undisturbed for a very long time. Back in the 60s Arthur C. Clarke wrote a novel about a sort of transportation vehicle on the moon that lost its power and began to sink into the dust. I think the title was “A Fall of Moondust.” It gave me a good scare at the time.