resistance is futile, you will be assimilated

[SubtleVirtue]

search "blood in T-Rex bones"

"Non-Mineralized Tissues in Fossil T rex"

"The absolute ages of all fossils ultimately hinge on radiometric dating techniques, the validity and accuracy of which are beyond reasonable doubt."

"Multiple analyses using several independent radiometric techniques show that the rocks in which the MOR T rex was found are about 65 million years old. The age of this fossil is a settled fact."

"for the past few centuries “fossil” has had two distinct meanings: the remains or traces of ancient life (the time-based definition), and an object of biological origin that has undergone the process of “fossilization” (the process-based definition). The creationist challenge to the age of the MOR T rex is an equivocation based on this dual definition:

1. A fossil (time-defined) is old.

2. The MOR T rex is not a fossil (process-defined) because the presence of soft tissue demonstrates that it is not fossilized.

Therefore, the MOR T rex is not old.

The argument is invalid because each of the premises defines “fossil” in a different way. Few arguments used by creationists are as easily refuted as this, because most errors in creationists’ reasoning are not simple logical fallacies, and arise instead from misinterpretations of empirical evidence and hence requiring detailed refutation. But the equivocal use of “fossil” is not a creationist invention; it is a bad habit that they learned from palaeontologists themselves."

CITATION

This is quite an old creationist canard, well debunked by science. 

Here is another source debunking it, from TalkOrigins website, CITATION

did they carbon date the blood?

[Paleophyte]

(1) That isn't what I said. If you can't demonstrate eternity then you can't demonstrate that it's eternal, merely as old as the universe.

(2) No, under most conditions energy levels are way above the ZPE.

(3) No, power is energy over time. No transformation.

(4) If energy is eternal it can't be caused at all.

(1) there are two ways to reach eternity; A; "everywhere everything exists from prior states of the existence of things" and B; energy cannot be created nor destroyed which entails that it is eternal

(2) I asked if ZPE is omnipresent; here is what Max Planck proved; there is a certain amount of energy equal to 1 half h bar omega in every single point in space

(3) are you claiming that i.e. nuclear energy cannot transform to light energy?

(4)  "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. eternal energy can be self-causal but not caused

(1) You can't demonstrate either of those hold true "prior" to the Big Bang. Bye-bye eternity.

(2) Planck theorized that a vanishingly small amount of energy couldn't ever be utilized, this is the ZPE. If you want an impotent god please keep heading down this road. ZPE can't go anywhere or do anything.

(3) I'm claiming that isn'r power. Please learn the difference.

(4) Arguing from grammar fail. That which is not caused cannot be self-causal. Your argument eats its own tail.

[SubtleVirtue]

You can quote something, just try to not make it a wall of text, but don't "link" it.

Here is a small proof;



"God is love"
the Apostle Paul says in the bible that "God is love", well, to put that to the test I posted an internet survey on Myspace religion and philosophy forum; titled "loveless atheists" and "godless atheists"
In the thread I asked if atheists love everyone; every single atheist posting mentioned that they only loved a few people;
so my argument is that if someone really knows God, then they actually love everyone (as I do), and since atheists don't know God they would only love a few at most; and this demonstrates a material implication that God is love.

update;
I feel sorry for my enemies, and intend good for everyone.
"love" may be a confusing word. Jesus told us to Agape (love) our ememies. I don't really know what agape means, but I do not appreciate, adore, or revere my ememies. so I do not love them.
On the other hand I feel sorry for them... so that is Pathos, not Agape.
But I do intend good for all. So if Agape means or materially implies intention of good then God is Love.

[SubtleVirtue]

I wonder what would happen if they carbon dated the blood.

Radiocarbon dating wouldn’t work. The soft tissues are the same age as the fossils, roughly 75 million years. Carbon dating only world on organic matter less than about 50K years old.

In your intro thread, you said you were a scientist. I’m starting to become a little skeptical of that claim.

Boru

show me a sample of life based material that is older than 50k years old

[Paleophyte]

did they carbon date the blood?

The material isn't blood, it's some material that might be blood cells, depending on interpretation. You can't carbon date individual cells. Simply not enough material to lift a 14-C date off of. The scientists who maintain that the material has recently been contaminated (not blood cells but rather fungal cells) would love to do exactly that. Finding modern 14-C would demonstrate that the samples have been contaminated.

[Paleophyte]

show me a sample of life based material that is older than 50k years old

Every trilobite ever and this famous lady:

[The Grand Nudger]

Here is a small proof;
"God is love"

First, that's not a proof.  Secondly, no.  Basic identity stuff here.  

Bill is love.  True or false?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Radiocarbon dating wouldn’t work. The soft tissues are the same age as the fossils, roughly 75 million years. Carbon dating only world on organic matter less than about 50K years old.

In your intro thread, you said you were a scientist. I’m starting to become a little skeptical of that claim.

Boru

show me a sample of life based material that is older than 50k years old

The point is that 50k would be the theoretical limit of carbon dating. This is why it isn’t used to date 75 million year old fossils.

On your claim to be a scientist, I’ve gone from skeptical to outright disbelief.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You can quote something, just try to not make it a wall of text, but don't "link" it.

Here is a small proof;



"God is love"
the Apostle Paul says in the bible that "God is love", well, to put that to the test I posted an internet survey on Myspace religion and philosophy forum; titled "loveless atheists" and "godless atheists"
In the thread I asked if atheists love everyone; every single atheist posting mentioned that they only loved a few people;
so my argument is that if someone really knows God, then they actually love everyone (as I do), and since atheists don't know God they would only love a few at most; and this demonstrates a material implication that God is love.

update;
I feel sorry for my enemies, and intend good for everyone.
"love" may be a confusing word. Jesus told us to Agape (love) our ememies. I don't really know what agape means, but I do not appreciate, adore, or revere my ememies. so I do not love them.
On the other hand I feel sorry for them... so that is Pathos, not Agape.
But I do intend good for all. So if Agape means or materially implies intention of good then God is Love.

Even God doesn’t love everyone - it says so in the Bible. If there are limits to God’s love, then ‘God is love’ is a nonsensical statement.

Boru

[Paleophyte]

On your claim to be a scientist, I’ve gone from skeptical to outright disbelief.

This claimed to be a scientist?!? Another lovely example of a "Christian" that can't follow their commandments.