YEC Predictions on Dino Soft Tissue?

Some, like some species of hadrosaur, Did live in cold and snowy environments.

2 Likes

Or maybe all the independent verifications of these old ages show that soft tissue can last longer than we thought and we still have more to understand. Why does your one data point outweigh all the others?

1 Like

Sorry, it only counts as a prediction if creationists actually predicted it. Just saying, after the fact, that you would have predicted it doesn’t do it. Did any creationist actually predict it?

3 Likes

It wasn’t predicted because at the time there was no known mechanism for the long time preservation of biomolecules.

No because it WASN’T predicted by any YEC anywhere. No YECs ever went out looking for preserved biomolecules in dino fossils. YECs were just as surprised as paleontologists.

1 Like

No, they are not. All they show is there are preservation methods we didn’t know of before. The findings don’t cast any doubt on other proven dating methods at all.

Do you reject C14 dating? C14 dating is cross-calibrated by at least a dozen independent dating methods back to 50,000 YBP. All those independent measurements confirming the same dates is pretty hard to hand wave away, yes?

2 Likes

I think radiodating seems off topic, right? I for one have very curious how @PDPrice would rationalize Lake Varves, Volcanic Ash, and the Great Isaiah Scroll. This doesn’t have a good YEC answer and seems to definitively show that the earth, at the very least, looks old.

However, that might be better for a new thread I suppose.

2 Likes

That’s wrong, and I specifically addressed that in the post. Whether or not somebody happened to record a prediction is irrelevant to the philosophical question of “what would be predicted”, given one view over another. A guy could be about to predict something and then get hit by a bus. That doesn’t change science or philosophy.

Have you read the book Rock Solid Answers? I quote from it in this article: https://creation.com/joggins

I know varves are addressed there, but I need to do some more study before I’m going to comment on varves myself.

Start with the link I gave you above, and the links within to @davidson and @Joel_Duff’s excellent work.

Just as cold and just as snowy as mammoths? I know mammoths are built for the cold because they had thick coats. Hadrosaurs were reptiles with scales. I am highly skeptical that you would find one in the same place as a mammoth.

It’s called falsification. A million tests cannot prove me right, but a single test can prove me wrong.

@PDPrice, that is not how science works.

We can also produce a million tests that you cannot explain. They really seem to show you wrong. What you are doing here is called cherrypicking.

6 Likes

If you’re going to play “coulda woulda shoulda” then YECs philosophically would predict all fossils should date to the same age and all should contain large amounts of fresh meat. But that obviously is completely wrong.

2 Likes

That’s not how it works, man.

1 Like

It’s not just varves. You need to explain why all the dozen+ independent dating proxies show the same ages well older than 6000 years. Varves, ice core samples, ocean sediment samples, dendrochronology, coral growth bands, speleothems, etc. You need to explain the consilience of the all the independent data.

1 Like

Yeah, it really is, man. The criterion of falsifiability is paramount in empirical/operational science.

Preserved trace biomaterial doesn’t provide you with a date so it isn’t a test of other dating methods.

We can experimentally test and verify the speed at which biomolecules degrade. Dr Brian Thomas of ICR recently was awarded his PhD in Paleobiochemistry from a secular university in the UK on this very topic, and did original research (which is now published and available through ICR). This is how falsification works. Soft dino tissue is an independent way to show that radiometric dating fails. This is indeed how science works.

@PDPrice

Actually, no. There isn’t a scientific discipline on Earth that doesn’t have at least a few contrary data points!

To overturn some disciplines requires HUNDREDS of contrary data points … PLUS an over-arching scenario description that makes sense of the contrary data.

You are ignoring solid physical sciences for dating… you are ignoring solid biological sciences for preservation … and you are ignoring logical problems for things like how come there are no placental mammals in Australia (except for recent arrivals)?

1 Like

Yes, that’s your claim. Still, it’s the responsibility of scientists to make explicit, bold predictions that follow from their hypotheses. That allows for testing. “Predictions” after the fact are useless. So what bus hit you that prevented you from predicting dinosaur proteins?

I think you have him there. When dinosaurs lived in the Arctic, the earth was in a warm period, not an ice age. Then again, the ice age doesn’t fit into a flood chronology. Where would the mammoths have lived before the flood if not in the Arctic along with the dinosaurs? And why would they need thick fur in such a case?

Sorry, but Popper never really had a good handle on how science actually works. Nor do you.

6 Likes