Sure, here’s one for starters:
Probably not, but I don’t know.
Sure. The “evolutionary worldview” doesn’t exist, but science does, specifically chemistry, and we have a strong chemical explanation for how this can happen.
I doubt it. The YEC person would have to explain what they predicted and how that matched the findings.
2 Likes
Where are you getting this idea from? The meat did not come from the Flood. The Mammoth meat is post-Flood, and was not from the fossil record. I can think of no reason why creationists would expect to find dinosaur meat anywhere.
So you reject radiocarbon results for mammoths?
It has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology
Yes I do. I reject radiometric dating as a reliable method altogether. In fact, dinosaur soft tissue remains are an independent falsification of radiometric dating techniques.
That claim has been addressed:
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