YEC Predictions on Dino Soft Tissue?

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@evograd

Have you read any papers of books on the philosophy of science, specifically about the debate over falsificationism’s utility? It’s nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.

I have, and I have also been published on this topic in the Journal of Creation. I understand it’s nuanced, but at the end of the day without falsification we have no operational science at all. Historical science will always be subservient to reliable testimony about what happened.

[Chris_Falter]

@John_Harshman

I’m afraid you have misconstrued your source.

Thanks for the correction, John!

@T.j_Runyon

There is some data that suggests some did live in snowy and icy conditions and had to live through long, dark winters.

Could you provide a link to that data, TJ?

Thanks to all,
Chris

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@PDPrice

I can take the exact same route to ignoring the results of radiometric dating techniques. After all, we have had the Bible for a lot longer, and we have a lot more reason to trust the Bible than we do these newfangled techniques

Not really, because then you’re just putting your preferred interpretation of the bible up against all the mountains of evidence for the Earth and universe being old, in which case just like with the uncertainty about preservation mechanisms, your preferred bible interpretation is much more likely to be wrong. That’s before we even consider the possibility that the bible is wrong even if properly understood, but I didn’t even have to go there.

That you’re reading the bible correctly is more likely to be wrong, than it is that all the evidence we have for the Earth being old is wrong.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@PDPrice

There is no way to prove the age of anything. All you can do is measure things in the present and make extrapolations.

I can agree with this. This is why I find that independent methods like carbon-14 dating, varve counting, tree-ring counting, ice-core layer counting particularly compelling when they arrive at extrapolations.

@PDPrice

Your extrapolations are only as good as the assumptions you used

Also agreed. That is why dating via multiple isotopes is both important and compelling.

@PDPrice

Since you said “it takes more”, then what exactly does it take?

I don’t believe that there is a universal standard for what is required to overturn a “fact” that is agreed upon by virtually all of the experts in a particular field. Since soft tissue in dinosaur bones is clearly tangential to the age of the earth, it is nowhere near sufficient to overturn directly-related evidence.

@PDPrice

You clearly disagree with what Einstein said about science being subject to falsification.

What I said was “It takes more than a shocking find and an Einstein quote to prove the age of the earth (and/or universe) is ~6,000 years old”. Do you believe my statement was accurate or inaccurate?

Of course falsification is important, but this is a really good example of why a very literal interpretation of what someone said can be misleading. There are many such examples.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@Rumraket

That you’re reading the bible correctly is more likely to be wrong, than it is that all the evidence we have for the Earth being old is wrong.

If that’s what you think, then what do you think Jesus was referring to when he said, “From the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” in Mark 10:6?

And what do you think God meant in Genesis 1:29-30 when he said he gave the animals & people plants for food, and then in Gen 9:3 he said that now just as he gave them plants he was now giving them everything (i.e. meat)?

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PDPrice

I have, and I have also been published on this topic in the Journal of Creation. I understand it’s nuanced, but at the end of the day without falsification we have no operational science at all. Historical science will always be subservient to reliable testimony about what happened.

Oh yes, I remember now, you wrote something about “historical science” being inferior to “operational science”, in the face of professional philosophers of science like Carol Cleland. Forgive me if I’m not impressed by your publication in JoC.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@cwhenderson

I can agree with this. This is why I find that independent methods like carbon-14 dating, varve counting, tree-ring counting, ice-core layer counting particularly compelling when they arrive at extrapolations.

These extrapolations often disagree, and are simply thrown out when they do.

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating

@cwhenderson

Since soft tissue in dinosaur bones is clearly tangential to the age of the earth, it is nowhere near sufficient to overturn directly-related evidence.

In what way is it tangential?

@cwhenderson

What I said was “It takes more than a shocking find and an Einstein quote to prove the age of the earth (and/or universe) is ~6,000 years old”. Do you believe my statement was accurate or inaccurate?

I already responded to that; it was inaccurate by virtue of the fact that there is no way to prove anything about the age of something. Without my birth certificate all you could do is guess at my age. Testimony is paramount in historical studies.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@PDPrice

These extrapolations often disagree, and are simply thrown out when they do.

https://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

Your link is unrelated to any of the dating methods I mentioned. I did a quick search since I’m not sure exactly when this thread will close, and there is nothing mentioned about lake varves, tree rings, or ice cores.

@PDPrice

In what way is it tangential?

Unless you are assuming that we can determine the age of the earth by looking as soft tissue in fossils, then it is tangential.

@PDPrice

I already responded to that; it was inaccurate by virtue of the fact that there is no way to prove anything about the age of something.

I’m having trouble making sense of this rebuttal. You say it is inaccurate, but that would mean that it somehow IS possible to determine that the age of the earth is ~6,000 years old based entirely on a shocking find and an Einstein quote. Surely, you don’t actually mean that.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@PDPrice

If that’s what you think, then what do you think Jesus was referring to when he said, “From the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” in Mark 10:6?

I don’t care, it’s not relevant to this discussion.

@PDPrice

And what do you think God meant in Genesis

Obviously as a non-believer I don’t think it’s God’s word.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@John_Harshman

As @T.j_Runyon has noted, a few ornithischians have been found with hairlike fibers that may be homologous to feathers, and so have some pterosaurs. This suggests that feathers (or hairlike protofeathers) may be ancestral in dinosaurs or even ornithodirans.

Or they could be artifacts of decomposition. Or they could be just some other random thing; “hairlike fibers” is hardly conclusive proof that any dinos had feathers.