Bluegrassrivals

Full Version: Dinosaur Bones - Just how old are they?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Most people think that fossil bones (of which the most well-known examples are those of dinosaurs) must be very, very old—because, after all, they have turned to stone, haven’t they?

Even millions of years might, to some, not even seem long enough to allow for natural processes to gradually, molecule by molecule, replace the original substance of the bone with rock minerals.

But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists.1

For one thing, it says:

‘Bones do not have to be “turned into stone” to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.’2

Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly ‘permineralized.’ This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn’t this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:

‘The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.’

So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all.

Now of course if a dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such as bone to just naturally ‘fall apart.’ So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of years old.

However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics,3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.

There are actually instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried. We are told:

‘The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from modern bone.’4
This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. Those who take Genesis as real history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than a few thousand years old, so the existence of such totally unmineralized dinosaur bones that have not disintegrated is perfectly consistent with our expectations.

We have previously told you about the unfossilized dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin.5 Also, we wrote about ‘fresh dinosaur bones’ in Alaska.6 Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm this:

‘An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.’

In summary, therefore:
  • Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone.

  • Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’Wink, this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions.

  • Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old.

  • The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.

Article by Carl Wieland http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...rbones.asp
I still say they are millions of years old.
Amun-Ra Wrote:I still say they are millions of years old.

Just curious, on what basis do you base your assumptions? Please elaborate.
BaseballMan Wrote:Just curious, on what basis do you base your assumptions? Please elaborate.

Carbon dating.

I read your article and I see the points being made. But I have a hard time believing that all fossils were subjected to the instances the author speaks of. Not all fossils were froze in Alaska, not all fossils were formed in mineral springs.
Amun-Ra Wrote:Carbon dating.

I read your article and I see the points being made. But I have a hard time believing that all fossils were subjected to the instances the author speaks of. Not all fossils were froze in Alaska, not all fossils were formed in mineral springs.

I have a hard time believing any of the crap these crackpots from Australia are saying.

IMO these people are giving Christianity and Creationism a bad name. Whatever happened to the, "well a day in God's time might be millions of years in our time?" Because that makes more sense to me.
I agree with what you deleted CE.
Amun-Ra Wrote:I agree with what you deleted CE.

:Thumbs:
What is Baseballman's obsession with Dinosaur Bones?
Amun-Ra Wrote:Carbon dating.

I read your article and I see the points being made. But I have a hard time believing that all fossils were subjected to the instances the author speaks of. Not all fossils were froze in Alaska, not all fossils were formed in mineral springs.

All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.

The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.10
~Mike Riddle, Author
ComfortEagle Wrote:I have a hard time believing any of the crap these crackpots from Australia are saying.

IMO these people are giving Christianity and Creationism a bad name. Whatever happened to the, "well a day in God's time might be millions of years in our time?" Because that makes more sense to me.

All of our media outlets push evolution and “millions of years” ideas on the public. Even children’s cartoons reflect evolutionary philosophy! In an episode of the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants, entitled “SpongeBob B.C.,” the narrator begins: “Ah, dawn breaks over the primordial sea. It is here that millions of years ago, life began taking its first clumsy steps out of the darkness, opening its newly formed eyeballs to stare into the blinding light of intelligence.” Unfortunately, large segments of the church have swallowed the millions-of-years evolutionary history hook, line, and sinker. But it was not always this way. In this chapter, we will discover where the idea of millions of years came from and why the church went along with it. We will see that science does not require it, but rather it is a necessity of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, most people in the world, including most people in the church, take for granted that the earth and universe are millions and millions (even billions) of years old. Our public schools, from kindergarten on up, teach these vast ages, and one is scoffed at if he questions them. But it has not always been that way, and it is important to understand how this change took place and why.

~Terry Mortenson, Author
ComfortEagle Wrote:I have a hard time believing any of the crap these crackpots from Australia are saying.

IMO these people are giving Christianity and Creationism a bad name. Whatever happened to the, "well a day in God's time might be millions of years in our time?" Because that makes more sense to me.

If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.

It is a good exercise to read Genesis 1 and try to put aside outside influences that may cause you to have a predetermined idea of what the word “day” may mean. Just let the words of the passage speak to you.

Taking Genesis 1 in this way, at face value, without doubt it says that God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon and stars, plants and animals, and the first two people within six ordinary (approximately 24-hour) days. Being really honest, you would have to admit that you could never get the idea of millions of years from reading this passage.

The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the Western world, however, do not insist that these days of creation were ordinary-length days, and many of them accept and teach, based on outside influences, that they must have been long periods of time—even millions or billions of years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...n-six-days
DevilsWin Wrote:What is Baseballman's obsession with Dinosaur Bones?

It's interesting new information to me that challenges my past thoughts and teachings on the subject of evolution. I am studying to challenge my faith and the worldview. Worldview's have been wrong before, so why is evolution or the theory that the earth is millions of years old so dead set as being the truth. At one point, many people accepted truth that the world was flat. It was a common worldview believed to be true, except by a few different people groups, and it also went against what the Holy Bible stated about the fact. We now know for sure that the earth is spherical.

At another time, people also believed the sun revolved around the earth. Except for a man named Copernicus and another named Galileo, who was christian and believed the sun set still and the earth went around the sun because he first read about that from God's Holy Word. We now know that the earth as well as other planets revolve around the sun.
I would give this argument more thought if you would post a link that supported you. Not the Christian - based link that you keep giving us. One websites view is just a narrowminded as those who thought the world was flat.
Amun-Ra Wrote:I would give this argument more thought if you would post a link that supported you. Not the Christian - based link that you keep giving us. One websites view is just a narrowminded as those who thought the world was flat.

I am supporting me with the information I am studying. You see, I am presenting a debatable topic using the information I have found from these scientists who have a different view of the scientific facts that have been found. I am posting them here to get opinions and thoughts from people like you to find out what is your stance on this alternative viewpoint. And to be frank, my findings don't seem to represent the authors of this website as narrowminded, but mostly the opponents of the authors who are predetermined to oppose whatever information that disagrees with their own. These authors take on both sides and give you the choice - have faith in evolutionary science (which has only a handful of debatable artifacts) or have faith in the Holy Scriptures of the Bible (which offers a different view than that of the world on every subject; not only morals and values).