Giga,
I can only assume by your embarrassing post "refuting" IronSkillet that you are a young earth creationist.
If so, you are what I, and most educated people, like to call
wrong.
Your ignorant "claims" are the standard inane drivel spouted by a dying breed of anti-evolutionists whose grasp of science and The natural world is inversely proportional to their dogmatic belief in a book cobbled together by hundreds of semi-literate desert dwellers over several hundred years, then copied/translated/reproduced/revised by hand over a thousand more before the advent of high fidelity print copying. A book which is so glaring in its contradictions, which displays neither unity of style nor internal consistency, that it can't even provide an accurate date of birth OR death for your "messiah".
The amount of complete rubbish in your supposed "scientific facts" purporting to "disprove" the age of the Earth/Universe are too numerous to cover, so here's just a couple to illustrate how pathetically ill-informed you are:
Ref your point 6.
The "supernova" bull**** claim (I like how you guys have given up on the "dating" errors!):
Reference supernova (and their remnant ) types, this is the theoretical model. In reality astronomers have found that most SNRs do not follow this standard model (Harrus et al. 2001). Some of the reasons for this are:
The ISM in which supernovae occur is rarely isotropic or of a uniform consistency and density, which leads to asymmetry and differences within the remnant (Dohm-Palmer & Jones 1996; Maciejewski & Cox 1999; Slavin et al. 2000).
If a supernova occurs in a pre-existing bubble of interstellar material surrounded by a massive shell of gas then the Sedov phase will not necessarily occur (Wheeler et al. 1980; Franco et al. 1991; Franco 1994; Gvaramadze 2000), indeed, the SNR may not be detectable at all in this scenario unless it hits the walls of the shell (Fich 1986; Koo & Heiles 1995; Chu 1997).
If the density of the medium in which the SNR is located is low enough, it is possible for the SNR to finish its life by merging with the ISM before cooling becomes important (Asvarov 2000).
Different stages can occur simultaneously in different locations within a single remnant (Cioffi et al. 1988; Tenorio-Tagle et al. 1990; Franco et al. 1994; Jones et al. 1998; Asvarov 2000; Bykov et al. 2000; Reynoso & Mangum 2001).
If the ISM is strongly magnetized, then the evolution of the SNR will differ in terms of the length of the various phases and the overall shape of the remnant (Insertis & Rees 1991).
Sorry it wasn't a pretty soundbite from one of your moronic Discovery Institute websites, but proper science relies on hard data, references and the peer review process.
Reference your false Dino "soft tissue" claim (Christ, do ANY of you nutters bother to check facts?!):
Red blood cells and hemoglobin were most definitely NOT found. Instead they found signatures of these blood remnants, sort of like footprints, but not the actual tissues. Additionally, the age of the fossilized (and yes, it was fossilized) dinosaur bone mentioned above (amino acid dating was used) was concurrent with all of the other mountains of evidence that say dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. . Sources: "Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present"
Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer and John R Horner.
"Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone"
Mary H. Schweitzer*, Mark Marshall†, Keith Carron‡, D. Scott Bohle‡, Scott C. Busse§, Ernst V. Arnold‡, Darlene Barnard†, J. R. Horner*, and Jean R. Starkey¶
Try reading some non "answers in genesis" literature from, oh, I don't know... Scientists perhaps? You, those men and women who actually further human knowledge in their endeavours.
Finally, to all the "there is no morality without god" brigade: you are terrifying, disgusting individuals. If ANY human being can't look at what happened to that child in the video and inherently KNOW that it is wrong without reference to CCTV camera in the sky, then we as a species are surely doomed. Indeed, we get an insight into "religious morality" from the likes of Air Prophet, with his thinly veiled "you had better hope you're right" dig. Such a perfect example of hypocritical religious morality: claiming to be loving and understanding whilst simultaneously showing the capriciousness and schadenfreude that comes with knowing an all-loving god will "get his revenge" on you.
