Jump to content


Photo

Scientist Fired Over Soft Tissue In T-Tops Dino


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#41 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 August 2014 - 10:36 AM

 

Well stranger things have happened. unsure.png  Just seems Sapiens is so disturbed about the actual facts, he's trying to divert the topic.  

 

Right. But what else are they going to do in light of the facts discovered?



#42 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 01 August 2014 - 12:58 PM

piasan I appreciate the open-mindedness on this.  I can't help but asking, is any of this swaying you that dinosaurs may have lived with man?  Not only do you have this soft tissue phenomena which is popping up all over the place now, but dragon & dragon slayer legends all over the world.  You've got a description of a very Sauropod-sounding creature in Job 40.  

 

[edit - also the ancient drawings and artifacts lifepsyop linked below] 8.gif 

 

I don't know if you're really staunch in your evolution, or perhaps just nominally in that camp.  Just ask'n.  



#43 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 651 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 01 August 2014 - 01:47 PM

Not only do you have this soft tissue phenomena which is popping up all over the place now, but dragon & dragon slayer legends all over the world.  You've got a description of a very Sauropod-sounding creature in Job 40. 

 

This site has some awesome images of dinosaur-like creatures depicted throughout ancient artifacts and architecture.  

 

http://s8int.com/Wor...ving-dinosaurs/

 

 

Ornamental box from Shang Dynasty 1700 BC

 

fang%20jian%20dinosaur2%20small.jpg


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#44 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2014 - 05:59 AM

Because of course, nothing like this has ever happened before.  Evolutionists are very openminded about these things. kaffeetrinker.gif


I've never seen evolutionists be irrational. Not once. :P
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#45 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 04 August 2014 - 06:55 PM

And here we go again.  

 

Seabed worm fossils still soft after 500 million years?

by David Catchpoole

Siboglinidae.jpg

Siboglinid marine worms such as the beard worms shown here live on the sea floor at depths ranging anywhere from 100 metres to 10,000 metres (300–30,000 ft).
Credit: Wikipedia.org

Numerous fossil remains ‘dated’ as being many millions of years old are hardly mineralized (i.e. where minerals take the place of the creature’s original tissue), if at all. For example, Tyrannosaurus rex bones containing red blood cells and soft ‘squishy’ tissue boggle the minds of those who claim that dinosaur remains are 65 million years old, at least.1Such soft tissue finds utterly contradict the widely believed old age of the earth.2

And now, a new find exceeds all previous claims for persistence of the remains of dead creatures to the present day—that is, according to the mind-stretchingly bizarre pre-Cambrian ‘age’ assigned to these fossils. The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3

The tube of S. cambriensiswas flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation—Moczydłowska et al., Journal of Paleontology, 2014

They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensiswere still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization. In the researchers’ own words (from their Journal of Paleontology paper):

“The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.”3

And:

“The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.”3

Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm—Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska

Accompanying electron microscope photographs showed these ‘perfect in habit’ fibres to be less than half a thousandth of a millimetre wide. Yet these delicate fibres are still soft after supposedly half a billion years!?

The researchers were even able to chemically tease the fibres apart for further examination, and concluded that the structure of the fossil worm tube casing is “consistent with the ß chitin tubes of siboglinid animals”.3 In other words, the same as seabed dwelling worms such as beard worms today (see photo above). Why has there been no evolution in all that (supposed) time?4

One obvious answer is, there hasn’t been ‘all that time’! Creatures were created only about 6,000 years ago to reproduce “according to their kinds”, not to ‘evolve’.

Preservation of the worms … and bacteria upon them!

How could there be such great preservation of these marine worm fossil remains, and also the bacteria that feed on them? Professor Moczydłowska had earlier reported to the Palaeontological Association in Copenhagen that she had identified clumps of nanobacteria on the flanks of S. cambriensis fossils found in Lithuania. They were similarly ‘dated’ at half a billion years old, and believed to be the smallest fossilised lifeforms ever discovered.5

It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will again

Magnifying the nanobacteria 2,500 times with a scanning electron microscope revealed tiny filaments “flexible and deformed like macaroni”. Chemical analysis showed “they were neither modern contaminants nor mineral deposits.”5 Professor Moczydłowska offered the following scenario as to how these had come to be preserved:

 

“After the worm died, the nanobacteria started eating into it in oxygen-free water at the bottom of a marine basin. Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm. Nanobacteria activity ceased and they were rapidly fossilised.”5

Perhaps stirred up by a storm? But storms today don’t seem to ‘pack the punch’ required to explain the exquisite preservation seen in the ‘fossil record’. It seems Professor Moczydłowska and her evolutionary colleagues are unaware of (or have deliberately forgotten?—2 Peter 3:3–6) a colossal worldwide storm that would account for the abundance of preserved creatures found in sedimentary rock layers all around the world. It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will experience again (Genesis 9:11–17). And the Bible indicates that this was only around 4,500 years ago.

source

 

I know I know.  It proves nothing. All evidence like this should be ignored. unsure.png


  • gilbo12345, Calypsis4 and like this

#46 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:16 AM

And here we go again.  

 

Seabed worm fossils still soft after 500 million years?

by David Catchpoole

Siboglinidae.jpg

Siboglinid marine worms such as the beard worms shown here live on the sea floor at depths ranging anywhere from 100 metres to 10,000 metres (300–30,000 ft).
Credit: Wikipedia.org

Numerous fossil remains ‘dated’ as being many millions of years old are hardly mineralized (i.e. where minerals take the place of the creature’s original tissue), if at all. For example, Tyrannosaurus rex bones containing red blood cells and soft ‘squishy’ tissue boggle the minds of those who claim that dinosaur remains are 65 million years old, at least.1Such soft tissue finds utterly contradict the widely believed old age of the earth.2

And now, a new find exceeds all previous claims for persistence of the remains of dead creatures to the present day—that is, according to the mind-stretchingly bizarre pre-Cambrian ‘age’ assigned to these fossils. The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3

The tube of S. cambriensiswas flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation—Moczydłowska et al., Journal of Paleontology, 2014

They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensiswere still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization. In the researchers’ own words (from their Journal of Paleontology paper):

“The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.”3

And:

“The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.”3

Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm—Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska

Accompanying electron microscope photographs showed these ‘perfect in habit’ fibres to be less than half a thousandth of a millimetre wide. Yet these delicate fibres are still soft after supposedly half a billion years!?

The researchers were even able to chemically tease the fibres apart for further examination, and concluded that the structure of the fossil worm tube casing is “consistent with the ß chitin tubes of siboglinid animals”.3 In other words, the same as seabed dwelling worms such as beard worms today (see photo above). Why has there been no evolution in all that (supposed) time?4

One obvious answer is, there hasn’t been ‘all that time’! Creatures were created only about 6,000 years ago to reproduce “according to their kinds”, not to ‘evolve’.

Preservation of the worms … and bacteria upon them!

How could there be such great preservation of these marine worm fossil remains, and also the bacteria that feed on them? Professor Moczydłowska had earlier reported to the Palaeontological Association in Copenhagen that she had identified clumps of nanobacteria on the flanks of S. cambriensis fossils found in Lithuania. They were similarly ‘dated’ at half a billion years old, and believed to be the smallest fossilised lifeforms ever discovered.5

It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will again

Magnifying the nanobacteria 2,500 times with a scanning electron microscope revealed tiny filaments “flexible and deformed like macaroni”. Chemical analysis showed “they were neither modern contaminants nor mineral deposits.”5 Professor Moczydłowska offered the following scenario as to how these had come to be preserved:

 

“After the worm died, the nanobacteria started eating into it in oxygen-free water at the bottom of a marine basin. Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm. Nanobacteria activity ceased and they were rapidly fossilised.”5

Perhaps stirred up by a storm? But storms today don’t seem to ‘pack the punch’ required to explain the exquisite preservation seen in the ‘fossil record’. It seems Professor Moczydłowska and her evolutionary colleagues are unaware of (or have deliberately forgotten?—2 Peter 3:3–6) a colossal worldwide storm that would account for the abundance of preserved creatures found in sedimentary rock layers all around the world. It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will experience again (Genesis 9:11–17). And the Bible indicates that this was only around 4,500 years ago.

source

 

I know I know.  It proves nothing. All evidence like this should be ignored. unsure.png

 

That's excellent information. 

 

I've noted this before when considering Mary Schweitzers discovery of soft tissue and red blood cells in the '68 million yr old' T-Rex, but the whole thing becomes ludicrous to think that soft tissue could be found in anything so old when you consider that the body of King Tut having been discovered 'dry as a bone' in Egypt after only (approx) 3,000 yrs. But evolutionists just want us to turn off our brains and accept whatever they tell us.

 

http://emhotep.net/2...-just-restated/



#47 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 651 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 05 August 2014 - 12:33 PM

According to the Paleontology report, "Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary [not replaced], preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics." The paper included electron micrographs of some of those fabrics' fossilized fibers.

 

The study authors described the worm wall as still "flexible, as shown by its soft deformation." And just to be clear, they wrote, "The body wall of S. cambriensis [fossil worm] comprises a chitin-structural protein composite."

 

Fresh-looking material like this soft chitin and its associated proteins should not cause researchers to merely doubt the worm fossils' 551 million year-old age assignment, but to utterly reject it. However, unless secularists pay homage to the Geologic Time Scale's age designations for characteristic rock layers, their work would almost certainly fail to be accepted as "scientific."

 

soft_worms_pic.jpg

 

http://www.icr.org/article/8059/



#48 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:59 AM

Nature just published an article on the case (http://www.nature.co...-hunter-1.16281). I particularly found the quote of Jack Horner amusing:
 

Creationists often appeal to soft-tissue preservation as evidence that dinosaur fossils are thousands rather than millions of years old, says palaeontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana. “Science is about building hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them,” he says. “Creation science or any kind of pseudoscience is just the opposite. It is coming up with an idea or a notion or anything else and finding evidence to support it.”


This is coming from the guy who refused a grant to radiocarbon date the T-Rex material. Yeah. That's really "attempting to falsify hypotheses". rolleyes.gif



#49 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 November 2014 - 07:28 AM

Nature just published an article on the case (http://www.nature.co...-hunter-1.16281). I particularly found the quote of Jack Horner amusing:
 


This is coming from the guy who refused a grant to radiocarbon date the T-Rex material. Yeah. That's really "attempting to falsify hypotheses". rolleyes.gif

 

Yeah, it figures.



#50 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 November 2014 - 10:49 AM

This is coming from the guy who refused a grant to radiocarbon date the T-Rex material. Yeah. That's really "attempting to falsify hypotheses". rolleyes.gif

 

Yes, he surely did refuse.

 

Also,

 

Jack Horner...

 

"Creationists often appeal to soft-tissue preservation as evidence that dinosaur fossils are thousands rather than millions of years old, says palaeontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana. “Science is about building hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them,” he says. “Creation science or any kind of pseudoscience is just the opposite. It is coming up with an idea or a notion or anything else and finding evidence to support it.”

 

 

Note the subtle "No True Scotsman" (Fallacy)....what a worm (No Pun Intended)  

 

 

Somebody call Jack and have him explain, Step By Scientific Method Step wink.pngHOW Paleontology is "science" and not a Begging The Question (Fallacy)/"Just So" Story IN TOTO?  acigar.gif

 

He wouldn't last a Planck Time on this forum



#51 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 November 2014 - 11:32 AM

Nature just published an article on the case (http://www.nature.co...-hunter-1.16281). I particularly found the quote of Jack Horner amusing: ......

With regard to Armitage's case and from the same article:

CSUN declined to comment on Armitage’s performance or its reasons for ending his employment. However, Jeffrey Noblitt, associate vice-president of marketing and communications at CSUN, did stress in an email that Armitage’s position had been “temporary”.

 

OK.... the refusal of CSUN to comment is pretty much standard for any defendant in a legal case.  What I find interesting is the argument that "Armitage's position had been 'temporary.'"   If so, and Armitage was not replaced, his case will be pretty much DOA.

 

On the other hand, if it was not described as "temporary" or if he was replaced after his discharge, he probably can make a pretty strong case.

 

One thing that comes to mind.... was he approaching some kind tenure or "permanent" status?  The fact he worked there for just over 3 years suggests that may be a possibility.

 

Whatever happens, my bet is that the final outcome will have some kind of gag order attached and we'll never have access to the records that would settle the justification of his termination.



#52 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:06 PM

A bit more "fact-finding" .....   Here is a copy of the complaint filed by Armitage:

Link:  https://cbsla.files....e-complaint.pdf

 

On page 3, it states he was hired as a "'regular' 'part-time' employee."  On the same page, the complaint states he was initially to work 2 ten hour shifts per week and was a "permanent part-time employee."  Page 4 states: "He ran the lab in an exemplary fashion and was regularly lauded for his work and accomplishment."  As I read thru the document, it appears Armitage was a model employee who was considered a prize find by those who hired him.  What I get from it is that when the hiring manager retired and a new manager (Kwok) replaced him, Armitage began to have problems.

 

While recognizing that the complaint filed by Armitage is only one side of the case it appears that the claim the job was temporary was little more than a "CYA" exercise.  It also appears the termination was the action of a single supervisor rather than university policy.  That, of course, does not excuse CSUN from responsibility. 

 

Until/unless further information becomes available, it looks like Armitage has a good case against Kwok and because Kwok was the agent of the university, CSUN will bear fiscal responsibility for Kwok's actions.



#53 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy
  • Age: 54
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Southern NY State

Posted 08 November 2014 - 12:55 PM

Soft tissue found on T. Rex explained
 

... The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," [Mary Schweitzer] said.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26 [, 2013]) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron. ...

 



#54 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 08 November 2014 - 01:41 PM

Soft tissue found on T. Rex explained

 
Mary Schweitzer's desperate, straw-grasping attempt to get around the obvious by utilizing unrealistic concentrations of hemoglobin in unrealistic conditions explained:
 

Reading the supplementary material in her article it appears that pure hemoglobin was used, not lysed cells or materials that could be expected to mimic what would be present in an animal carcass. (Blood vessels soaked in laboratory-prepared hemoglobin is hardly representative of decomposing bones).

One might also ask how realistic a concentrated hemoglobin extract is, compared to the real world. While unrealistically concentrated hemoglobin might preserve for a time, it doesn’t follow that natural, dilute hemoglobin will act the same way. Indeed, tissues rich in blood vessels, such as lungs and gills, often decay very quickly. One infamous example is the gills of dead basking sharks that rot and slough off to form the pseudo-plesiosaur shape.

And the suggestion that blood vessels remaining ‘recognizable’ for two years somehow demonstrates that these could last thirty five million times as long requires a phenomenal cognitive leap.

Further, it is not plausible that iron could be as good a preservative as formaldehyde, which directly forms covalent cross-links between protein chains, something iron can’t do. But even if we grant that it had the same preservative power (just for the sake of the discussion), what reason is there for anyone to expect that formaldehyde could preserve soft tissues, and fine cellular details, for tens of millions of years? Embalmers of human bodies widely acknowledge that their use of formaldehyde is to slow down, not prevent, the relentless process of decomposition.


Did you have something original to add to the debate, or did you just want to rehash the same claims that have been covered here before?



#55 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy
  • Age: 54
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Southern NY State

Posted 08 November 2014 - 01:48 PM

 
Mary Schweitzer's desperate, straw-grasping attempt to get around the obvious by utilizing unrealistic concentrations of hemoglobin in unrealistic conditions explained:
 


Did you have something original to add to the debate, or did you just want to rehash the same claims that have been covered here before?

 

Delete my post if you don't like it.



#56 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 19 July 2015 - 03:13 PM

Any update on the Mark Armitage lawsuit?  He seems to have stopped talking about it.  



#57 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 July 2015 - 11:47 PM

Any update on the Mark Armitage lawsuit?  

A quick search didn't turn up anything new.  As far as I know, the lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, but the records seem to be behind a pay wall and I don't care enough to pay to find out.

 

My prediction is still that there will be some kind of out-of-court settlement with no admission of guilt and a gag order.  That prediction has nothing to do with the evolution/creation aspect of the case ..... it's just typical behavior in employment discrimination cases. 

 

The fact is that it's often cheaper to just pay someone off and have them go away than it is to fight them.



#58 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 February 2016 - 04:23 PM

First it must be demonstrated that this really is original soft tissue then other explanations need to be falsified, and even then all you've done is prove that soft tissue can stick around a long time. I'd suggest that both DNA and radiometric conformation would be needed to prove it is original material and that it is "young."

First, it would not be surprising at all that a 5000 year old fossil specimen would not have identifiable DNA. So that expectation should be eliminated. Even so Mary Schweitzer has claimed she has identified at least partial DNA from her T Rex. Secondly as I think most here know, there has been radiometric dating of many soft tissue specimens and large amounts of C14 have been identified. In one instance, there were non creationists who found enough carbon-14 in a mosasaur to date it at 24600 years, although they decided arbitrarily and without evidence that this carbon-14 had to have come from modern bacterial contamination. At the same time they reported finding no bacterial DNA to support the claim of contamination. And they asserted the soft tissue they found was not a result of contamination.

So Pi, what gives with you discussing soft tissue with other guys when you have fastidiously refused to discuss it when I bring it up? You commented on the ice ages thread that you were busy with other discussions here so I checked the other threads and didn't find you involved in much else. I found you in this discussion about soft tissue, of all things, from quite a while ago, and now I feel like I caught you cheating on me!
  • Bmaxdlux likes this

#59 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 February 2016 - 06:53 PM

To Pi: I guess I should not make it sound like you never discussed soft tissue at all. However I think you will agree that I was never able to press the point home with you because you had said several times that you just weren't going to look into it much because you prefer astronomy and other science topics. I believe the truth is that you see this as powerful evidence against evolution. All you really can say is that you have faith... faith that science will one day give you the answer that will resolve the problem that soft tissue presents against evolution. But until then you must agree that soft tissue from dinosaurs is pretty close to the silver bullet that kills evolution. Anyone who is not biased should be able to see that. But I guess all of us on both sides of this have our biases. Someday I hope to find a truly inquisitive agnostic and maybe then the power of this argument will have its good effect. But they are a very rare breed.

#60 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2016 - 11:05 AM

 

So Pi, what gives with you discussing soft tissue with other guys when you have fastidiously refused to discuss it when I bring it up? 

I was under the impression I was discussing Armitage's lawsuit against CSUN, not soft dino tissue.  If you go up-thread, you will find little from me about the soft tissue itself.

 

Further, we have discussed soft dino tissue extensively, and you know it.  I'm still waiting for a reason I should discard a statistically valid age measurement that is not, so far as we can tell, subject to any significant outside influence in favor of a finding that can vary by a half dozen orders of magnitude due to a half dozen (or more) external factors.

 

You commented on the ice ages thread that you were busy with other discussions here so I checked the other threads and didn't find you involved in much else. I found you in this discussion about soft tissue, of all things, from quite a while ago, and now I feel like I caught you cheating on me!

Awww.... Dave.   I didn't know we had that kind of relationship.

 

You're right, I'm not participating as much as I did in the past.... and my time constraints now are considerably different from what they were 6 months ago.

 

 

However I think you will agree that I was never able to press the point home with you because you had said several times that you just weren't going to look into it much because you prefer astronomy and other science topics. 

I prefer physics to biology.  No question.  IMO, physics is much more a problem for YEC than biology could ever be.   I'm pretty sure what I said was stated by me above.... that I see no reason to discard radioisotope dating in favor of biological decay dating.  This is based on the inherent instability of biological decay and the stability of radioactive decay as well as our much greater understanding of nuclear decay when compared to biological decay.

 

I believe the truth is that you see this as powerful evidence against evolution. 

The truth is that, compared to multiple independent lines of data showing YEC to be false, I see this as having about the impact of a flea farting in a hurricane.

 

 All you really can say is that you have faith... faith that science will one day give you the answer that will resolve the problem that soft tissue presents against evolution.    But until then you must agree that soft tissue from dinosaurs is pretty close to the silver bullet that kills evolution. 

I see it as more of a nerf ball than a silver bullet.

 

Anyone who is not biased should be able to see that. But I guess all of us on both sides of this have our biases. 

Yes, we do.... you included.

 

Someday I hope to find a truly inquisitive agnostic and maybe then the power of this argument will have its good effect. But they are a very rare breed.

What do you mean by "truly inquisitive?"

 

To me, that would mean one who begins with no presupposition about the accuracy and/or inerrancy of the Bible and goes from there.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users