Jump to content


Photo

The T-Rex Blood Find Has Been Confirmed With Repeatable Results!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 December 2011 - 01:06 PM

When the first find happened for T-Rex blood tissue and blood vessels, I thought the idea would die off. Mainly because no one wanted to touch the idea of reconfirming the find, leading to one of the conclusions that could be determined (creation and young earth). The video below not only confirms that no one really wanted to do this, but that the woman who discovered this was attacked for her find. It took someone who owned the largest collection of dino fossils to allow her to try and replicate the find. No one else would allow her to do this (same problem creationists run into on several levels). The discoverer was actually being treated like a creationist because what she found did not conform to the evolution theory, even though (in the video below)that same problem is never mentioned.

So they took other bones from other dinosaurs, birds, etc... They were from the same time period, and did the same tests which exposed the tissue, blood vessels, and blood. It happened every time the tests were done, making the find basically empirical, being repeatable under the same conditions. So the so called "fluke" is no longer a fluke. The find is empirical, and now evolutionists will have to deal with it.



But of course, dealing with it will include ignoring any conclusions that points in any other direction, other than evolution. That's basically conformism, not science, Science is supposed to follow the evidence, regardless of where it leads. This example will prove the creationist claim, that science is biased towards anything that does not support their beloved theory--so this ought to be fun to watch.

How does blood, tissue and blood vessels last 80 million years?
Answer: They don't. 6,000 years encased in bone is more likely than 80 million years.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 December 2011 - 08:35 AM

The ironic thing about this is that it also proves what Ben Steins movie expelled showed. That bias runs rampant in scientific circles.



That it does not matter who you are, or even if you are an evolutionist. If you find evidence that has the ability to point to an intelligent Creator, or put into question the time-line required for evolution to work, you will be attacked. Discredited, shunned, disowned etc... And the woman in the other video who made this discovery I can bet she did not tell all that happened to her since that find. For one reason she was not asked to go into detail. I'd like to see someone interview her about that and see and prove once and for all just how bias science is,

Some will claim scrutiny. When it comes to scrutinizing the evidence, you don't go after the discoverer as well. Attacking the discoverer is nothing more than discrediting the evidence by default by discrediting discoverer first. That's not science. That's protecting the existing theory against all challenges and challengers, even ones from your own peer group, which proves that evolution is not all that it is said to be, And because of this needed protection proves evolution is not falsifiable. At least as long as this is allowed to continue, and I see no reason that any evolutionist will lift a finger to try and stop this.

For why attack the messenger when it's the evidence that is challenging evolution? Is it better for the evolutionist who finds such evidence to hide it to save face and avoid all the problems that come with finding any evidence that does what the T-Rex blood and tissue find did? Which makes me wonder how much evidence has actually been found like this by evolutionists who are afraid to come forward and be ruined so therefore the evidence is never revealed. All creation evidence and the discoverers are treated the this way.

The discoverers of the evidence below were attacked just like the woman in the video. Their evidence was deemed a fluke or fraud just like the woman in the video. etc....

Attached File  Slide205blood.jpg   117.11KB   0 downloads

Attached File  enhanced_footprint3.jpg   46.01KB   0 downloads

Attached File  dino_skin_compare1.jpg   29.42KB   0 downloads

Can any evolutionist here name one person who found evidence that put evolution into question that was not treated this way? Just one person is all you have to provide, If evolution is not under protection and is not about conformism, you guys should not have any problem naming this person or even making a list.

But let's be honest, such a list or person does not exist. Anyone and everyone whom dares to come against the Evolution Theory gets treated exactly the same way. The way the Expelled movie tried to show. And what's even more ironic is that Ben Stein was treated that way for trying to expose this. This shows that evolutionists are so power hungry with the hold they have on science they are not interested in correction nor will they ever accept it.

Absolute power corrupts, and that is what evolutionists have over science. Corruption brings deception, breaking of their own rules etc... to keep that power. This is proven everyday by evolutionists who have the problems pointed out to them and instead of admitting to it or voicing that it needs correction, or lifting a finger to change things the corruption and deceptions get justified with a comment like: That's how science works.

A group that has the absolute power.
Makes it's own rules.
Deems who can break the rules through justification.
Defines what truth is to them.
Makes everyone else live up to standards they cannot even meet.

Is a power that is totally corrupt. If a government was operating in this fashion, what would it be called? A dictatorship. A dictatorship's main motto is: Follow or be destroyed, And that is what we see here.

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 December 2011 - 01:48 PM

DId anyone notice--the man who discovered the first T-Rex bone, in which Schweitzer accidentally found soft tissue, and blood vessels. He said he saw it sticking out the side of a cliff! Okay, can anyone here tell me about the effects of oxidation on organic material, not to mention air-born bacteria? .

Notice that the 68 million years is set in stone, while the "rules of science" about organic decay and fossilization are challenged. And people swallow this in glassy eyed amazement. Really? Maybe they should read this abstract on peptide bond half life rates. For those who don't understand that, it basically means the rate of protein breakdown in water.



Rates of Uncatalyzed Peptide Bond Hydrolysis in Neutral Solution and the Transition State Affinities of Proteases

Abstract


To assess the relative proficiencies of enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of internal and C-terminal peptide bonds, the rates of the corresponding nonenzymatic reactions were examined at elevated temperatures in sealed quartz tubes, yielding linear Arrhenius plots. The results indicate that in neutral solution at 25 °C, peptide bonds are hydrolyzed with half-times of approximately 500 years for the C-terminal bond of acetylglycylglycine, 600 years for the internal peptide bond of acetylglycylglycine N-methylamide, and 350 years for the dipeptide glycylglycine. These reactions, insensitive to changing pH or ionic strength, appear to represent uncatalyzed attack by water on the peptide bond. Comparison of rate constants indicates very strong binding of the altered substrate in the transition states for the corresponding enzyme reactions.... http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/ja954077c


Amide Bond Cleavage: The Acceleration Due to a 1,3-Diaxial Interaction with a Carboxylic Acid

"At neutral pH and 25 ºC, the hydrolysis of an unactivated peptide bond has a half-life of roughly 500 years.2,3"

2. Smith RM, Hansen DE. J Am Chem Soc. 1998;120(35):8910–8913.
3. Radzicka A, Wolfenden R. J Am Chem Soc. 1996;118:6105–6109.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../PMC2518966/#R2


Hydrolysis of the Amide Bond


Posted Image
The peptide bond is extremely unreactive towards hydrolysis: its half life in solution lies in the order of centuries

http://www.dsch.univ...detti/amide.htm



#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 December 2011 - 04:30 PM

And here is another example of what happens to even an evolutionist if they happen to disagree with another evolutionist. This is Dawkins vs Tyson. I must warn that the F word is in there at the end.



Also notice how Dawkins has a way out by how he told Tyson to F off. He used what another person said to do this. Dawkins could not wait to attack Tyson for his rebuke. He memorized what this person said so that when a time came that he needed to tell someone to F off he could do it with an excuse attached to it (I was just quoting what someone else said). So basically what we have now is not only: This is how science works...But if you disagree you can F off. How very scientific. I wonder what science class do they teach that in?

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 December 2011 - 07:07 PM

DId anyone notice--the man who discovered the first T-Rex bone, in which Schweitzer accidentally found soft tissue, and blood vessels. He said he saw it sticking out the side of a cliff! Okay, can anyone here tell me about the effects of oxidation on organic material, not to mention air-born bacteria? .

Notice that the 68 million years is set in stone, while the "rules of science" about organic decay and fossilization are challenged. And people swallow this in glassy eyed amazement. Really? Maybe they should read this abstract on peptide bond half life rates. For those who don't understand that, it basically means the rate of protein breakdown in water.


Evolution is a true proven fact so regardless of the evidence it has to always support evolution. So my guess will be that if they cannot explain this they may just come up with a new addition called short time evolution. That way they can make any evidence (young earth, old earth) fit. In this way they can also claim all young earth evidence as evidence for their theory.

Just imagine. The Burdick print, the Taylor trail, the Ica stones etc... Can all be grafted in. :snapoutofit: . Oh sorry, back to reality.

#6 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 December 2011 - 03:38 AM

Thank you for posting this video ikester, it is on an interesting topic.

When I started to study geology continental drift still was not accepted by a sizable number of geologists. Further study yielded more and more evidence in favor of the idea that the continental masses were not fixed, as had been accepted by most all scientists in this discipline before. Then for decades after that I witnessed what appeared to be just about all creationists fighting tooth and nail against continental drift, for they apparently thought it was strong evidence against creationism. Then in the past few years creationists have started to say that it is in fact a reality, only that it happened very rapidly. People on both sides of various questions have been dogmatic in their thinking. Something similar happened with the idea that a collison may have caused mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous. I was skeptical at first but more data was sought that added credence to this theory.

My first geology instructore told us at the end of the course that he hoped we had learned some geology, but more importantly that we had learned to be skeptical. He said that just because something was an idea prevailing at a given time, and was printed in various texts, it did not make it a certainty. I see that in play with this soft-tissue issue. It was appropriate to be skeptical at first, as what was found was not something expected. It was appropriate to test what had been found with further research. That is what the peer review process is all about and that is what I find when this soft-tissue is brought up. As was detailed in the video segment more paleontologists have come to accept the findings of Dr. Schweitzer as she and others have done more research. This has happened in a relatively short period of time compared with the time it took for acceptance of continental drift and other ideas where the concensus view changed.

The subject of evolution did not come up in the discussion in the video, and I think that was keeping the discussion properly focussed where it should be and that is involving the thinking about the preservation of such material through longer periods of time than was previously accepted. I posted a study by different scientists testing some ideas about this many moons ago. But apart from this study, soft tissue had previously been found in non-dinosaur fossils considered to be hundreds of thousands of years in terms of age. There is no scientific law that states that soft tissues cannot be found oreserved in fossils that are very old. If one has the conditions correct that prevents the decay of such material for many thousands of years within rock, the conditions may remain roughly the same for such preservation for a lot longer. It is the very first period of time that is most critical for preservation.

#7 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 12 December 2011 - 05:11 AM

....The subject of evolution did not come up in the discussion in the video, and I think that was keeping the discussion properly focussed where it should be and that is involving the thinking about the preservation of such material through longer periods of time than was previously accepted. I posted a study by different scientists testing some ideas about this many moons ago. But apart from this study, soft tissue had previously been found in non-dinosaur fossils considered to be hundreds of thousands of years in terms of age. There is no scientific law that states that soft tissues cannot be found oreserved in fossils that are very old. If one has the conditions correct that prevents the decay of such material for many thousands of years within rock, the conditions may remain roughly the same for such preservation for a lot longer. It is the very first period of time that is most critical for preservation.

The subject would be the age of the fossil, I agree Geode.
The question would have some subsets, i.e.:
1.) Is this really T-Rex tissue or is it something else?
2.) How long could T-Rex tissue be preserved in that condition?

Question one has been sufficiently answered, I think. It is real T-Rex tissue.
Question two would have to point to certain limits. And you raise the supposition, if it could have been preserved for a long period, it could have been preserved much longer, too. Conventional belief would require more then a 1000 times then the YEC view.
To see whether that is plausible I just thought by myself of an analogy. Food can be preserved over the due date on the can. I had cans of five years that still had reasonably preserved food in it, but would the food be reasonably preserved after 100 years? I think not.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 December 2011 - 11:01 AM

What the evolutionists would have to claim and prove, in order for evidence to support the evolution time-line, is that the evidence can survive 14,166 times longer than the creation time-line. Because of the time involved there is no way they could ever prove it. And because 6,000 years is more viable for the evidence to survive, and 14,166 times that it won't for evolution. Creation time-line wins by default being supported by math.

#9 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 12 December 2011 - 05:40 PM

When the first find happened for T-Rex blood tissue and blood vessels, I thought the idea would die off. Mainly because no one wanted to touch the idea of reconfirming the find, leading to one of the conclusions that could be determined (creation and young earth). The video below not only confirms that no one really wanted to do this, but that the woman who discovered this was attacked for her find. It took someone who owned the largest collection of dino fossils to allow her to try and replicate the find. No one else would allow her to do this (same problem creationists run into on several levels). The discoverer was actually being treated like a creationist because what she found did not conform to the evolution theory, even though (in the video below)that same problem is never mentioned.

So they took other bones from other dinosaurs, birds, etc... They were from the same time period, and did the same tests which exposed the tissue, blood vessels, and blood. It happened every time the tests were done, making the find basically empirical, being repeatable under the same conditions. So the so called "fluke" is no longer a fluke. The find is empirical, and now evolutionists will have to deal with it.

But of course, dealing with it will include ignoring any conclusions that points in any other direction, other than evolution. That's basically conformism, not science, Science is supposed to follow the evidence, regardless of where it leads. This example will prove the creationist claim, that science is biased towards anything that does not support their beloved theory--so this ought to be fun to watch.

How does blood, tissue and blood vessels last 80 million years?
Answer: They don't. 6,000 years encased in bone is more likely than 80 million years.

YES! :yes: :orjnfq: I already shared this on facebook. Thank you so much for posting it!

#10 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:44 AM

The subject would be the age of the fossil, I agree Geode.
The question would have some subsets, i.e.:
1.) Is this really T-Rex tissue or is it something else?
2.) How long could T-Rex tissue be preserved in that condition?

Question one has been sufficiently answered, I think. It is real T-Rex tissue.
Question two would have to point to certain limits. And you raise the supposition, if it could have been preserved for a long period, it could have been preserved much longer, too. Conventional belief would require more then a 1000 times then the YEC view.
To see whether that is plausible I just thought by myself of an analogy. Food can be preserved over the due date on the can. I had cans of five years that still had reasonably preserved food in it, but would the food be reasonably preserved after 100 years? I think not.


And yet food in cans that is edible that is over 100 years old has in fact been found. True, it was in the Antarctic from an old expedition. Conditions can exist that are not typical, as was speculated in the study that I posted months ago.

#11 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:44 AM

Thank you for posting this video ikester, it is on an interesting topic.

When I started to study geology continental drift still was not accepted by a sizable number of geologists. Further study yielded more and more evidence in favor of the idea that the continental masses were not fixed, as had been accepted by most all scientists in this discipline before. Then for decades after that I witnessed what appeared to be just about all creationists fighting tooth and nail against continental drift, for they apparently thought it was strong evidence against creationism. Then in the past few years creationists have started to say that it is in fact a reality, only that it happened very rapidly. People on both sides of various questions have been dogmatic in their thinking. Something similar happened with the idea that a collison may have caused mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous. I was skeptical at first but more data was sought that added credence to this theory.

My first geology instructore told us at the end of the course that he hoped we had learned some geology, but more importantly that we had learned to be skeptical. He said that just because something was an idea prevailing at a given time, and was printed in various texts, it did not make it a certainty. I see that in play with this soft-tissue issue. It was appropriate to be skeptical at first, as what was found was not something expected. It was appropriate to test what had been found with further research. That is what the peer review process is all about and that is what I find when this soft-tissue is brought up. As was detailed in the video segment more paleontologists have come to accept the findings of Dr. Schweitzer as she and others have done more research. This has happened in a relatively short period of time compared with the time it took for acceptance of continental drift and other ideas where the concensus view changed.

The subject of evolution did not come up in the discussion in the video, and I think that was keeping the discussion properly focussed where it should be and that is involving the thinking about the preservation of such material through longer periods of time than was previously accepted. I posted a study by different scientists testing some ideas about this many moons ago. But apart from this study, soft tissue had previously been found in non-dinosaur fossils considered to be hundreds of thousands of years in terms of age. There is no scientific law that states that soft tissues cannot be found oreserved in fossils that are very old. If one has the conditions correct that prevents the decay of such material for many thousands of years within rock, the conditions may remain roughly the same for such preservation for a lot longer. It is the very first period of time that is most critical for preservation.


Geode,
In light of the research that's been done on different peptide bonds in water, or ph nuetral solution, I see inconstitency in how science uses half life data for evidence of age. I realize that half life rates on the nuclear level are not as subject to environmental conditions as the peptide bond. For instance, thorium's half life would not change in acid, but the peptide bond would. But we're talking about a half life in ph nuetral fluid of hundreds of years, versus 68 million years.

But one could assume safely that in 68 million years, the dino bone would have been in contact with ground water. It also would have suffered initial enzymatic break down, and then there would have been age related hydrolysis, as decomposition would have produced it's own fluids. The bone was exposed to air for part of that time, too--it was found jutting out the side of cliff.

You say a good scientist should be skeptical. This evidence should question geological time, at least concerning dinosaurs. It seems to me any outside observer could easily see the bias for established theories (i.e bird/dinosaur ancestry). True imparitiality would call the dating range of dinosaurs into question as quickly as the laws of fossilization. The fact that the former is strangely unmentioned by scientists is quite noticable.

Bottom line, there is a growing body of evidence which seriously questions whether dinosaurs have more recently gone extinct, as well as the bird/dinosaur linage.

#12 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 December 2011 - 06:24 AM

Geode,
In light of the research that's been done on different peptide bonds in water, or ph nuetral solution, I see inconstitency in how science uses half life data for evidence of age. I realize that half life rates on the nuclear level are not as subject to environmental conditions as the peptide bond. For instance, thorium's half life would not change in acid, but the peptide bond would. But we're talking about a half life in ph nuetral fluid of hundreds of years, versus 68 million years.

But one could assume safely that in 68 million years, the dino bone would have been in contact with ground water. It also would have suffered initial enzymatic break down, and then there would have been age related hydrolysis, as decomposition would have produced it's own fluids. The bone was exposed to air for part of that time, too--it was found jutting out the side of cliff.

You say a good scientist should be skeptical. This evidence should question geological time, at least concerning dinosaurs. It seems to me any outside observer could easily see the bias for established theories (i.e bird/dinosaur ancestry). True imparitiality would call the dating range of dinosaurs into question as quickly as the laws of fossilization. The fact that the former is strangely unmentioned by scientists is quite noticable.

Bottom line, there is a growing body of evidence which seriously questions whether dinosaurs have more recently gone extinct, as well as the bird/dinosaur linage.


I think it is fairly obvious that if soft tissues are in fact within these bones, that the material was not in contact with ground water starting soon after burial for it would have destroyed such material. It must have been sealed from such effects. The exposure to air probably did not occur as the outside of the bone protected what was in the interior. But if you think otherwise you will have a problem, as under a young earth or old earth model such exposure to air should have destroyed the material if the sealing was not effective since it would be destroyed in a relatively short time of months or years.

I do not agree that it is more impartial to question the age of the dinosaurs instead of better preservation than expected as they have been dated using independent means. The bones are millions of years old as determined by good scientific methods and one must not need to rely upon speculation of the timing of preservation of organic material. No, I am not aware of a growing body of evidence that dinosaurs became extinct more recently. Perhaps there is more speculation in the creationist community, but I have not seen it backed by evidence. I read that Mary Schweitzer has been upset by the claims that YECs make using her work, as she has no problem with the age date given the bones. I have seen her described as an evangelical Christian.

Impartiality would require entertaining all the evidence at hand, and that evidence shows that the dinosaurs in question died many. many ,illions of years ago. But YECs are unable to

I find nothing new in accepting a dinosaur / bird linage. Another geologist and I both commented on the sparrows we saw at lunch one day as "living, walking dinosaurs"....that was in 1980.

#13 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 18 December 2011 - 06:26 AM

And yet food in cans that is edible that is over 100 years old has in fact been found. True, it was in the Antarctic from an old expedition. Conditions can exist that are not typical, as was speculated in the study that I posted months ago.

Then I suppose it was frozen. Also heard that about mammoth meat. The dogs still liked it. But in both cases it's below -20 degrees and shielded from environmental influences.

The T-Rex isn't the only "millions of years old" bones with tissue it seems. So its difficult to blame it on extraordinary circumstances.

#14 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 18 December 2011 - 07:05 AM

yes very difficult,

on that note.

meet vero man

http://oviasc.org/Hi...eroManSite.aspx

#15 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 December 2011 - 08:36 AM

I think it is fairly obvious that if soft tissues are in fact within these bones, that the material was not in contact with ground water starting soon after burial for it would have destroyed such material. It must have been sealed from such effects. The exposure to air probably did not occur as the outside of the bone protected what was in the interior. But if you think otherwise you will have a problem, as under a young earth or old earth model such exposure to air should have destroyed the material if the sealing was not effective since it would be destroyed in a relatively short time of months or years.

I do not agree that it is more impartial to question the age of the dinosaurs instead of better preservation than expected as they have been dated using independent means. The bones are millions of years old as determined by good scientific methods and one must not need to rely upon speculation of the timing of preservation of organic material. No, I am not aware of a growing body of evidence that dinosaurs became extinct more recently. Perhaps there is more speculation in the creationist community, but I have not seen it backed by evidence. I read that Mary Schweitzer has been upset by the claims that YECs make using her work, as she has no problem with the age date given the bones. I have seen her described as an evangelical Christian.

Impartiality would require entertaining all the evidence at hand, and that evidence shows that the dinosaurs in question died many. many ,illions of years ago. But YECs are unable to

I find nothing new in accepting a dinosaur / bird linage. Another geologist and I both commented on the sparrows we saw at lunch one day as "living, walking dinosaurs"....that was in 1980.


Mary Schweitzer said herself, "It doesn't seem possible." Many would like to keep the appearance that it is purely a scientific consideration, but scientists are people, and subject to political, and personal motivations. They don't want a bunch of what they consider to be "religious know nothings" telling them they were wrong. I don't think anyone will be able stop a natural underlying doubt within certain in the science community, and upcoming scientists. Look at Oregon State grads. They've already made news. How many are out there asking the questions behind close doors? How long before they ask them to their students? Science has a history of being slow, before it changes a paradigm.

There is one way to find out the truth about this Geode. Then no one will have any room for speculation. Do an experiment on peptide bonds in a dry vaccum. This should end all confusion.

#16 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:06 PM

I think it is fairly obvious that if soft tissues are in fact within these bones,

What do you mean, "if...?" http://www.scienceda...70412140942.htm

the material was not in contact with ground water starting soon after burial for it would have destroyed such material... under a young earth or old earth model such exposure to air should have destroyed the material if the sealing was not effective since it would be destroyed in a relatively short time of months or years.

The sediments of the Hell Creek Formation, where the T-rex bone was found, is... "a series of fresh and brackish-water clays, mudstones, and sandstones deposited during the Maastrichtian, the last part of the Cretaceous period, by fluvial activity...along the low-lying eastern continental margin fronting the late Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway. http://news.discover...a-badlands.html

So according to the geological narrative, we had water above the bone, and the sediments were indeed deposited by "fluvial activity..." http://en.wikipedia....Interior_Seaway The burial in mud or sand would have done some sealing, but what do you offer as evidence of complete sealing? You are using modern results to prove your point, thinking that minimal water seepage into the bone would destroy all organic material, even under the YEC model. This is not true at all.
Posted Image

According to http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/ja954077c (Rates of Uncatalyzed Peptide Bond Hydrolysis in Neutral Solution...), peptide bonds are quite strong in nuetral pH water. Half life rates are 5 to 600 years. Four thousand years allows 7 to 8 half lives, as opposed to 68my which would be 110,000 to 120,000 hls. If my math is correct, it 's clear the data favors the young earth model on this case. Seven or eight half lives is not going to destroy all the peptide bonding in the protein molecules in a young earth model.

If you're thinking of a dead fish in water, there are putrification, bacterial, and other predation factors making short work of it. I have seen videos where the carcass is gone in less than a week. You know that burial limits these factors, but you can't tell me there's not going to be water.

The bones are millions of years old as determined by good scientific methods and one must not need to rely upon speculation of the timing of preservation of organic material.

What evidence do you offer, except proof by assertion. It's 68my because the establishment was all taght that it was? On the other hand, I gave you your own science, which reveals it's own contradictory narratives.

No, I am not aware of a growing body of evidence that dinosaurs became extinct more recently. Perhaps there is more speculation in the creationist community, but I have not seen it backed by evidence

We have posted the research at Oregon State several times, but I have spent time already citing things. I'll refer you to it's challenges, if you care to look. Archaeology is a science, and it is no secret of pottery, ancient temples, paintings which depict obvious dinosaurs. It is just as speculative to dismiss this, as it is to accept this, but this is corroborative, and creates a case for the fact that dinosaurs may have lived within the last thousands of years. Schweitzer's accidental discovery only falls as a third corroborative evidence, which exposes dino/bird "evolution."

Impartiality would require entertaining all the evidence at hand, and that evidence shows that the dinosaurs in question died many. many ,illions of years ago. I find nothing new in accepting a dinosaur / bird linage. Another geologist and I both commented on the sparrows we saw at lunch one day as "living, walking dinosaurs"....that was in 1980.

This is nothing but proof by assertion from establishment science.

I can give you a quote if you'd like from Dr. Carl Werner, who graduated from the University of Missourri with a degree in biology. He is now a medical doctor and researches fossils as a hobby.

“Living fossils provided me a simple way to test evolution. If evolution did not occur (animals did not change significantly over time) and if all of the animals and plants were created at one time and lived together (humans, dinosaurs, oak trees, roses, cats, wolves, etc), then one should be able to find fossils of at least some modern animals and modern plants alongside dinosaurs in the rock layers. I set out to test this idea without any foreknowledge of any modern organisms in the rock layers. My results (as laid out in the book & video Living Fossils http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0892216913 ) showed that many modern animals and plants are found with dinosaurs—far more than I ever expected to find.”

#17 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 18 December 2011 - 06:51 PM

deny , deny, deny

#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 December 2011 - 07:49 PM

DId anyone notice--the man who discovered the first T-Rex bone, in which Schweitzer accidentally found soft tissue, and blood vessels. He said he saw it sticking out the side of a cliff! Okay, can anyone here tell me about the effects of oxidation on organic material, not to mention air-born bacteria? .

Notice that the 68 million years is set in stone, while the "rules of science" about organic decay and fossilization are challenged. And people swallow this in glassy eyed amazement. Really? Maybe they should read this abstract on peptide bond half life rates. For those who don't understand that, it basically means the rate of protein breakdown in water.



Thanks, AFJ. I've been looking for those degradation rates.

#19 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 December 2011 - 12:59 AM

I do not agree that it is more impartial to question the age of the dinosaurs instead of better preservation than expected as they have been dated using independent means. The bones are millions of years old as determined by good scientific methods and one must not need to rely upon speculation of the timing of preservation of organic material.

What evidence do you offer, except proof by assertion. It's 68my because the establishment was all taught that it was? On the other hand, I gave you your own science, which reveals it's own contradictory narratives.

Yes, what would be the "independent means" and "scientific methods" with whom the bones were tested, and an age of 68 million years was determined? That would be interesting to know what this was supposed to be, for the purpose of the discussion.

#20 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 25 December 2011 - 06:48 AM



I do not agree that it is more impartial to question the age of the dinosaurs instead of better preservation than expected as they have been dated using independent means. The bones are millions of years old as determined by good scientific methods and one must not need to rely upon speculation of the timing of preservation of organic material.


Yes, what would be the "independent means" and "scientific methods" with whom the bones were tested, and an age of 68 million years was determined? That would be interesting to know what this was supposed to be, for the purpose of the discussion.


I really hate to see this one go unanswered. Geode has given a wave of the hand dismissal to the cited refereed science I gave in post #16. He has given us an assertion that the bone was discovered to be millions of years by the vague means of "good scientific methods." Geode also countered with the arguement that the modern results of were themselves evidence of watertight sealing of the T-Rex bone, by stating that if the soft fissue had been in any contact with water, it would have been destroyed even in thousands of years.

These arguements have been countered in post 16 with cited literature. The first, to estabish the fact that the bone was exposed to water, from layman level information, evidence of a seaway above the badlands in the geotime scale "Cretaceous" period. This is the time the T-Rex would have lived in the geotime model. Secondly, from Wikipdia, that the badands were indeed formed in a marine context. Thirdly, and most importantly, a journal paper with established half life rates for peptide bonds in nuetral pH solution. This was to counter Geode's arguement that the proteins would have been destroyed even in 4500 years, under a YEC model. The peptide half life is 5 to 600 years . allowing only 7 to 8 half lives in a pure marine pH nuetral environment.

I acknowleged that there was partial sealing from oxygen and water, but the fact that the bone would have been deposited in wet sediments, with water above these sediments, gives no evidence for Geode's arguement the bone did not come into contact with water. Therefore, it is safe to say that it is highly improbable that the bone fits within a standard geotime paradigm.

Now I have many time wondered why there woud be such stubborn refusal to accept that dinosaurs could have lived until thousands of years ago. I have asked, could they not just adjust last appearance dates for dinosaurs. The answer is that it woud completely upset a good portion of geotime, and greatly damage it's credibiity.

First, dinosaurs are indexed by periods, and therefore are index fossils, used in dating strata. If I find a opossum like creature and a dinosaur together, the opossum lived over 65 mya, as opposd to the dino lived more recently with opossums. Everything within that stratum correlates witht the given age of the dino, whether it's a modern animal or not.

Second, to find that dinos lived more recenty would bring more doubt on the very poplular theme that birds came from dinosaurs. Just imagine all the museum presentations, and textbooks that would have to be changed. This is a case where one bone is not going to uproot so "great a tree."

But thirdly, and I feel this is the root of the matter. Establishment gradualist academia would have to admit that the "nitwit" creationists were right about dinosaurs. And that's something completely untenable to them, even if it is the truth. You can leave the camp, but the camp is not changing it's postition.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users