Soft Tissue

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby DillyGill » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:45 am

So from a laymans point of view I would like to look at that article

'Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.'

So this is the explanation of offer for us poor lay folk, iron and the environment may explain everything. And you wander why the lay people are skeptical when you dismiss them, if that is the best explanation on offer for us.

Also of note is the porous sandstone which may prevent the build up of bacteria but would also allow water to 'wick away' and degrade the soft tissue. In this article it mentions two samples, one being bathed in blood and the other in water, which do you think would be a more accurate representation of the circumstance of the burial?
DillyGill
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:33 am

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby tjguy » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:32 am

Thorton confidently proclaims:
The mechanism for the preservation of trace amounts of collagen protein has been identified.


Thorton, it is precisely dishonest statements and claims like this that get creationists upset!

Schweitzer has put forth a possible solution. But "THE MECHANISM" for the preservation of collagen for 65+ millions of years cannot be said to have been actually identified. Schweitzer has put forth what she considers to be a possible mechanism. That is the best you can say!

Please be more careful with your wording.

Then you dismissed Dilly's objections again without even interacting with them - simply because they are from a layman.

This is a convenient ploy often used by evolutionists which accomplishes two helpful things.
1. It is a way of making them look foolish - as if their opinions are not even worth the time of day.
2. it is a way of avoiding having to deal with the problems raised.

You see, as you have pointed out, Schweitzer is a firm believer in an old earth. That is her paradigm so there is no way she can believe that this dinosaur could be young. Therefore, that is not even an option for her. her worldview precludes this. So why should we be surprised that she thinks this stuff has lasted for 68 million years?

What this shows is the power of a person's paradigm. It can give them amazing faith to believe impossible things like dinosaur red blood cells lasting for 65 million years, etc.

So it is not only creationists who believe in miracles!
tjguy
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:22 am

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby Thorton » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:22 pm

DillyGill wrote:So this is the explanation of offer for us poor lay folk, iron and the environment may explain everything. And you wander why the lay people are skeptical when you dismiss them, if that is the best explanation on offer for us.


LOL! Here we go again. Creationist won't bother to read the primary scientific paper, makes a big stink over the popular press article using the accepted scientific practice of describing scientific findings in non definitive terms.

Maybe if the "lay people" trying to discuss the findings got off their lazy butts for once and actually read the primary literature they'd learn something. But of course that won't happen. It's much easier for a YEC to argue from ignorance.
Thorton
 

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby Thorton » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:26 pm

tjguy wrote:Thorton confidently proclaims:
The mechanism for the preservation of trace amounts of collagen protein has been identified.


Thorton, it is precisely dishonest statements and claims like this that get creationists upset!

Schweitzer has put forth a possible solution. But "THE MECHANISM" for the preservation of collagen for 65+ millions of years cannot be said to have been actually identified. Schweitzer has put forth what she considers to be a possible mechanism. That is the best you can say!

Please be more careful with your wording.


OK, I'll rephrase: A MECHANISM for the preservation of trace amounts of collagen protein has been identified.

Better?

You still don't have any 30K year old dinosaurs. :D
Thorton
 

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby DillyGill » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:45 am

Thorton wrote:
You still don't have any 30K year old dinosaurs. :D


You certainly do not have 68 million year old dinosaurs. :D
DillyGill
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:33 am

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby Thorton » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:06 am

DillyGill wrote:
Thorton wrote:
You still don't have any 30K year old dinosaurs. :D


You certainly do not have 68 million year old dinosaurs. :D


Of course we do. We have about 165 million years' worth of dinosaurs, beginning in the early Jurrasic about 231 MYA up until the late Cretaceous about 66 MYA when a large asteroid strike destroyed their habitat. We have identified over five hundred distinct genera and thousands of individual species. Dino fossils have been found on all seven continents which through plate tectonics were all interconnected over that time span.

Image

Like I told Sal, any reasonably bright 5th grader could explain the details to you.
Thorton
 

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby DillyGill » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:06 am

But all of that is meaningless, it is a lot of wishful thinking, although I am sure they agonized over each aspect of it.

If that dinosaur is only about a million years old what does that do to your picture?

If you like it or not the most accurate method of dating is the soft tissue. The rest of your methods are just hand waving compared to that.
DillyGill
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:33 am

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby stcordova » Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:10 pm

DillyGill,


Mark Armitage carried out very similar, if not better investigations than Mary Schwitzer and even used far more powerful microscopes (electron microscopes) to examine the soft tissue. He got the photos published in a scientific journal and was quickly fired afterward. He made no mention of young earth or creation in the publication. However he believes in a young earth. The co-author, Kevin Anderson, is a professor at another university, and thankfully kept his job, however the lead researcher Mark Armitage was fired.

I met Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson at this past August at ICC 2013 (International Conference of Creationism).

These are the photos that got him fired:

Image

Here is my initial account of the matter:
Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of the Darwinist inquisition


PS
By the way, I'm not interested in getting large traffic through the forum. I enjoy conversations among a few parties over crowds.

As a helpful tip, you are the author of this discussion, and hence you can specify who can an cannot participate in a discussion. If you don't want to waste time with Thornton's trolling, you can tell him to leave the discussion. Nothing is preventing him from starting his own discussions, but the forum rules were made to deal specifically with trolling behavior. Trolls can get a fair hearing here, but no one is forced to read what they say if they don't want to read it.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby Thorton » Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:59 pm

LOL! Good old Brave Sir Robin Cordova. Trying one again to poison the well, can't deal with the scientific evidence so tries again to have scientifically knowledgeable voices banned from the thread. :lol:

Mark Armitage carried out very similar, if not better investigations than Mary Schwitzer and even used far more powerful microscopes (electron microscopes) to examine the soft tissue. He got the photos published in a scientific journal and was quickly fired afterward. He made no mention of young earth or creation in the publication. However he believes in a young earth. The co-author, Kevin Anderson, is a professor at another university, and thankfully kept his job, however the lead researcher Mark Armitage was fired
.

I see once again Sal never met a Creationist lie he didn't like. Armitage wasn't fired from his job as head technician at the Cal State Electron Microscopy Lab because of the paper. Word is he was fired for misusing the Lab's equipment without authorization or permission from the University. Apparently he was warned repeatedly about his unauthorized use of the equipment for his personal YEC "research" but did it anyway, It would be like a Ferrari salesman borrowing one of the cars for his personal use on the weekends without the dealership's knowledge. His bosses found out about it and canned him. Armitage of course is screaming religious discrimination!! in his you knew it was coming lawsuit. :roll:
Last edited by Thorton on Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thorton
 

Re: Soft Tissue

Postby Thorton » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:02 pm

DillyGill wrote:But all of that is meaningless, it is a lot of wishful thinking, although I am sure they agonized over each aspect of it. .


Just curious DG. Who organized this massive secret conspiracy of geologists and paleontologists and physicists to falsify millions of pages of scientific data over the last 75 years? How did they manage to coordinate so that all the data agrees and paints one large consilient and consistent picture?
Thorton
 

PreviousNext

Return to Creation Science

cron