Evidence for a young Earth

[Jorge]

The link below contains a chronological summary from 1995
until the present time of posted articles concerning the discovery
of soft tissues in ancient dinosaur fossils.

Maybe some of you can conjure an explanation for one or a few
of these, but I seriously doubt that anyone can explain ALL of them.

What's the significance?

Well, some of you keep parroting that there is "no physical evidence
pointing to a young creation". Kindly explain how this evidence exists
if these fossils are 65 - 150 million years old.

NOTE : Lots of peer-reviewed work reports this evidence!

My expectation: lots of smoke, mirrors, and creativity that would
make Alice-in-Wonderland envious.

Enjoy!


LINK HERE :

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue


Jorge

[phank]

I have read half a dozen of the links in that article, and they have been fascinating. The source itself (what Jorge's link points to) is of course a religious source, and as such is heavily slanted to the point of being remarkably misleading. But that much is to be expected, and isn't hard to factor out.

What's been interesting so far is that in none of the actual studies (pre-religious "interpretation") is the actual AGE of the tissues questioned. Each article has accepted that these samples are many tens of millions of years old. So this isn't an "age of the earth" issue at all. Instead, it's a question of whether some organic molecules have longer lifespans than was previously thought. Note that many of these amino acids are present in very ancient meteorites.

I had to laugh at Jorge's site's author's desire to see carbon dating of these samples. Carbon dating, of course, can produce sensible ages only as far back as AT MOST 50,000 years, because of the half-life of the carbon isotopes, Generally, anything over 40,000 years old has so little carbon-14 remaining as to produce unreliable results. Using carbon dating on 80-million-year-old samples is meaningless - except perhaps in the minds of those who only accept radiometric results they find congenial, however improperly taken.

In any case, the impression I'm getting is that there are circumstances under which certain organic molecules can remain unchanged for very long periods of time. And I also note one of the articles talks about the structure of the soft tissue being preserved in the mineralized sample. Nothing organic remains, so what is interesting in these cases is that the organic structure remained coherent long enough to become mineralized in the first place.

Perhaps Jorge, who has surely read all of these studies in the original, can point to someone making a case that these dinosaurs died only a couple thousand years ago. So far, I can't find any such thing.

[USIncognito]

KGOV? Is that Bob Enyart's site? That moron wouldn't recognize good science if someone smacked him in the head with a peer reviewed journal.

[firstfloor]

I borrowed and adapted this quote from here:
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-evidenc...ft-tissue.html
Jorge, your ignorance is encyclopedic.

[lilpixieofterror]

Plus the Smithsonian Magazine has a good article on this online and these parts are relevant to what Jorge is trying to claim:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz1t2JozYvp

And here is another part of the same article:

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz1t2MUQPpF

While I don't agree with her about what God ask, I believe God wants us to believe with all of our hearts, mind, and strength, which means we believe in him based on faith and evidence, but she does claim to be a Christian and she makes a good point. Many lines of evidence show this bone is old and it is the burden of proof of a YEC to prove that soft tissue being preserved means the earth is young. I'm sure YEC's, just like OEC, IDers, or TE's believe that when animals die, their soft tissues tend to disappear over time and having soft tissue that is 5-4 thousand years old still is unexplained for them as it is for anybody else. I do see the article's general point working well, it points to we don't really understand all there is to the process of decay, it doesn't prove that the earth is 6,000 years old as Jorge wants us to believe.

[Tiggy]

Maybe some of you can conjure an explanation for one or a few
of these, but I seriously doubt that anyone can explain ALL of them.


Jorge

The simple and correct explanation is that we've discovered a previously unknown natural mechanism that under certain extremely rare conditions can preserve traces of the original organic matter for tens of millions of years.

Now why don't you explain why we don't seen this phenomena in virtually every fossil if as you claim they're all only 4500 years old.

Bonus question for Jorge to run from: Why do the fossil dates vary so widely (65-150 million years) if they are all from the same 4500 year ago Flood event?

- T

[magellan004]

I had to laugh at Jorge's site's author's desire to see carbon dating of these samples. Carbon dating, of course, can produce sensible ages only as far back as AT MOST 50,000 years, because of the half-life of the carbon isotopes, Generally, anything over 40,000 years old has so little carbon-14 remaining as to produce unreliable results. Using carbon dating on 80-million-year-old samples is meaningless - except perhaps in the minds of those who only accept radiometric results they find congenial, however improperly taken.

Why would you date an 80 million year old sample?

Magellan

[lilpixieofterror]

Why would you date an 80 million year old sample?

Magellan

Well mags, in short, C-14 is only accurate in the thousands of year range. There are other radioactive isotopes that are accurate in the millions of years range that should be used instead.

[Jorge]

I have read half a dozen of the links in that article, and they have been fascinating. The source itself (what Jorge's link points to) is of course a religious source, and as such is heavily slanted to the point of being remarkably misleading. But that much is to be expected, and isn't hard to factor out.

What's been interesting so far is that in none of the actual studies (pre-religious "interpretation") is the actual AGE of the tissues questioned. Each article has accepted that these samples are many tens of millions of years old. So this isn't an "age of the earth" issue at all. Instead, it's a question of whether some organic molecules have longer lifespans than was previously thought. Note that many of these amino acids are present in very ancient meteorites.

I had to laugh at Jorge's site's author's desire to see carbon dating of these samples. Carbon dating, of course, can produce sensible ages only as far back as AT MOST 50,000 years, because of the half-life of the carbon isotopes, Generally, anything over 40,000 years old has so little carbon-14 remaining as to produce unreliable results. Using carbon dating on 80-million-year-old samples is meaningless - except perhaps in the minds of those who only accept radiometric results they find congenial, however improperly taken.

In any case, the impression I'm getting is that there are circumstances under which certain organic molecules can remain unchanged for very long periods of time. And I also note one of the articles talks about the structure of the soft tissue being preserved in the mineralized sample. Nothing organic remains, so what is interesting in these cases is that the organic structure remained coherent long enough to become mineralized in the first place.

Perhaps Jorge, who has surely read all of these studies in the original, can point to someone making a case that these dinosaurs died only a couple thousand years ago. So far, I can't find any such thing.

*************************************************

It is extremely difficult to maintain civility and seriousness with you people but I will try in spite of the
"first stone tossed" as evidenced in the above post as well as in those by Tiggy, Terror, et al. here.

The fact that you obviously missed with your remark about the C14 dating is that we DO get C14
readings in material that should contain NONE. That's the point ... get it?

In addition, note the SOURCES that are cited / linked here : they are NON-creationist and in many
cases heavily against Creationism yet the reports contain the evidence nonetheless. The amazing
thing to me is the cosmic lengths that these people will go through before admitting (which they
never do) that "maybe, perhaps" this is showing evidence for thousands not millions of years.

Finally, got'ta love it when you people conclude that "Oh, now we know that these tissue materials
are able to last longer than we thought." Listen, under NO scenario can these materials
last tens/hundreds of millions of years. Live in denial if you wish ... ignore the evidence that is
staring you right in the face ... this doesn't change the facts : this is HARD EVIDENCE for
thousands, not millions of years. Live with it!

I got'ta run (I'm in Oregon right now). I'll try to respond to the other 'silly' posts in this thread
later this evening (from Twin Falls, Idaho).

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

It is extremely difficult to maintain civility and seriousness with you people but I will try in spite of the
"first stone tossed" as evidenced in the above post as well as in those by Tiggy, Terror, et al. here.

Your inability to answer a thing said does speak volumes too. I would think the paleontologist that discovered this and is studying this preserved soft tissue would be more in a position to know something about it then you do. Anyway, perhaps you could explain how this helps your case cause last I checked, most people once believed soft tissue was gone well before the 4,500 years you claim these dinos were killed by the flood, so how was it preserved 4,500 years? Plus this doesn't explain why we find dinosaurs in older layers and mammoths in newer layers. If these creatures were all killed at the same time, we would find them jumbled together, but we don't. Surely you could also explain that for everybody? Sorry Jorge, all this shows is that we do not quite grasp how decay works and how preservation works; it doesn't prove that the earth has to be 6,000 years old.

The fact that you obviously missed with your remark about the C14 dating is that we DO get C14
readings in material that should contain NONE. That's the point ... get it?

No Jorge, that would be ignorance more then anything. Do you understand how half lives work? It would mean that X amount of time, we find half of the amount of a radioactive isotope, then 1/4, then 1/8, etc, so after 80 million years, there maybe a tiny amount left, but nothing really usable for any sort of dating. This also doesn't take into mind contamination either, so again, you're off the mark here too.

In addition, note the SOURCES that are cited / linked here : they are NON-creationist and in many
cases heavily against Creationism yet the reports contain the evidence nonetheless. The amazing
thing to me is the cosmic lengths that these people will go through before admitting (which they
never do) that "maybe, perhaps" this is showing evidence for thousands not millions of years.

And I would think the paleontologist that discovered it would know about this then those that just want to press their own agenda. However; perhaps you can explain how this helps this case out at all. All this proves is that we don't understand the processes of preservation, decay, or fossilization as well as we thought. Unless of course, you could explain it better then the scientist that study this stuff

Finally, got'ta love it when you people conclude that "Oh, now we know that these tissue materials
are able to last longer than we thought." Listen, under NO scenario can these materials
last tens/hundreds of millions of years. Live in denial if you wish ... ignore the evidence that is
staring you right in the face ... this doesn't change the facts : this is HARD EVIDENCE for
thousands, not millions of years. Live with it!

And the scenarios show this would work for 4,500 years? I'm sorry Jorge, but that is an assertion, not a fact. How do you know that, did you become a paleontologist while we were not looking and decided to study this and know more then the paleontologist that first discovered this soft tissue? Again, how does this help your case?

I got'ta run (I'm in Oregon right now). I'll try to respond to the other 'silly' posts in this thread
later this evening (from Twin Falls, Idaho).

Should be entertaining, now please explain how this helps your case at all because last I checked, we didn't think that soft tissues were preserved for 4,500 years either.

[spiritofliberty]

Jorge--
I totally agree with you, instead of acknowledging issues with various theories, there seems to be no open-ness to re-evaluating the actual facts and evidence. People are all too eager to bend facts and tweak theories to fit thier pre-concieved notions..

[phank]

By golly, do I detect a sock puppet? A total of ONE post? Which agrees with Jorge despite all the evidence?

But at least now I understand Jorge's argument, which goes as follows:
1) Atoms, molecules, structures, or whatever these are must be new. Jorge said so.
2) Dating methods ALL put these samples at 80-150 million years old. All these methods are wrong.
3) Not ONE researcher in any of these links has any doubt about these ages.They must all be stupid or ideologists.
4) The ignoramus who collected and presented these without understanding a single one needa no knowledge or honesty, he has TRUTH instead,.
5) Therefore, everyone who knows anything is wrong.

Oh, and I love this part:

we DO get C14 readings in material that should contain NONE. That's the point ... get it?

Yes, Jorge, this is why dating methods TOTALLY inappropriate for a sample, should not be applied to such samples. What you get is meaningless, nonsensical readings. Get it? Uh, on second thought, nevermind.

[Tiggy]

The fact that you obviously missed with your remark about the C14 dating is that we DO get C14
readings in material that should contain NONE. That's the point ... get it?

We very rarely can find older organic material that's been contaminated with younger C14 containing material through known mechanisms. If you think all fossils should C14 date to 4500 years old, go pick up some fossils (you can find some at any rock/mineral shop) and have then carbon dated. Let us know the results.

In addition, note the SOURCES that are cited / linked here : they are NON-creationist and in many
cases heavily against Creationism yet the reports contain the evidence nonetheless.

Not a single one of those papers cites an age less than 65 million years Jorge. So how do they support your YEC claim?

Finally, got'ta love it when you people conclude that "Oh, now we know that these tissue materials
are able to last longer than we thought." Listen, under NO scenario can these materials
last tens/hundreds of millions of years.

Firstfloor just directed you to a paper that describes a mechanism for the long term preservation of biological samples.

Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival
San Antonio et al
PLoS ONE 6(6): e20381. 6 June 2011

Abstract: Eleven collagen peptide sequences recovered from chemical extracts of dinosaur bones were mapped onto molecular models of the vertebrate collagen fibril derived from extant taxa. The dinosaur peptides localized to fibril regions protected by the close packing of collagen molecules, and contained few acidic amino acids. Four peptides mapped to collagen regions crucial for cell-collagen interactions and tissue development. Dinosaur peptides were not represented in more exposed parts of the collagen fibril or regions mediating intermolecular cross-linking. Thus functionally significant regions of collagen fibrils that are physically shielded within the fibril may be preferentially preserved in fossils. These results show empirically that structure-function relationships at the molecular level could contribute to selective preservation in fossilized vertebrate remains across geological time, suggest a ‘preservation motif’, and bolster current concepts linking collagen structure to biological function. This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms and suggests a chemical mechanism for survival.

link

Of course you were too lazy to read it.

Live in denial if you wish ... ignore the evidence that is
staring you right in the face ... this doesn't change the facts : this is HARD EVIDENCE for
thousands, not millions of years. Live with it!

It's only HARD EVIDENCE of your blustering disconnect with reality, but that's nothing new.

- T

[magellan004]

Well mags, in short, C-14 is only accurate in the thousands of year range. There are other radioactive isotopes that are accurate in the millions of years range that should be used instead.

Read what Phank said -

I had to laugh at Jorge's site's author's desire to see carbon dating of these samples. Carbon dating, of course, can produce sensible ages only as far back as AT MOST 50,000 years, because of the half-life of the carbon isotopes, Generally, anything over 40,000 years old has so little carbon-14 remaining as to produce unreliable results. Using carbon dating on 80-million-year-old samples is meaningless - except perhaps in the minds of those who only accept radiometric results they find congenial, however improperly taken.

We have a sample of tissue of unknown age. What are we to do? Date it? Assume it is too old to date? Why is it unreasonable to date a piece of tissue using Carbon dating? Perhaps you are saying Carbon dating establishes nothing? Maybe we have to know how old something is in order to date it?

Magellan

[Tiggy]

R

We have a sample of tissue of unknown age. What are we to do? Date it? Assume it is too old to date? Why is it unreasonable to date a piece of tissue using Carbon dating? Perhaps you are saying Carbon dating establishes nothing? Maybe we have to know how old something is in order to date it?

Magellan

In these cases we don't have a sample of tissue. We have evidence of preservation of molecular protein strands that are completely infused in rocks which have already been conclusively dated to over 65 million years.

Before you submit a sample for C14 testing which destroys the sample you have to have a good reason to suspect the age is in the range covered by the dating technique. In this case there is no reason to think C14 dating is appropriate and more than ample evidence to conclude it's not.

You demand is like claiming a battleship weights only 150 lbs, then demanding we weigh it on your bathroom scale.

- T