Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[HMS_Beagle]

ROFL...what are they teaching in Junior high these days? If you find paper two million years old when paper cannot last that long it would be a dead giveaway that you were being duped.

How did you confirm paper can't last that long?

how about some milk from 2,000 years ago. Looks like it still good. that would prove that milk can last 2,000 years? or umm that the date is wrong?.....lol....hilarious stuff.

OK, you've convinced everyone you're a scientifically illiterate boob. No need to belabor the point.

In real science you would not look at one hypothesis but multiple and one of them would be that that the ruler was off. You would not just assume it was correct or you would be a bad scientist.

The "ruler off" hypothesis has already been falsified by the huge amount of consilient data on radiometric dating. The other hypothesis - that biological samples can't last to be million of years old - has never been verified.

Same thing here. Not saying that the decay rate of proteins and soft issue etc would in fact not be found to be consistent with 60+ million years (although its getting very common place to be explained easily) but you do that by actually researching the deterioration rates using test not assumptions even from radiometric dating.

OK, show me the tests which conclusively demonstrate protein fragments even under extreme conditions like mineralization seen here can never last for millions of years. That was an untested hypothesis, not a verified scientific fact.

Thats how new discoveries are made and how real science is done. keep learning. You just might understand what makes science science one day.

You wouldn't recognize how real science is done if it crawled up your ignorant teenager leg and bit you in the butt.

[HMS_Beagle]

The YEC have a point here (not a proof). 60+ Million years is a long time. We know how quickly organic material decays even in a thousand years. Multiplying that 60,000+ times and soft tissue becoming prevalent all over the world is a valid issue to research not just assume and brush off.

People are already researching the mechanisms like mineralization whereby bio fragments can be preserved for millions of years. No one with more than two working brain cells is running around going "OMG!!! THE WORLD MUST ONLY BE 6000 YEARS OLD!!!" It's a non-starter, has been for a couple of centuries now.

If you think differently, get your idiot YEC buddies to start researching. Come up with the positive evidence that everything science has learned about about physics of radioactive decay is wrong, and that everything we know about geology is wrong, and that everything we know about paleontology is wrong. Because consilient evidence from all those fields confirms radiometric dating is correct.

Consilience. The thing idiot Creationists can't explain and can't get away from.

[Mikeenders]

People are already researching the mechanisms like mineralization whereby bio fragments can be preserved for millions of years. No one with more than two working brain cells is running around going "OMG!!! THE WORLD MUST ONLY BE 6000 YEARS OLD!!!" It's a non-starter, has been for a couple of centuries now.

ROFL.....it suits your usual pattern of ignorance that you think that all creationist fall under the the 6000 year old variety because you read it on the internets.

Come up with the positive evidence that everything science has learned about about physics of radioactive decay is wrong, and that everything we know about geology is wrong, and that everything we know about paleontology is wrong.

Impressive. So much straw in one paragraph. Have a cow for clean up? shucks even a fundamentalist YEC wouldn't claim all geology is wrong since they got Pangea right and it agrees with their Bible. Grade of D- for the weak bluff - outside of radiometric dating there isn't much consilience for actual dates unless thats another word you don't know the meaning of (which at this point would surprise no one). Almost all other dating systems don't go back far enough (but considering your VAST ignorance at thinking that all creationists hold to a 6,000 year old date I can understand your confusion) .

I am still waiting for that rational explanation (and science) you claimed to have for 65 million year preservation of soft tissue. Popcorn can be had. Why stress the "people" that "are already researching the mechanism" (hopefully it won't take as long as abiogenesis is taking ...and taking...and taking) since you claimed you already have the rational explanation?

wow us dude. So far you have shown us you can use the word idiot but not that you can reason your way out of a short paper bag.

[HMS_Beagle]

(snip a huge pile of juvenile posturing)

Where do the Creationists find these childish idiots?

[Juvenal]

... outside of radiometric dating there isn't much consilience for actual dates ...

That's neither true nor particularly relevant. Red-shifts of standard candles, for example, are independent of radiometric dating, and sufficient for dating most of what we see in the universe. Moreover, inside radiometric dating there are distinguishable decay paths sufficient to support a claim of consilience. Some of the mechanisms associated with the most common radiometric dating schemes, such as Rb-Sr and K-Ar dating, beta decay and electron capture respectively, are in direct opposition to each other, in the sense that changing parameters to accelerate the one will decelerate the other. It's not at all unusual to find dates assigned to samples using both of these.

I am still waiting for that rational explanation (and science) you claimed to have for 65 million year preservation of soft tissue. Popcorn can be had. Why stress the "people" that "are already researching the mechanism" (hopefully it won't take as long as abiogenesis is taking ...and taking...and taking) since you claimed you already have the rational explanation?

I'm not going to blame you for this. You were provoked. So let's clear decks first.

Beagle, buzz off. Your histrionics are not helping. It's been over a year since we had a creationist in here who can complete a sentence without resorting to all-caps or multi-colored fonts.

Back to you, Mike. The only preserved soft tissue under consideration here is collagen, not skin, bone, blood or blood vessels, though we do have trace fossils of each of these, and the collagen preservation itself is incomplete. The evidence it's been preserved for more than 65 million years is its incorporation in a dinosaur fossil taken from rock strata dated to that age. The rock strata were dated using radiometric methods entirely independent of the incorporated fossils. I'd imagine, given room, you'd be willing to back off the claim of circular reasoning here, as it's not supportable.

Abiogenesis is an entirely separate topic of research, but if you'd like to discuss its current state, I'm sure we could round up a few folks around here who've been keeping up with the latest.

As ever, Jesse

[rogue06]

Sorry but total and I do mean TOTAL distortion. First off your emphasis for Jorge's benefit is just quote mining and ignoring the context of what happened to and with Schweitzer and even she is playing a game. Schweitzer got hammered and HARD not by creationists but by Darwinists who lets be honest here couldn't conceive of such a thing because to this day nothing suggests this kind of organic matter can survive so long. Of course creationists jumped on it. Why? because it is and was a big deal and not easily explained

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

Frankly I am agnostic on the age of the earth. My reading of Genesis doesn't require a young earth but if we are going to be Christians we need to be intellectually honest regardless of what side of the issue on age we come down on. Until someone can give an explanation for these structures surviving so long then like it or not the Creationists have a point. Simply saying - "oh well that just shows they were wrong in assuming structures could not survive for millions of years. the evidence says" is just circular reasoning at its finest. There is no evidence apart from the assumed age of the fossils that says that this material can last that long. Schweitzer herself has only been able to point to the presence of iron in some of these cases as having led to preservation but even her research does not demonstrate that length of time and its dubious with the multiple more finds since her first that sufficient iron is present in all the finds.

Lets not forget why this was controversial to begin with. It wasn't creationists running around creating an issue - as you can see from the linked to story above - it was the scientific community that considered it implausible on SCIENTIFIC grounds. No breakthrough chemical study has changed how organic material decays and breaks down with time. It is merely being assumed based on the age assumed for the fossils.

No one but Creationists say that radiometric decay can happen fast enough in the past to give the ages they do and the earth still be young. Creationists have not been given a pass to say "well since we know these animals were recently created then it is evidence that radiometric decay can happen fast" - that has been hotly disputed - so if we are going to be intellectually honest then saying "organic decay can be slowed down for tens of millions of years and the fossils we believe are that old prove it" has to be equally scrutinized as a circular argument.

Getting "slammed hard" after announcing a discovery that questions conventional wisdom is fairly standard throughout science. Ask those who suggested that humans were in the Americas before the Clovis culture. The proper response is to double down and answer your critics which was exactly what Schweitzer did.

And while the YECs didn't attack her they did grossly distort her work as she has repeatedly attested and greatly exaggerated the nature of the "attacks." Perhaps my favorite example is when the YEC "nephilimfree" proclaimed on a video on youtube that, "The scientist who discovered soft tissue in dinos, you know what they did to her? They fired her!!!" Schweitzer was apparently notified of this and personally responded, "If they fired me, why did they give me a $300,000 grant to investigate further?"

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm not going to blame you for this. You were provoked. So let's clear decks first.

Beagle, buzz off. Your histrionics are not helping. It's been over a year since we had a creationist in here who can complete a sentence without resorting to all-caps or multi-colored fonts.

Screw you Jesse. You don't get to hog the new chew toy all to yourself.

I am still waiting for that rational explanation (and science) you claimed to have for 65 million year preservation of soft tissue. Popcorn can be had. Why stress the "people" that "are already researching the mechanism" (hopefully it won't take as long as abiogenesis is taking ...and taking...and taking) since you claimed you already have the rational explanation?

Poor ignorant chew toy. Here are two of the different mechanisms being investigated. Each hypothesis has some amount of positive evidence. There's nothing that says there can only be one mechanism.

SEDIMENT PERMEABILITY AND THE PRESERVATION OF SOFT-TISSUES IN CONCRETIONS: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
McCoy et al
PALAIOS August 2015 vol. 30 no. 8 608-612

Abstract: Sediment permeability is hypothesized to affect soft tissue fossilization within concretions through its effects on organic decay and concretion growth. The role of permeability was tested in a series of experiments in which cod tissue was decayed in glass beads of varying permeabilities. Decay was measured using infrared gas analysis (IRGA), and mineral precipitation within the beads (a proxy for concretion growth) was measured using micro CT scanning. The interactions of the three variables—sediment permeability, decay, and mineralization—were assessed with MANOVA and with linear regressions of decay and precipitation per unit decay on permeability. These two linear regressions were combined into a more general, nonlinear expression of the relationship between permeability and total mineral precipitation. The results show that sediment permeability has two competing effects on precipitation, the strength of each varying dynamically depending on permeability. Low permeability environments inhibit decay, thus enhancing fossilization but inhibiting overall precipitation because a build-up of decay products is necessary to promote mineral formation (the “decay effect”). However, low permeability environments can also increase precipitation per unit decay by inhibiting the diffusion of decay products away from the carcass, allowing for a faster build-up of decay products (the “mineralization effect”). At low permeabilities, the decay effect dominates (decay controlled), and precipitation is positively correlated with permeability. At higher permeabilities, the mineralization effect dominates (permeability controlled), and precipitation is negatively correlated with permeability. The experiments show that fossilization within concretions is promoted by decay inhibition (at low permeabilities) and rapid concretion growth (at intermediate permeabilities). Thus, the effects of permeability on fossilization are complex, and influence the mechanism of fossilization.

and

A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time
Schweitzer et al
Royal Soc Proc B: January 2014 Volume: 281 Issue: 1775

Abstract: The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-αFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs, using transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro-X-ray diffraction and Fe micro-X-ray absorption near-edge structure. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues. Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem ‘tissue fixation’ by cross-linking or peroxidation. HB-induced solution hypoxia coupled with iron chelation enhances preservation as follows: HB + O2 > HB − O2 > −O2 ≫ +O2. The well-known O2/haeme interactions in the chemistry of life, such as respiration and bioenergetics, are complemented by O2/haeme interactions in the preservation of fossil soft tissues.

Given your demonstrated incompetence I expect you won't understand a word they say but there they are.

[Mikeenders]

That's neither true nor particularly relevant. Red-shifts of standard candles, for example, are independent of radiometric dating, and sufficient for dating most of what we see in the universe. Moreover, inside radiometric dating there are distinguishable decay paths sufficient to support a claim of consilience. Some of the mechanisms associated with the most common radiometric dating schemes, such as Rb-Sr and K-Ar dating, beta decay and electron capture respectively, are in direct opposition to each other, in the sense that changing parameters to accelerate the one will decelerate the other. It's not at all unusual to find dates assigned to samples using both of these.

Fair enough, intelligent response and thanks for an adult response. However my point was to dates in regard to this world. there are quite a few creationists that view genesis one as occurring after the creation of the universe in particular (theres actually no creation command for the earth or the waters) . Second I know of no consilience that can affix a date which was my point. You can point for example to a congruence between two dates that can reasonable affix them together (please feel free to supply an example) but that does not necessarily confirm the actual date only that they are contemporaries of each other.

Lost in the usual "you idiot creationist" babble of Beagle (the standard refrain online these days ) is the fact that I am not even a young earth creationists. As i have said more than once I am not in that camp. I even lean old earth but not even close to embracing Darwinism or neo Darwinism of any variant . Radiometric dating has not been answered by YECs. Its a huge problem for them that their answers do not convincingly address. however I DO believe as I stated in my first post that we can admit when someone has a point. People confuse endlessly the acceptance that someone has evidence or a valid point with having proven a case. Having a good point or even evidence is not PROOF of being right. Its simply a single legit point which may be compensated by other points. The facts are there is and was very good reason to think that soft tissue cannot last that long. Trying to claim as some have that it is rubbish or creationist propaganda isn't an intellectually honest approach to the issue with it.

lets bottom line this and the difference between me and others on this board - You actually believe that it is impossible that soft tissue could be found incapable of lasting that long so much so that you would say it doesn't need research and is a settled matter being established by radiometric dating. I have read too much science and science history to be that certain of ANY science that extrapolates into the past millions of years. Theres a debate right now which has swung back and forth for a few years that radiometric decay is variable by relationship to the sun (latest readings seem to indicate not), that the speed of light just might not be a constant and that anomalies with red shifts casts doubts on that as well. present day science I have no qualms with being certain about. Historical not so much. It fails strict repeatable criteria. We have had index fossils turn up walking around alive and well. So will i put my head on the chopping block and say definitively because of radiometric dating it cannot be shown that organic material cannot last that long? No - So i advocate doing the research rather than calling it a settled matter.

Back to you, Mike. The only preserved soft tissue under consideration here is collagen, not skin, bone, blood or blood vessels, though we do have trace fossils of each of these, and the collagen preservation itself is incomplete. The evidence it's been preserved for more than 65 million years is its incorporation in a dinosaur fossil taken from rock strata dated to that age.

It might have started there Lao but we are now well beyond that.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...inosaur-fossil

just curious. Where would the magic marker be where we consider that we could possibly have an issue. organs at 200 million years? and in what environment? or are we actually saying whatever we find regardless of how improbable will never raise a red flag?

The rock strata were dated using radiometric methods entirely independent of the incorporated fossils. I'd imagine, given room, you'd be willing to back off the claim of circular reasoning here, as it's not supportable.

You would imagine wrong because it is entirely supportable. I never made the claim that the dating was made by the fossils and the fossils by the radiometric method. Quite a few of you seem stuck in that mentality as if circular reasoning would have to be limited to that. Circular reasoning can be applied to ANY premise or answering of a premise. The circular reasoning I referred to was an earlier post that radiometric dating was evidence proving that soft tissue can last that long. If Creationist are claiming that it cannot and that the presence of that tissue indicates an issue then how is saying it cannot because it did not BECAUSE radiometric dating is beyond being wrong not be circular (and a few other things as well)?

Abiogenesis is an entirely separate topic of research, but if you'd like to discuss its current state, I'm sure we could round up a few folks around here who've been keeping up with the latest.

Thanks but i am aware of where we are at - no significant scientifically backed framework as we rapidly approach the century mark.

[Mikeenders]

And while the YECs didn't attack her they did grossly distort her work as she has repeatedly attested and greatly exaggerated the nature of the "attacks." Perhaps my favorite example is when the YEC "nephilimfree" proclaimed on a video on youtube that, "The scientist who discovered soft tissue in dinos, you know what they did to her? They fired her!!!" Schweitzer was apparently notified of this and personally responded, "If they fired me, why did they give me a $300,000 grant to investigate further?"

Honestly rogue. Surely you must know the difference between saying some YECs did this and The Yecs did this.............. and a youttube video as your example? please. surely you can do better. One thing i have an even stronger distaste for are Christians demonizing other believers on this issue. Far too many OEcs believe they get a heavenly pass for denigrating their fellow believers. Most Yecs have made no such claims and a great many of them have not distorted Schweitzer at all. Citing her work and having a difference opinion than hers is a feeble basis to proclaim "the YEcs" did this or that.

[HMS_Beagle]

however I DO believe as I stated in my first post that we can admit when someone has a point.

You defended your claim that YECs "have a point" by making the ridiculous and wrong assertion that radiometric dating was invalid for this specimen because it was circular reasoning. That shows how ignorant you are on the topic.

The facts are there is and was very good reason to think that soft tissue cannot last that long.

That hypothesis has nothing to do with the validity of radiometric dating. As it turns out the hypothesis has been effectively falsified by the radiometric data. That's how science works.

You actually believe that it is impossible that soft tissue could be found incapable of lasting that long so much so that you would say it doesn't need research and is a settled matter being established by radiometric dating.

NO ONE on this board has said or implied that. Do usually make up such strawman crap whole cloth?

No - So i advocate doing the research rather than calling it a settled matter.

The research IS being done on long term preservation as the papers I linked to show. No one is going to waste time on verifying the veracity of radiometric data and techniques that have already been verified 100X over.

just curious. Where would the magic marker be where we consider that we could possibly have an issue. organs at 200 million years? and in what environment? or are we actually saying whatever we find regardless of how improbable will never raise a red flag?

When the Creationists come up with some actual verified major flaws in the the mechanisms of radiometric dating there will be an issue. Until then you and they are just urinating into the wind.

I never made the claim that the dating was made by the fossils and the fossils by the radiometric method.

Yes, you did. You're the guy who accused science "circular reasoning". Now you realize what a dumb claim that was and are trying to walk it back.

If Creationist are claiming that it cannot and that the presence of that tissue indicates an issue then how is saying it cannot because it did not BECAUSE radiometric dating is beyond being wrong not be circular (and a few other things as well)?

Just because Creationists made a stupid and unsupported claim isn't evidence the claim itself is valid.

[Mikeenders]

A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time
Schweitzer et al
Royal Soc Proc B: January 2014 Volume: 281 Issue: 1775

Abstract: The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-αFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs, using transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro-X-ray diffraction and Fe micro-X-ray absorption near-edge structure. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues. Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem ‘tissue fixation’ by cross-linking or peroxidation. HB-induced solution hypoxia coupled with iron chelation enhances preservation as follows: HB + O2 > HB − O2 > −O2 ≫ +O2. The well-known O2/haeme interactions in the chemistry of life, such as respiration and bioenergetics, are complemented by O2/haeme interactions in the preservation of fossil soft tissues.

Given your demonstrated incompetence I expect you won't understand a word they say but there they are.

Actually you are only showing yet AGAIN your own rather VAST incompetence in reading skills. Rather than you informing me of the work I informed you of that work in post 17...lol...PAGES AGO that

Schweitzer herself has only been able to point to the presence of iron in some of these cases as having led to preservation but even her research does not demonstrate that length of time and its dubious with the multiple more finds since her first that sufficient iron is present in all the finds.

tsk tsk...late to the party but at least your Google skills are finally getting better. now if you even read what you quoted then you would see my points stand. Even first grade maths would indicate that you are going to need to do a WHOLE lot better than 200 fold to get you to even one million years. We are at 80 million now and something tells me within a few years we will be waay over that. sorry. my condolences at your reading skills.

Names Mike by the way. I tend to put up with a whole lot of name calling but i do draw the line some places just for your own personal growth. Might help if you actually do get teeth one day Right now its just all gum and jaw. ;)

Yes, you did. You're the guy who accused science "circular reasoning". Now you realize what a dumb claim that was and are trying to walk it back

oh dear more reading comprehensions skills. Not walking anything back. It was and still is circular reasoning to claim that radiometric dating proves that the challenge made against it with soft tissue has been answered. to do that you have to show independent of radiometric dating that such organic material can actually survive that long which you have zero to produce. forever circular no matter how often the point flies at height s of Everest over your head.

[HMS_Beagle]

Actually you are only showing yet AGAIN your own incompetence in reading skills. Rather than you informing me of the work I informed you of that work in post 17...lol...PAGES AGO that

If you already knew of the work why'd you claim that no research was being done? Not very honest of you now was it?

tsk tsk...late to the party but at least your Google skills are finally getting better. now if you even read what you quoted then you would see my points stand. Even first grade maths would indicate that you are going to need to do a WHOLE lot better than 200 fold to get you to even one million years. We are at 80 million now and something tells me within a few years we will be waay over that. sorry. my condolences at your reading skills.

LOL! What point? That finding a 200 million year old preserved animal would somehow falsify or even cast doubt radiometric dating? You claim to not be a YEC but you're sure as scientifically ignorant as one.

I'll take my reading skills over your non-existent scientific knowledge any day Mr "Radiometric dating is Circular Reasoning."

[Mikeenders]

If you already knew of the work why'd you claim that no research was being done? Not very honest of you now was it?

Its right there in post 17 and anyone can see it has not been modified since you posted a reference to the work I already had spoken of . thank you for demonstrating your own dishonesty in such a way that anyone that cares to can confirm it. I said research needs to be done and yes since that work does not answer several issues it does. sorry...wrong again. keep trying though. its entertaining at times at least.

LOL! What point? That finding a 200 million year old preserved animal would somehow falsify or even cast doubt radiometric dating?

Did i not say you could not think your way out of a short paper bag. LOL..... The point is obvious. Schweitzers sample time becomes less and less significant the greater length of time you are trying to use it to explain. simple mathematics 3 days to two years does not a 60+ million make. Increase it to 200 million and its worse you poor soul. You are flunking maths I take it. buckle up, cut down on the internets and study more.

[HMS_Beagle]

Its right there in post 17 and anyone can see it has not been modified since you posted a reference to the work I already had spoken of . thank you for demonstrating your own dishonesty in such a way that anyone that cares to can confirm it. I said research needs to be done and yes since that work does not answer several issues it does. sorry...wrong again. keep trying though. its entertaining at times at least.

OK, you lied when you said no research was being done. Got it.

Did i not say you could not think your way out of a short paper bag. LOL..... The point is obvious. Schweitzers sample time becomes less and less significant the greater length of time you are trying to use it to explain. simple mathematics 3 days to two years does not a 60+ million make. Increase it to 200 million and its worse you poor soul. You are flunking maths I take it. buckle up, cut down on the internets and study more.

Come back and run your mouth when they find that 200 MYO fully preserved dinosaur. Until then enjoy your self-inflicted urine shower.

[Mikeenders]

Beagle at this point the only deserving response to be given to your posts are


Yaaaaaawwwwn. Have an early night get rest and be fresh for school Monday morning