Blood in dino bones

quote:

---

So you agree that you have no idea of why or if a living dinosaur would create any problems for the Theory of Evolution.

---

Well, I agree that you say that it wouldn't! I guess you think you need a big drumroll to actually say what you mean, and come out with a point! But my little phrases for you still stand.

quote:

---

None of the quotes you provided said it was impossible to find soft tissue of dinosaurs, only rare and unusual.

---

Can you say if it is possible or impossible? Or would it be too rare and unusual for you to make any sense? You ought to have perceived that I don't believe the old ages anyhow. Do you know of some scale in science that tells us what to expect in fossilization after so many millions of years? If not, then how is it you have a clue what to expect! And certainly you could not ask someone who believes the world is 6000 years old to dream up a good one for your 70 million year old expectations?! Or does everything simply rest on the dating methods that say that the rock is 70 million years old? In other words, we know it is that old, therefore the tissue etc must have survived as it is? Is that all it is, a statement of blind faith?

quote:

---

What you need is for it to be established that this mechanism is enough to preserve stuff for a few 1000 years but not enough for several million

---

"http://www.sciencedaily.com/
Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn't preserve -- the bones were essentially transformed into "rocks" through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside outCurrent theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/03/050325100541.htm"It has always been thought that cells couldn't be preserved, but there really wasn't any evidence to back up those ideas, other than no one having found cellular preservation before." Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur PaleontologySo now all evos need to do is rewrite 'conventional wisdom'. There is a big difference between 70 million years, and 100,000 years! Say some 69 million, 900,000 years! Talk about a stretch?

quote:

---

In spite of the obvious variability of the preservation state of soft tissues it would be at least statistically true that animals that died within the last century would show more examples of preservation than those that died 1,000 years ago. Correct or not?

---

See the answer below, and add to that that the conditions of the last few thousand years are no indication of flood conditions, or an ancient world.

quote:

---

If all extinct animal forms died 4500 years ago in a flood they should, on average, exhibit about the same likely hood of haveing soft tissue preservation. Correct or not?

---

How do you know some things did not go extinct before the flood? Say, maybe even most dinosaurs? Then, remember also that some of each type of animal was on the ark, so that is not extint by a long shot either. Otherwise, everyone who goes on a cruise is extinct? And no doubt we could raise other variables.
Now, lets take the ferinstance that the dinos, most of them, ( I don't know this, but what does anyone know about some pre flood tropical world anyhow?) -. Now what conditions would have been present there that would lend to dino tissue getting preserved? We don't know, because we know little about the atmosphere, climate, mists rising up watering things, if they still were at this point, etc etc. Compare this with some poor post flood mastradon trying to survive uin this cold old world!
So, which sample are you talking about, and where does it come from, and what localized factors may have been at work, and....

quote:

---

Simple, you seem to think that the preservation of almost microscopic amounts of soft tissue in rare cases trumps the vast amount of dating evidence obtained throught other means.

---

Actually my trump card for the radioactive decay is that pre split there was no such process! It was a different process altogether, which resulted in more of a regeneration than a decay. But this again involves a merge of the spirit world, which the science today, cannot detect. The physical only science that is so limited, and only choses to operate in the little 'box' of physical evidences. Science of the box! So yes we now have a constant decay, and have had for probably thousands of years till before the fall. But we cannot try to extrapolate the decay of the box to the period before (or after) the process existed! So that is why I reject our present, known, decay as great age related. As far as the blood and tissue, we don't know yet even if it is really that, do we? Assuming it is, there is excitement in the air. Conventional wisdom has said that these things would not survive such age, nowhere near it!
So the new findings (much more to come I think we can safely say, as they start cracking em like easter eggs) may not be a real good 'clock' as you say, but they make the long assumed age look questionable.This message has been edited by simple, 03-26-2005 01:04 PM

quote:

---

Simple, you do understand that when we talk about "decay rates" in geology, we are talking about radioactive decay, not biological decay, like rotting, don't you?

---

Ha, Of course. What many do not think about, is that when death and decay entered the world, may have been at the same time. Adam for example only started to die after the fall. So then, before that time we could not have had the same processes at work. The earth and sun, for example are said to be everlasting. But science tells us at present rates, the sun would burn out after so long. If we accept the bible as evidence, and I know the science of the box can't do that, then we know that a spiritual component is coming, and will change the decay we now have, back to a state of eternal durance. Just as, before the split of the spirit factor, likely at what is known as the 'fall'- it was in the same state. That leaves us only with a temporal little window where the physical only, and it's death, and decay rates will or could ever be applicable! Post split, and pre merge!

quote:

---

Of course. And it is possible (vanishingly unlikely in my opinion, but possible) that this find will rule out the 70 million year option. Ooh look, a potential falsification. I thought we didn’t have those

---

So you mean this could make false the radioactive dating, that gave those dates?

quote:

---

My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure,"

​

This would be pretty cool in itself. Again, you should realize that something of this sort would probably have to happen for preservation for any length of time beyond a few months

---

Could be. Now I wonder if some aspect of life pre flood, when things lived a long time, could be at work here? I guess we'll see.

quote:

---

So? If our preconceptions get shot down by evidence, evidence wins. That’s how science works.

---

Hopefully. Now there is always the interpreting of the evidence that is the real sticker.

quote:

---

OK, why don't you give a brief explanation of what "radioactive decay" is,

---

". Briefly, radiometric dating seeks to establish the age of matter based on the ratios of parent to daughter isotopes and the constant rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes present. Isotopes of an element are atoms whose nuclei have the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons (see diagram). The atomic nuclei of radioactive isotopes are unstable. As they move to a more stable configuration, the nuclei rid themselves of subatomic particles and excess energy. This process is known as decay. As radioactive decay proceeds, the radioactive "parent" material (e.g., uranium) is transformed into offspring or "daughter" products (e.g., thorium, etc.). This process continues until a stable daughter product is achieved (in the case of uranium, this is lead).
The length of time required for half of the original parent material to decay is known as the "half-life" of the isotope. These half-lives range from those less than 0.000000001 seconds to those extremely long (more than one billion years). For a given radioactive isotope, infinite age is often assumed after the passing of 7 to 10 half-lives, because after this point it is statistically impossible to accurately detect the presence of the parent isotope."
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...

quote:

---

Do you agree or not agree that for the last 4500 years there will tend to be (only on a statistcal basis) less softtissue preservation for things which died longer ago (up to 4500 yrs) than those which died more recently. If not, why not?

---

One would tend to think so. Why?
As far as dating, I had to answer a question, and explain why the limited physical only assumptions (in a box)are not applicable to dates. Nothing to argue about, only to accept or reject, with no proof either way possible. Your definition of science becomes my definition of science of the box. But since the thread isn't about that it doesn't matter.

quote:

---

I have forgotten are you for or against having "equal time" for creationism in schools?

---

Try a thread that deals with schools, some may engage you on that one. I don't support public education, so I wouldn't be the one to ask there. Not a penny, would be my vote for that stuff the way it is these days.

quote:

---

Did everything go on the ark and some go extinct after or did some go extinct before the flood? Which is it? If some went extinct before which were they?

---

So now we're off on some ark tangent are we? That's a big topic. You wouldn't like, or be able to resist my arguements anyhow. Maybe if you have some specific creature in mind, and that may relate to the topic, we could have a stab at it.

quote:

---

However whatever the conditions were preflood. All living things were subject to them. Do you wish to speculate what the effect would have been on the preservation of softtissues? That will be necessary before we can continue.

---

I don't feel a particular need to speculate yet on that, why do you have some idea? Ha
All living things may or may not (if some effects were localized) have been affected, but how do you tell what fossils are from before or after, and thus differentiate where said effect came from?

quote:

---

Please describe in detail the nature of this process that produced the correlations between many different methods of dating.

---

Start a thread in the coffee house on dating, called "The Great Split " and I'll think about it.

quote:

---

Could you describe for me in your own words just what the new findings are and what they mean again?

---

What they are I think a school child could tell you. What they mean is still not clear, as so far we only have so much information. But it sounds like we may need to review assumptions on how fossilization works, and who knows? In the words of one poster here "a potential falsification?"
Why don't you focus on the issue, and what you might have to say about it yourself, if anything, rather than trying to trip me up?

quote:

---

What is interesting is that it had to have grown very fast around the vessels and cells to preserve them so well.

---

What conditions normally would you think contribute to this happening? Since it is not normal with just rapid burial, I guess it likely would be something in the atmosphere, or dirt that it got trapped in?

quote:

---

The blood vessels are found deep inside the bone, where there was apparently some mineralisation even when the dinosaur still was alive

---

Sounds like something at work there we would not find in today's world?

quote:

---

On current knowledge, they are the exception rather than the rule - they are unusual.

---

But it is just as unusual to cut open the dino bones, and look for this type of thing! Up till now at least.

quote:

---

Would indications of young age require us to question our assumptions? Yes. Does it immediately invalidate the vast amount of evidence that suggests that dinosaurs and the rocks that bear them are very old? No.

---

True. But give it a week or two, who knows?

quote:

---

Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--

---

Here, age is again from radioactive dating we presume. And the original material was not known. To me, an assumption based on two unknowns is less than solid. Dating is only as good as an assumption that the decay process was always the same process. In other words only as good as saying there is nothing else but the physical world we now see, and it's current decay process. This is the assumption science makes, and one that cannot be proved or disproved. Something that cannot be proved or disproved is I would say, an unknown.

quote:

---

So you realize that what this quote says is that previous assumptions made about cell preservation may not be correct in light of new evidence.

---

Well, at least it admits they are just assumptions! I'm hoping that things will start to surface now that indeed show their assumtions are off, hopefully, even the assumtions for the dating. I mean, what if something wild happens, like they find the dna is still good? That would not fit into some 70 million year old timeframe?

quote:

---

If we look at much more recent sub fossils such as woolly mammoths, where biomolecules are preserved, the quality and quantity are substantially reduced when compared to any recent or near recent samples.

---

You are probably right. My feint hope there would rest in the following scenario. If the dino (or some other one they cut open now)was fossilized in the pre flood world, there may have been fantastic things at work, a mammoth from post flood would not share?!

quote:

---

The reason people have to make assumptions about the preservation of organic material over millions of years is because there is so little real data on this type of thing.

---

Yes, long ages of imagined time, and real data don't go well together.

quote:

---

There are far fewer assumptions being made about radioactive decay since we can observe it happening.

---

Yes, and my only assumptions about that is whether something different was happening in the past, not that what is happening, is happening.

quote:

---

I would put money on them not being able to pull even a preliminary Jurassic Park type thing, as in I seriously doubt they'll be able to sequence T. rex's genome or something like that. The DNA is likely there in small fragments if it is there at all anymore.

---

Probably right again. And even if they had some good stuff, what would they mix it with, an ostrich? I don't think they could get a real t rex since there is nothing all that big to splice it with.

quote:

---

relying on constant rates of radioactive decay

​

Meanwhile, you are also making an assumption - that things were very different only a few thousand years ago. Have you any evidence that this was the case?

---

I started a thread on dating, in case someone wants to see opposing opinion.

quote:

---

The potential of aspartic acid to provide a chronology for geologically-young sedimentary successions was confirmed by comparing the kinetic trend of Asp observed in laboratory-induced racemisation established by simulated aging (heating) experiments

---

http://www.ozestuaries.org/...es/indicators/DEF_aa_race.htmlBetween the flood year, and the tropical pre flood world, and maybe toss in some violent flood tectonics, and we have some heat that may skew results?

quote:

---

How much heat, exactly, is required to skew the results by 70 million years minus 6ky?

---

Well, how much heat in the labs for the tests?

quote:

---

The heat produced by the alleged accelerated radioactive decay that (is invoked to drive such tectonic movement) would skew radiometric dating by 70 million years would cook everything anyway, there would be no amino acids left to racemise.

---

Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?

quote:

---

Could you explain what you mean here? What tests are you refering to?

---

"The potential of aspartic acid to provide a chronology for geologically-young sedimentary successions was confirmed by comparing the kinetic trend of Asp observed in laboratory-induced racemisation established by simulated aging (heating) experiments "
This link I posted, in case you feel no need to read the posts.

quote:

---

Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?

​

You misunderstand the point utterly. Why don't you go back, read what was posted and see if you can figure out where you are wrong in your thinking before Mark gets back and gets a bit snarky about it?

---

Actually we have here you misunderstanding where I am coming from. Now you don't want me to get snarky, so try to get it. If you need help, and are very polite, I may explain.