I went to see the wikipedia definition of special pleading since it seemed to me we didn't have the same definition lol, probably because of the language barrier.(me=french) I viewed it more as simply speculating the existence of an unknown thing (in this case, conditions which would make the proteins survive 65 millions years)to explain results which do not fit with previous data.
Which previous data?
If research can be done to estimate the maximum time collagen can survive, and it doesn't allow 65 millions years of survival ...
But where is this research? If you cannot produce it, then it doesn't take "special pleading" to postulate an "unknown mechanism" that preserved it, rather it takes wishful thinking to postulate, in the face of the known facts, some unknown mechanism that must have destroyed it by now.
Both recorded history (threw dragons tales) and cave drawings seem to point that man did coexist with at least some type of big lizards ...
You don't say.
If anyone would be interested in discussing this possibility, we could open another thread about it.
I have to disagree with you here. I have invoked Thermodynamics as a mechanism (2nd law) which would destroy the collagen. It is not an unknown mechanism.
I'm not clear what you're getting at. Do you suggest that something other than collagen is more thermodynamically stable, and that collegen should have turned into whatever-it-is by now?
Show your working: in particular, calculate how long it would take.
If you just say "Thermodynamics" as an explanation, you're not really providing an mechanism any more than if someone gave the answer "Biochemistry" to explain why the collagen should have been preserved.
Are you telling me crocodiles fly ?
No. If you are claiming that tales of flying dragons are evidence of living (non-avian) dinosaurs, are you telling me that dinosaurs could fly?
This could be fun, you want me to start the thread or you will ?
You're the one with the claims, if you'd like to start the thread I'll be happy to join in.
If you wish, you could ask the moderators for it to be a debate specifically with me, or you could throw it open to all comers.
Although it pretty much ends at radioactive decay and sedimentology. while I absolutly agree it would need good changes in our view of the former, I would suggest it would only involve some minor tweeks in the later ...
And I would suggest that it would require tearing up the whole thing and starting from scratch.
I wasn't clear enough on this, but in her recent Hadrosaur discovery, she sent samples to two other labs for independant confirmation. She really did her homework so that no critics could neglect her data. I think this discovery is here to stay, and so a mechanism to preserve these proteins in 65 millions years old bones will have to be found eventually.
No, a mechanism will have to be found to degrade them over the course of 65 million years. But not, of course, over the 4500 years since the Flood, obviously they must have remained intact that long.
(1) Strata is already plural. "Stratas" is not a word.
(2) What are you getting at? Are you proposing some special mechanism that only preserves soft tissue in dinosaur bones if the sediment is volcanic ash? Why? Do you know what sort of rock Schweitzer's dinosaur was found in?
(I haven't been able to find out what the T. rex was buried in, but in her follow-up work she found similar results with a hadrosaur buried in sandstone. Her comment: "Deep burial in sandstone seems to favor exceptional preservation", and the fact that she chose this dinosaur for her follow-up study, strongly suggest that the T. rex was also buried in sandstone.)
Creationist are not saying radiometric dating don't work, they are saying that the assumption that the nuclear decay is constant may not be true.
(1) This is like saying: "I'm not saying that your clock is wrong, I'm saying that it doesn't run at a constant rate." This is a distinction without a difference.
(2) Yes, (young earth) creationists are saying that radiometric dating doesn't work. To admit that it worked would be to admit that it gives correct dates, which would be the first step towards the reality they are so desperate to avoid.