Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8975 total)
44 online now:
dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: baidoithuongvn
Post Volume: Total: 875,784 Year: 7,532/23,288 Month: 91/1,347 Week: 108/342 Day: 5/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2159 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 5 of 77 (508816)
05-16-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by slevesque
05-16-2009 2:25 AM


I do think the real issue about this is not so much about the soft tissues, but instead about the proteins (collagen I think) found inside the fossils.

Yes, it is collagen.

Lab experiments with the best possible preservation conditions (no oxygen, no bacteria, etc.) have come with maximum ages of 3 millions years at 0ºC, less then 200 000 years at 10ºC and less then 15 000 years at 20ºC. Even in temparatures much lower then any found on earth, it does not come close to 65 millions years.

Like Percy, I would like to know the source of this information. But more specifically, what proteins are we talking about here? I'm no bio-chemist, but even I know that collagen forms the structural strength in living organisms, and is unsurprisingly robust compared to most other proteins. I would pause for thought before throwing around accusations of special pleading...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by slevesque, posted 05-16-2009 2:25 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 05-17-2009 4:31 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2159 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 37 of 77 (509712)
05-24-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by slevesque
05-24-2009 2:56 AM


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.

Really? How fast would the decay rates need to be changed to support a YEC view? What sort of Terrestrial heat output would that imply? How do they explain the data from Oklo? How would they explain just about all observed stellar astrophysics? Did you read that paper by Barrow, etc, or varying alpha? Did you notice the observed bounds on the variation of alpha across the age of the Universe?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2009 2:56 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 05-24-2009 4:09 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 41 by bluescat48, posted 05-24-2009 5:11 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2159 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 77 (510465)
05-31-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by LucyTheApe
05-31-2009 2:11 PM


Re: Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
Cesium relies on a constant speed of light. Which we now understand is a fallacy.

Really? Care to elucydate us, as us physicists are in the dark here :rolleyes: Please note that evidence that alpha may have been different in the past by some femtoscopic fraction of a percent does not imply that considering the speed of light as constant is fallacious.

ABE:

The only measure of time is the earths rotation and it's orbit around the sun.

:laugh: what a tool...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-31-2009 2:11 PM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-31-2009 2:39 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 67 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-31-2009 2:43 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 70 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-01-2009 3:36 AM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2159 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 73 of 77 (510535)
06-01-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by LucyTheApe
06-01-2009 3:36 AM


Re: Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
Why have we been adding seconds to our time ever since we've been using the atomic clock as a standard?

:rolleyes: Because our clocks are based on the earth's rotation wrt the Sun (in order to preserve conventions of day and night) and this is not only not exactly equal to 24 hrs (as defined by the stable atomic clocks) but is also not constant. On the short timescale it varies back and forth owing to orbital dynamics, and over the long timescale, the rotational day is getting longer because the Earth's spin is slowing down as angular momentum is being transferred from the spin to the Earth-Lunar system via tidal dragging.

It can't be because the earth is slowing down, the earth is subject the laws of nature, in particular, the conservation of angular momentum.

Really? Oh, well perhaps you better ignore what I wrote above because it seems you know more about this than I do...

Maybe the clocks a dud!

Quite probably.

Modern physics is now considering a theory... it raises the distinct possibility that scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-01-2009 3:36 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020