Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8973 total)
171 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 170 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,676 Year: 7,424/23,288 Month: 1,330/1,214 Week: 0/342 Day: 0/71 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 136 (618901)
06-07-2011 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by dwise1
06-06-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Genesis...
Huh??? Im not sure they EVER carbon dated any dino bones because that would prove they existed recently. they wont do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2011 2:52 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2011 10:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 5:31 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 136 (618902)
06-07-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by purpledawn
06-06-2011 6:46 AM


Re: Genesis...
Im sorry prurpledawn, I meant Millions....NOT thousands.

Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 06-06-2011 6:46 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 06-07-2011 6:51 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 49 by frako, posted 06-07-2011 7:53 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2011 9:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 48 of 136 (618933)
06-07-2011 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Genesis...
quote:
Im sorry prurpledawn, I meant Millions....NOT thousands.

Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.


Common Sense would say no, soft tissue can't last millions of years unless the tissue was mummified and/or fossilized.

Where have they unearthed dinosaurs with soft tissue?

You aren't helping me understand the weakness you claim in carbon dating. So could you (and only you) explain the carbon dating process and why it can't be used to date something that could be over a million years old? At what timeframe does it stop being accurate?

Given the size of dinosaur bones found, what makes you say the average size is about that of a sheep? That's still a rather large lizard.

So if we didn't have the Genesis 1 account how would one figure out how old the dinosaur bones were?

Edited by purpledawn, : Double sentences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:51 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:28 AM purpledawn has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2923
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 49 of 136 (618938)
06-07-2011 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Genesis...
Purpledawn, can soft tissue last millions of years? Which Scientists HAVE found from Dino bones.

I would very much like to see some referances to that or at least some pictures of that soft tissue.

whiteout that your argument is about as good as this one scientists have PROVEN god does not exist so creation is bullshit.

My guess you got your idea from a creationist site who lied or forgot to mention the word FOSSILIZED soft tissue.

A high school student hunting fossils in the badlands of his native North Dakota discovered an extremely rare mummified dinosaur that includes not just bones but also seldom seen fossilized soft tissue such as skin and muscles, scientists will announce today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../12/03/ST2007120300591.html

So much for following the commandments of your imaginary friend.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:51 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 618 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 136 (618976)
06-07-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:48 AM


Creation "science"
Chuck77 writes:

Huh??? Im not sure they EVER carbon dated any dino bones because that would prove they existed recently. they wont do it.


Dinosaur bones have been Carbon-14 dated, and returned measurable amounts of C-14.

But the results are meaningless. When you are dealing with objects at or past the usable range of the method contamination and equipment error become the major factors.

They have also dated diamonds and found trace amounts of C-14. That was an experiment to determine how much residual contamination resulted from the interior of the C-14 measuring equipment. Those results do not show there was C-14 in the diamond.

But in their desperation for anything which will support their beliefs, creationists take these results out of context and claim they support a young earth.

Pretty silly, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:48 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 136 (619205)
06-09-2011 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
06-07-2011 6:51 AM


Re: Genesis...
From purpledawn "Where have they unearthed dinosaurs with soft tissue?"

From frako "I would very much like to see some referances to that or at least some pictures of that soft tissue."

Here you go:

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found PreservedHillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

March 24, 2005

A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.

Most fossils preserve an organism's hard tissues, such as shell or bone. Finding preserved soft tissue is unheard of in a dinosaur-age specimen.

"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

Uncovering T. Rex

For three years scientists from the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana, excavated the T. rex from sandstone at the base of the nearby Hell Creek formation. The dinosaur was relatively small and around 18 years old when it died.

"The dinosaur was under an incredible amount of rock," said Jack Horner, a curator of paleontology at the museum. "When it was collected, the specimen was very far away from a road, and everything had to be done by helicopter.

"The team made a plaster jacket to get part of the fossil out, and it was too big for the helicopter to lift. And so we had to take the fossil apart.

"In so doing, we had to break a thighbone in two pieces. When we did that, it allowed [Schweitzer] to get samples out of the middle of the specimen. You don't see that in most excavations, because every effort is made to keep the fossil intact," said Horner, a co-author of the study.

A certain amount of serendipity lead to the discovery.

Because the leg bone was deliberately broken in the field, no preservatives were added. As a result, the soft tissues were not contaminated.

The museum, which is a part of Montana State University, has a laboratory that specializes in cellular and molecular paleontology (the study of prehistoric life through fossil remains).

The study authors also looked at several other dinosaur fossils to see whether there was something unique about this particular T. rex fossil.

"There's nothing unique about the specimen other than the fact that it's the first that's been examined really well," Horner concluded. Other dinosaurs, in other words, are probably similarly preserved.

Soft Tissues

Schweitzer's background is in biology, and she performed a number of tests on the fossils that are common medical practices today.

The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.

The vessels resemble blood vessels, cells, and the protein matrix that bodies generate when bones are being formed.

"Bone is living tissue, is very active tissue, and has its own metabolism and has to have a very good blood supply," Schweitzer said.

"So bone is infiltrated with lots and lots of blood vessels in its basic structure. When bone is formed, it's formed by cells that are specific for bone, that secrete proteins like collagen and form a matrix."

Further chemical analysis might enable the scientists to answer long-standing questions about the physiology of dinosaurs. For instance, were they warm-blooded, cold-blooded, or somewhere in between?

If protein sequences can be identified, they can be compared to those of living animals. This might allow a better understanding of how different groups of animals are related.

The find may potentially change field practices, perhaps by encouraging more scientists to reserve parts of fossils for cellular and molecular testing.

-This proves that Dino's are not "millions" of years old no matter what spin they want to put on it. Oh, and there wasn't a lot of fan fare about it as you can guess as to why...nor is it even talked about. Hmmmmmmm

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : Mispell and forgor something


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 06-07-2011 6:51 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:35 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 53 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 6:19 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 6:59 AM Chuck77 has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 136 (619206)
06-09-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:28 AM


Re: Genesis...
There are a lot of articles on this. Simply search them for yourselves. I picked only one of them. Search T-Rex soft tissue. Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:28 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by caffeine, posted 06-09-2011 8:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2923
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 53 of 136 (619208)
06-09-2011 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:28 AM


Re: Genesis...
Dang!!!

Never thought this possible though before you jump to it has to be young and the tones of evidence that shows the earth is old is wrong. It would be better to provide a theory that accounts for all of the evidence.

My best guess is that some kind of process prevented the soft tissue from degrading during fosilization.

p.s. sorry for calling you a liar usually creos spout lies about stuff like this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:28 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Pressie, posted 06-09-2011 8:16 AM frako has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 54 of 136 (619211)
06-09-2011 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:28 AM


Preserved Soft Tissue
Since I'm also a moderator, I'm going to give you a few words of wisdom.
1. Always provide a link to articles you pull from the internet. Don't tell people to go look for themselves. This is a debate board. You provide support for your statements.
2. It is better to provide a quote from the article and not post large portions of the article.
3. When you pull a quote from another post on this board, provide a link. Use the Practice Makes Perfect forum to practice links and quote boxes. Using a quote box separates your words from the article's and other members.

That said, thank you for the information.

Per the articles, the tissue found was preserved in some fashion. As I understand this article NC State Paleontologist Discovers Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Bones the common theory was that dissolving the minerals from fossilized bone would leave us with nothing.

It looks like Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team tried it to see what happened and they found preserved soft tissue.

But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.

quote:
-This proves that Dino's are not "millions" of years old no matter what spin they want to put on it. Oh, and there wasn't a lot of fan fare about it as you can guess as to why...nor is it even talked about. Hmmmmmmm

They still stated that the T Rex was millions of years old. The articles don't prove that dinosaurs are not millions of years old. From what I've read it only shows that they discovered a way to get more info out of the fossils.

You still haven't explained why the dating process used to determine the age of the dinosaur bones is not accurate beyond a certain amount of time.

Again, if we didn't have the Genesis 1 account how would one figure out how old the dinosaur bones were?

Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:28 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 7:46 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 136 (619214)
06-09-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by purpledawn
06-09-2011 6:59 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
puprledawn, I have no clue how to put the pretty little quote in the nice blue box or I would have. Also, I was simply suggesting for anyone curious what to search for if they wanted to about the soft unfossilized Dino tissue. Lastly I wasnt sure I could just post the link here, I've been here a week.

Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 6:59 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2011 8:14 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 06-09-2011 8:51 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2011 11:03 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

caffeine
Member
Posts: 1798
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 56 of 136 (619219)
06-09-2011 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:35 AM


Re: Genesis...
Chuck77 writes:

Oh, and there wasn't a lot of fan fare about it as you can guess as to why...nor is it even talked about.

Chuck77 writes:

There are a lot of articles on this. Simply search them for yourselves. I picked only one of them.

Aren't these statements a little bit contradictory. If there are many articles on the topic, it has indeed been talked about widely. It was reported in just about every popular science outlet there is, so I'd call that a fair amount of fanfare.

I had a look over on Scienceblogs, a collection of blogs from various scientists, and the topic's been dicussed widely there, with a search for Schweitzer AND "soft tissue" returning 102 articles. Follow up research was covered, including analysis of the protein structure to try and include the T-Rex proteins in the family tree of living organisms. It popped up exactly where you'd expect a dinosaur to lie, as the closest relative of birds.

More recently, incidentally, Schweitzer's team seems to have found proteins from another dinosaur - Brachylophosaurus

The scientific community isnt' exactly hiding this finding under a bushel.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:35 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 57 of 136 (619220)
06-09-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
quote:
puprledawn, I have no clue how to put the pretty little quote in the nice blue box or I would have. Also, I was simply suggesting for anyone curious what to search for if they wanted to about the soft unfossilized Dino tissue. Lastly I wasnt sure I could just post the link here, I've been here a week.
I understand that. That's why I gave you the words of wisdom and a link for a place to learn and practice. Also make sure you read the rules of the site. (#6: Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line. ). I'm giving you helpful advice, not writing you a ticket.

quote:
Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.
You're not explaining anything to me. I told you in my first post: I don't hang out on the science side and haven't really gotten into carbon dating, etc. Could you (and only you) explain the carbon dating process and why it can't be used to date something that could be over a thousand years old? Which per your correction should be millions of years.

What is the process and what circular reasoning did Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis) find?

Doesn't he have a preconceived idea since he is basing his timeline on the Bible?

As I've asked before, if we didn't have the Bible how would we date the dinosaurs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2085
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 58 of 136 (619221)
06-09-2011 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by frako
06-09-2011 6:19 AM


Re: Genesis...
frako writes:

Dang!!!
Never thought this possible though before you jump to it has to be young and the tones of evidence that shows the earth is old is wrong. It would be better to provide a theory that accounts for all of the evidence.
My best guess is that some kind of process prevented the soft tissue from degrading during fosilization.
p.s. sorry for calling you a liar usually creos spout lies about stuff like this.

If you read the actual articles, you would realize that what the creationists quote, is completely misleading (I don’t know whether they lie deliberately or not, but they certainly are not telling the truth). Dr. Schweitzer and co-workers were just the first persons to treat dinosaur fossils this way. Dissolve them in weak acids.

An example comes from an article written by the actual researchers, Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, and John R Horner.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/
This is the first part of the abstract:

ncbi writes:

Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia.

Please notice that these soft tissues and microstructures were represented in fragments of demineralized bone. They dissolved the minerals.

It could also happen in other specimens, as is indicated by this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...ntists-recover-t-rex-soft-tissue

Quote from this article:

msnbc writes:

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.


What this article means is that, if researchers are willing to basically destroy their fossils, they would get a lot of similar features. Researchers are not normally willing to destroy their fossils, therfore it hasn't been done before.

Then , the part where creationists really loose the plot. We’ve found fossils double that age with real intact soft tissues, in amber. Years ago. The movie Jurassic Park was filmed because of the fact that we can find 130 million year old soft tissue in amber. We’ve known that intact, soft tissue from millions of years ago, can be found. We don’t even have to dissolve these in any chemical, they are there.

Creationists pretend that this ‘soft tissues in millions of year old rocks’ is a new discovery. Then they pretend that this indicates a young earth. They just keep on sprouting untruths. Nothing else.

In the end, how does soft tissue in fossils indicate a 'creation' less than 10 000 years ago, anyway?

Edited by Pressie, : Added the word "age" after "double that".

Edited by Pressie, : Fixed a few things, agian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 6:19 AM frako has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2085
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 59 of 136 (619224)
06-09-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Chuck77 writes:

puprledawn, I have no clue how to put the pretty little quote in the nice blue box or I would have. Also, I was simply suggesting for anyone curious what to search for if they wanted to about the soft unfossilized Dino tissue. Lastly I wasnt sure I could just post the link here, I've been here a week.


No, they didn’t find soft, unfossilized Dino tissue at all. They demineralized the fossils. You weren’t telling the truth.

Chuck77 writes:

Geologist John Woodmorappe, …

That’s certainly not true. From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe

Wiki writes:

John Woodmorappe (born October 1954) is the pen name of Jan Peczkis,[1] an author who has published several articles and books with the creation science groups Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. His main works are Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and the The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. He has also written several articles in creationist journals.


John Woodmorappe refers to Jan Peczkis as a science educator in one of his ‘articles’. He didn’t tell anybody that he referred to himself. Nobody knows what his qualifications are. We just know that he is a ‘science educator’. He certainly is not a geologist. He just calls himself a ‘science educator’.

None of the two of him is a geologist.

Chuck77 writes:

… after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers.

You would certainly expect that from a creationist who writes incognito, refers to his own articles under another name and has no verifiable qualifications. They tend to twist the truth a lot.

Chuck77 writes:

They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution.

Geologists actually do geology. They wouldn’t have a clue about the ‘paradigm of Evolution’, as the Theory of Evolution is actually a biological theory. Geologists don’t deal with biology. They deal with rocks.

Chuck77 writes:

Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.

Maybe creationists would believe untruths like that. Geologists actually have to subject their work to peer-review. They disagree with you. And they are qualified geologists.

Edited by Pressie, : Edited the first sentence

Edited by Pressie, : Removed words typed twice


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 06-09-2011 9:39 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 61 by caffeine, posted 06-09-2011 9:57 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:08 AM Pressie has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 60 of 136 (619233)
06-09-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Pressie
06-09-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
That’s certainly not true. From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe

I wonder if he realizes now that creationists sites lie. Great take down on Woodmorappe, I love when he is brought up. It is an easy take down.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 06-09-2011 8:51 AM Pressie 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