Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 83 of 135 (518191)
08-04-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 12:41 PM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
Hi there wirkkalaj.
quote:
If it's bones you want? I will dig up more bones (not fossils) than my dog can fetch. I didn't know it was such an issue, but they have been finding them for decades, and I will produce examples which I'm sure will get ridiculed. Oh well.
You seem to have missed the distinction that Coyote was driving at; he was asking after bones, not fossilised bones. What he is asking you for is non-fossilised, non-minerised bone.
quote:
Here's a recent article about that T-Rex bone that they found back in '05 that still had "soft tissue" preserved!
*Ahem* From your cited article;
Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
Note my emphasis.
The bone was mineralised. The contents were not. Simple yes?
quote:
That is much better than a bone.
In what way? Are you an expert on the preservation of organic materials? Or are you simply arguing from incredulity?
quote:
I can't think of one feasible possibility in which soft-tissue (easily decayed) can be preserved for so long.
Oh well, if you can't think of it, it must not exist, since you're such a big expert an' all.
*Ahem*
Sweitzer et al writes:
We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time.
Source
What I am proposing here is that the team of professionals who are doing this research have a rather better idea of what is possible in regards to collagen preservation than either you or I. Why not let them do their job before dismissing their efforts out of hand?
quote:
Occam's razor (which Athiests like to quote alot) seems to apply here. The simplest explaination tends to be the right one: The animal simply hasn't been dead for that long!
As is usual with creationists who try applying the razor, you are misusing it. Your scenario is not the least complicated nor the most parsimonious.
If your contention about the age of this specimen is correct then a great many things would need to be explained. Why was the radiometric dating wrong? Why are all forms of radiometric dating in such close agreement if they don't work? Why does the fossil record show no overlap between humans and dinosaurs?
The problems go on and on. To accept a young age for this T-Rex would require that great swathes of geology, biology and physics be rewritten.
If we accept the (correct) ancient date for the T-Rex, all that need be adjusted is your personal understanding of how long collagen lasts inside fossilised dinosaur bone, a minor enough adjustment I think.
Occam's Razor suggests that it is more likely that you, with your limited expertise, have got something wrong than that countless expert scientists have so comprehensively failed to understand their own disciplines, don't you think?
quote:
Maybe a few thousand years at best?
Then again, with exacting and meticulous evidence such as the above, maybe you are an expert after all...
quote:
They have been with us throughout history! The evidence is overwhelming (once you start looking).
So you will have no trouble finding me a site where dino's and humans are fossilised together? I look forward to that. Until then, the fact that dinosaur and human remains occupy completely different strata screws your argument completely. Oh well.
quote:
Even if they have been with us throughout history, as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything to undermine the General Theory of Evolution at all? I mean, the theory doesn't stand or fall based on some dinosaurs does it?
Actually, in this I agree with you somewhat. The ToE does not depend on any particular version of natural history. Nonetheless, your silly dinosaur fantasies are completely out of whack with the fossil record and would require rethinking the entire science of geology.
Call me crazy, but I'm going to stick with the geologists on this one and no amount of ooh-it-looks-a-bit-like-a-dinosaur type pictures are going to be sufficient to convince me otherwise.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 12:41 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024