Blood in dino bones

I think the original idea simple was putting forward was that these soft tissue samples came from a T.rex that was dated to ~70 million years ago, and it isn't possible for soft tissue to last that long. The conclusion from this is that radiometric dating is wrong.The issue simple is raising isn't whether dinos could have survived the K-T extinction 65MYA, it's whether the fossils are really the age current science says they are (or less than 6000 years old presumably).Personally my money is on science

---

Confused ? You will be...

Okay.So you agree that you have no idea of why or if a living dinosaur would create any problems for the Theory of Evolution.Let's go to the next step.None of the quotes you provided said it was impossible to find soft tissue of dinosaurs, only rare and unusual.Is that a correct summary so far?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, we'll get to that. One small step at a time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you, I guess you could see what he was getting at.

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?

This level of soft tissue preservation would actually be almost as spectacular if the specimen really was only a few thousand years old. Decay processes usually destroy such things over timescales of days and months, so even if this dinosaur bone was as young as you'd like it to be some preservation mechanism is required to retain the blood vessels.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. Until then - maybe the Earth was created last Thursday, in a hurry, and a few mistakes were made!

Still didn't answer my question.Did any of the articles you quoted say it was impossible or did they say it was rare?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I don't think they have. I think the physical process of decay itself was not the same process at all before the fall. It was recorded to have been one of regeneration, leading to eternal life, rather than decay and death. As I see it, there is only a several thousand year window of time, when the physical only decay process exists at all. Before death entered the world, and after the new heavens are revealed, the present processes are non existant. But now, sure they exist, and are constant. Of course this aspect needs the evidence of the bible, which is not accepted at the moment as we know by science. But neither do I accept unprovable assertions of belief that there was no spiritual effect that resulted in a different process altogether! So not much on that point to debate about.
At least the 'bleeding dino' ought to echo a warning that something is rotten in Denmark, with the old age philosopies!

---

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?

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. Even though the degree of preservation is clearly not a very good "clock" since it can vary enormously depending on the environmental circumstances. This suggests you want to toss out radiometric dating which is tested to be very constant and immune to reasonable conditions for one which is known to be variable. This after creationists have spent a lot of time trying to argue the radioactive dicay is variable and therefore can't be used as a clock. Could you perhaps comment on your significant inconsistency here?However, let's consider you idea that the degree of preservation of soft tissue could be some kind of marker for age. Do you agree with the following predictions?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?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?This prediction derived from you idea is in contrast to the current scientific consensus and therefore offers a way to distinguish the probably validity of each.Would you comment on these predictions please?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-26-2005 10:42 AM

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!

I think you’re jumping the gun a bit here. The key question comes from one of your sources : (my emphasis)Although we have the preserved form of blood vessels and cells, it’s still not clear exactly what they’re now made of. Most fossilization processes result from some sort of mineral replacement or envelopment of the original material, and some scientists think that something of this sort has happened here. From the BBC version (quoting Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK): 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 (maybe years in ideal conditions — extreme cold or aridity for example). So? If our preconceptions get shot down by evidence, evidence wins. That’s how science works. 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

OK, why don't you give a brief explanation of what "radioactive decay" is, because nothing in your reply makes any sense at all.

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.