What's the creationists thought on 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.Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present - PMC
This is the first part of the abstract: 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:
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosQuote from this article: 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.

No, they didn’t find soft, unfossilized Dino tissue at all. They demineralized the fossils. You weren’t telling the truth. That’s certainly not true. From Wiki John Woodmorappe - Wikipedia 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. 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. 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. 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 sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Removed words typed twice

That's interesting. Somebody with a masters in geology teaching high school science? That can only mean that he is way too useless as a geologist for any geological consultant, mining company or geological research organization to employ him. Simply put, he knows too little to be employed as a geologist.

What creationists claim to be true is usually miles removed from reality. So, he claims to be a geologist, while he’s only published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology? Sounds very fishy to me. How does this qualify him to be a ‘specialist’ on dating methods? Well, I guess anyone can write book reviews on Amazon. I agree.

Then how do you rationalize your questioning of the thousands of geochronologists who actually do know exactly what they are doing? No, your creationists sources indoctrinated you to reject science. That's why you brought it up. That's why real geochronologists don't ever use carbon dating to date dinosaur fossils. Chuck77, you should then start realizing that you can’t trust creationist ‘sources’. They lie. Rather use scientific sources. There's lots of other scientific techniques out there. Creationists have only one dating ‘technique’. They interperate their specific version of the holy books. Then they call it ‘science’. There is another thread on this website dealing with why creationists should get scientific dating techniques they don’t have at the moment. Before getting a scientific dating technique, they don't do geochronology. Why? They keep on lying to you. We pointed them at their lies. Don’t ever believe them without investigating their claims very thoroughly. Why do you do this at all? Even according to CreationWiki. Laurence Tisdall - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science He’s got absolutely no education in scientific dating techniques. Don’t just believe his ‘claims’, as he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Rather listen what those thousands of Geochronologists, who are actually specialists in geological dating, from all over the world, conclude after their research. That ‘s called being rational. Yes you can. It doesn’t matter how many times you just ignore or deny facts, fossils can be dated. Yes, you can date sedimentary rock. Sometimes it is very easy, other times it is more difficult, but you can date sedimentary rocks.

Sorry, cavediver, if I offended you.I didn't mean to do it.The reality of the situation Jan Peczkis is involved in, is that no real geological organization, whether it is in consulting, mining or reseach, would ever emply a reality denier. That's why he works for creationist organizations and works under a different name.Institutions dealing with geological reality also have to survive in real life. They all have to survive reality.Jan Peczkis does 'geological' work for 'creation scientists', simply because he doesn't have the knowledge to work for real geological enterprizes. He suppliments his income by trying to indoctrinate children. And it looks good when he can refer to himself as a 'science teacher' or 'geologist' in his 'articles', depending on the audience.I also agree that a lot of teachers do their jobs for the love of teaching children. But they are real teachers and don't have to revert to lies to indoctrinate the faithful, too. They do really educate children. They do it all under their own names. Not some nom du plum to deceive the faithful.Edited by Pressie, : Added two words

Thanks for accepting my apologies.I work as a full-time geologist at a geological research institute and I also teach part-time at what is called a previously disadvantaged school. I understand your frustration.In my country teachers are paid a pittance. Usually teachers are paid in peanuts, that's why they get a lot of monkeys doing it.Those teachers with a passion for teaching, however, who do it for the love of teaching and also for advancing humanity, do deserve all the respect we can give them. There's a lot of them.I don't think that Jan Peczkis is one of them.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I was actually looking forward to a discussion on John Woodmorappe's 'research' on dating. I could actually learn something, as we do have a few experts on radiometric dating available on this forum. Are you sure you can't give me one of the examples from Woodmorappe's 'research' that we can discuss? Your statement was Can’t we even discuss one example where ‘isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning’? I would love to discuss any example of radiometric dating where Woodmorappe thought the dating methods were circular.Chuck77, please, let’s discuss some examples of this. It seems like Woodmorappe would never publish his ‘findings’ in peer-reviewed papers, but only in religious tracts where the readers don’t have a clue what he is talking about. Also, he always does it where he knows that no Geochronologist can hear what he says and is able to criticize him. Please, let’s discuss it here. Just give us one example of 'circular reasoning' he writes about.This is the time to put your money where your mouth is.

Please, I would love to have a look at his "paper". If the moderaters could provide my e-mail address to you, I certainly would appreciate it. Woodmorappe doesn't provide any information, he just lies to the creationists.I wonder whether Woodmorappe included all those dates obtained from geologists, provided in peer-reviewed articles on South African rocks, from South African geologists, in his 'research'. There's way more than 500 of them. Geologists and articles. Try tens of thousands.I bet that Woodmorappe ignored that research.

Thank you. I would love to see it.

When the beds are deposited, yes, that’s what normally happens. We do have exceptions to that, too.After deformation, this is not common-sense at all. Occurrences like recumbent folds and overthrusts are very common. So, no, the youngest rocks will not necessarily be at the top. Just on this quote, every geologist in the world can determine that his ‘paper’ is ridiculously flawed and won’t ever be accepted by any real geologist. Yes, he doesn’t even know the basics of geology. It’s either a lie, or just complete ignorance. Seeing that Woodmorappe (aka Peczkis) claims to be a geologist, I think that it is a complete bald faced lie.He ‘s trying to mislead the faithful on what sedimentary rocks actually are, how they are deposited and how they get altered by geological processes.

It’s amazing how Woodmorappe can lie. That’s all he can do. He probably thinks that nobody can get hold of the ‘references’ he lists. Unfortunately for him, we can. I’ve got one of the references he vaguely provides to try and deceive people.
In Table 1 of his ‘article’ he has a list of a few ages ‘expected’ and what was found after dating. His table has 5 columns, headed by, Age Expected, Age Obtained, Method and material, Common or Formational Name and Locality and the last column, reference.On page 109 he lists the Cape Granite Suite as: >400, 330 and 238 30, 236PB/U238 and , 238PB/232, Cape granite/ Republic of South Africa, 152
His reference is numbered 152: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula,
South Africa. GC 29: 11 15-6.Woodmorappe actually forgets that some people can get hold of his references. The real reference is: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. Geochimica et Codsmochimica Acta 1965, Vol. 29, pp.1115 to 1130. Pergamon Press Ltd.I’ve got this paper in my hands. The abstract reads: In Woodmorappe’s Table 1 on page 109 , under the Cape Granite Suite:1. Expected age (Woodmorappe lists >400). The expected age was around 500 million years, actually. All in the reference Woodmorappe provided.2.Age obtained: Woodmorappe lists: 330 and 238 30. He lies. Allsop et al got ages of 500 15 million years.3. Method and material: Cape granite: 553 8 my. Aplogranite: 500 15 my. Malmesbury 595 45 m.y. Woodmorappe lies.4.Common or formational name: Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments (the simplistic names).5. Reference already given. Woodmorappe lies. And lies. And lies. Don’t ever believe anything he says.Some creationists wonder why scientists think all creationists lie. And lie. And lie some more. This 'paper' is a good example of why we know that creationists always lie.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Removed a comma that altered the explanation and meaning of the sentence.Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Changed sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Fixed mistakes

This sounds fishy, as well. Dr Schweitzer has been the person who initiated research on soft dinosaur tissue. You, Chuck77, brought it to the attention of people participating on this on this forum, but you’ve never heard about the researcher who discovered it? Weird.Educated paleontologists on this forum have actually studied her research. All those examples were fossilized. The lesson is that specialists know about her research and about her.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake

Thanks. Coragyps!It's always easy to debunk creationists, as they only have one method: deceiving by outright lying. They project their way of thinking on others, because they think that everyone is as ignorant (or plain stupid) as they are themselves.

Mazzy, could you explain to us how the article you refered to is related to carbon dating?