[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Cygnus]

The finding of soft tissue sure casts doubt on the dating methods. Suppose it is true, why isn't the discovery of 65,000,000 year old soft the greatest discovery since penicillin?
Supppse it's possible organic material preserved for millions of years. Maybe preserving material for 65 million years isn't practical but suppose they could find a way to achieve just 0.00015384615384615% of that. Red cross would be able to keep blood 100 years instead of
a few months. Every item in the grocery store just added 100 years to it's shelf life. What should be happening is every effort to find how and why organic material lasted so long. ANY discovery stemming from that, no matter how small, has the potential to have a huge impact on how organic material is preserved.
But this is just seen as another pawn in the creation/evolution thing. Add some iron to blood and set it on a shelf to shut down any more interest. They should be ashamed they haven't examined this more.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Do you understand just how long 65+ MY's is? Especially when you consider some organic material dated by OE methods to be much older...that "somehow" survived.
As a christian this soft tissue should give you great faith in the correctness of the bible.

 

[Barbarian]

The finding of soft tissue sure casts doubt on the dating methods. Suppose it is true, why isn't the discovery of 65,000,000 year old soft the greatest discovery since penicillin?

Soft tissue that old would be a remarkable advance. But so far, no one can actually show such tissue. Certainly organic material can last that long, but not even cells, much less tissue have been found.

It appears that iron and anaerobic conditions help, as well as the formation of mineral deposits by bacteria, which wall off parts of the organisms.

In theory, if collagen can survive many millions of years, than maybe other molecules can, too. And if that happened, the it's at least a possibility that entire cells or even tissues could be found that old.

But not so far. I

 

[Cygnus]

Soft tissue that old would be a remarkable advance. But so far, no one can actually show such tissue. Certainly organic material can last that long, but not even cells, much less tissue have been found.

Please stop misrepresenting science. The tissue has been show. The problem for you is you have to make such assertions because it destroys the concept of a old earth...and points to the accuracy of the bible you so much like to disagree with.

It appears that iron and anaerobic conditions help, as well as the formation of mineral deposits by bacteria, which wall off parts of the organisms.

If you count 3 out of 65 + MY's.

In theory, if collagen can survive many millions of years, than maybe other molecules can, too. And if that happened, the it's at least a possibility that entire cells or even tissues could be found that old.

....or the earth isn't quite as old as you need it to be.

 

[Barbarian]

Please stop misrepresenting science. The tissue has been show.

No. One person claims to have found it, but no one else can verify what he claimed. That's a huge problem in science.

The problem for you is you have to make such assertions because it destroys the concept of a old earth...

Nope. As you learned, it's been known for a long time that soft organic material can survive for many millions of years.

Your disagreement with the Bible makes it hard for you to accept those facts. But they are there.

 

[Cygnus]

No. One person claims to have found it, but no one else can verify what he claimed. That's a huge problem in science.

Would you like to see a video of it?

 

[Barbarian]

I'd like to see in the literature, where scientists were able to reproduce his findings.

Videos are for Amway recruiting.

 

[Cygnus]

I'd like to see in the literature, where scientists were able to reproduce his findings.

Videos are for Amway recruiting.

Even if you had the actual specimen in front of you..you would still deny it. Your religion of old earth evolutionism forbids you to actually believe what the bible teaches.

 

[Barbarian]

Even if you had the actual specimen in front of you..

Many people have. No one can verify the claim of tissue. BTW, it's a rather technical issue. Tissue is a group of cells organized for a specific function. That means that mere organic material isn't tissue. You need intact cells which are still organized into structures called "tissues."

it's just not there. Your new religion of young Earth creationism forbids you to actually believe what the Bible teaches. But if you have verification of the claim in the scientific literature, by all means show me.

Even Armitage, in his paper, did not produce any evidence for the claim. He merely insisted that he found tissue.

 

[Cygnus]

Many people have. No one can verify the claim of tissue.

You should be on CNN with all your fake news.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Many people have. No one can verify the claim of tissue.

You should be on CNN with all your fake news.

It's just a fact. As you see, no one else can confirm the claim. And in science, when a researcher's work can't be confirmed, he's in big trouble.

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian observes:
Many people have. No one can verify the claim of tissue.



It's just a fact. As you see, no one else can confirm the claim. And in science, when a researcher's work can't be confirmed, he's in big trouble.

Believe me, if it couldn't be confirmed or wasn't confirmed the evo-minded would have been all over it by now.
But instead, considering it has been confirmed they are scrambling to make it "old"....even you are scrambling to make the tissue "old" and failing miserably with your CNN like fake news.

 

[Barbarian]

Believe me, if it couldn't be confirmed or wasn't confirmed the evo-minded would have been all over it by now.

Scientists checked the claim, found out it couldn't be verified, and that was it.

But instead, considering it has been confirmed they are scrambling to make it "old"

It's pretty simple. He made a claim, and couldn't back it up. Even in his report, he presents no evidence that the material was tissue. That being so, it's over until he can come up with some evidence to support his claim.

Even if he really, really wanted it to be true, he still has to actually show that it's true.

And that's why he failed.

 

[Cygnus]

Scientists checked the claim, found out it couldn't be verified, and that was it.



It's pretty simple. He made a claim, and couldn't back it up. Even in his report, he presents no evidence that the material was tissue. That being so, it's over until he can come up with some evidence to support his claim.

Even if he really, really wanted it to be true, he still has to actually show that it's true.

And that's why he failed.

If you spread that fake news...maybe some people will believe you.
Bottom line you can't support your claim and must post unsupported accusations.

 

[Barbarian]

If you spread that fake news...maybe some people will believe you.

Until someone can verify what he claimed to see, scientists aren't going to believe him.

Bottom line he can't support his claim and must post unsupported assertions.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's a real Christian, and a real paleontologist who may have actually found intact cells preserved in a 65 myo T. rex:
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”


This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

My only objectio here is that there are many YE creationists who would not misrepresent this data as Schweitzer 's was misrepresented by some of them. She's a little ticked that people claiming to worship the same God she does, would be that dishonest about her work.

 

[Cygnus]

Until someone can verify what he claimed to see, scientists aren't going to believe him.

Bottom line he can't support his claim and must post unsupported assertions.

What????? Scientist already do believe him. Stop with the fake news.

 

[Cygnus]

Here's a real Christian, and a real paleontologist who may have actually found intact cells preserved in a 65 myo T. rex:
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”


This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

My only objectio here is that there are many YE creationists who would not misrepresent this data as Schweitzer 's was misrepresented by some of them. She's a little ticked that people claiming to worship the same God she does, would be that dishonest about her work.

Schweitzer was pretty much untrue to herself as well as you when she said " invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."
I would bet Schweitzer denies the world wide flood of Noah's time and it's fossil making capabilities. That's the hand of God.

 

[Barbarian]

What????? Scientist already do believe him. Stop with the fake news.

Show us a journal article from the literature.

 

[Barbarian]

Schweitzer was pretty much untrue to herself as well as you when she said " invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."

She's quite correct. Science is completely unable to analyze God or His actions. It is methodologically naturalistic, which means that it can only comment on nature. She's accepting the way God does things.

I would bet Schweitzer denies the world wide flood of Noah's time and it's fossil making capabilities.

Since she's a Christian, and since the Bible doesn't say the flood was worldwide, that's a pretty good bet.

 

[Cygnus]

Show us a journal article from the literature.

I already have.