The Instigator
creationtruth
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
PotBelliedGeek
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Dinasour soft tissues and DNA prove their recent existance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
PotBelliedGeek
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,878 times Debate No: 54071
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (7)

 

creationtruth

Pro

Dinosaurs are claimed to have gone extinct 65 million years ago. Recent findings of soft tissues in fossils, such as the 2012 discovery of DNA, and even unfossilized dinosaur bone nullify the idea of their ancient extinction. These findings fit just fine in the Biblical Creation model but contradict the geologic column/evolution models.

Round 1 - Acceptance

Round 2 - Opening Arguments

Round 3 - Rebuttals/Closing Statements
PotBelliedGeek

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
creationtruth

Pro

Many examples of soft tissues inside dinosaur bone have been discovered in the past 25 years, including the following:

In 1993, dinosaur bone blood cells (Morell, V. "Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype." Science 261(5118):160""162, 1993)

In 1997, hemoglobin, as well as recognizable red blood cells, in T. rex bone (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291""6296, 1997) (Schweitzer, M. and Staedter, I. "The Real Jurassic Park, Earth." June 1997, pp. 55""57)

In 2003, evidence of the protein osteocalcin (Connective Tissue Research 44 Suppl. 1:41""46, 2003)

In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels (Schweitzer, M., et al. "Soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex." Science 307(5717):1952""1955, 2005) (Stokstad, E. "Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue raises tantalizing prospects." Science 307(5717):1852, 2005)

In 2007, collagen in T. rex bone (1Schweitzer, M., et al. "Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein." Science 316(5822):277""280, 2007

In 2009, elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of collagen""in a duck-billed dinosaur (Schweitzer, M., et al. "Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. Canadensis." Science 324(5927):626""631, 2009)

In 2012, osteocytes, actin, tubulin, and DNA (Schweitzer, M., et al. "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Bone 52(1):414""423, 2013)

The fact that these tissues have been found is not of any dispute, but what they reveal is of hot dispute. The obvious answer is that these soft tissues reveal that these dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago. This statement is supported by Morten Allentoft of Murdoch University, "However, even under the best preservation conditions at 5(degrees) C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA 'strand' after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80-85 Myr old Cretaceous bone" (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...).

If these dinosaurs existed only ~4,000 years ago (around the time of the global flood), the findings of DNA and other soft tissues are much more easily explained. The evidence is very clear that these soft tissues could not last millions of years, especially when considering more realistic conditions as opposed to "5 degrees Celsius."

Soft tissue found in the plethora of unfossilized dinosaur bones, such as a horn of a Triceratops containing unfossilized sheets of bone matrix (http://www.sciencedirect.com...) supports the recent existence of dinosaurs and refutes the geologic column/evolution models which posit that these fossils are millions of years old.
PotBelliedGeek

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to a fulfilling discussion of the subject at hand. I will format my debate into a set of clauses, each clause dealing with a quote of my opponent, my rebuttal, and my counter argument. After my clause set, I will conclude each round of this debate with a short summary.

REBUTTALS AND CONTENTIONS:

Clause 1:

"The fact that these tissues have been found is not of any dispute, but what they reveal is of hot dispute. The obvious answer is that these soft tissues reveal that these dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago."

My opponent opens this debate with a list of tissues found within fossils dating 65MYR+. I will compile the list here for easy reference.


Hemoglobin

Osteocalcin

Collagen

Elastin

Lemanin

Osteocytes

actin

Tubulin

Nucleic Acid

Various tissue structures including blood cells, vessels, and bone tissue.


After carefully reviewing my opponents cited sources, I can confirm that these elements have all been found in dinosaur fossils dating 65MY+ with the exception of Nucleic Acid. The paper cited by my opponent does not confirm the discovery of any Nucleic Acid whatsoever, whether DNA, RNA, or any other type of Nucleic Acid dating 65MYR+. Unfortunately I cannot link to the paper here, as it is available via paid subscription only and cannot be accessed by most people outside of the scientific community. I was able to access it via restricted database.

Therefore, I will establish contention 1.

Contention 1:
Sufficiently preserved dinosaur DNA has not been discovered.

The establishment of contention 1 nullifies my opponents only supporting evidence, this quote:

"This statement is supported by Morten Allentoft of Murdoch University, "However, even under the best preservation conditions at 5(degrees) C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA 'strand' after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80-85 Myr old Cretaceous bone "

This quote applies only to DNA, and even as such it emphasises the improbability of DNA amplification of an 80MYR+ sample, and Dr. Allentoft deliberately avoids stating that it is impossible{1}. This does not support the resolution.


Clause 2:

"The evidence is very clear that these soft tissues could not last millions of years"

Here my opponent asserts that none of the aforementioned tissues could last millions of years. He claims to cite evidence, yet provides none.

A careful study of these tissues reveals a very important aspect in relation to this discussion. That is that all of the aforementioned elements form and function chemically in the exact same way. Please note the following:



These proteins form in a condensation reaction, forming peptide bonds. In short, every amino acid consists of and R group, a hydrocarbon, and most important in this discussion, a negative caboxyl group at one end and a positive NHSUB3+ group at the other. During the condensation reaction, the hydroxide group of one molecule bond with the hydrogen in the amino group of the other, is discharged as a water molecule and leaves behind an incredibly powerful bond. This happens repeatedly in a peptide reaction, forming a polypeptide chain and eventually a protein. Multiple proteins make up the tissue. Unlike the bonds in some non-biological elements that decay at a steady rate and provide "Half-Life" reading that allow scientists to fix a set time limit on their life-span, these peptide bonds do not decay, and the only way to destroy them is a process known as Hydrolysis. Note the following.







In what is essentially a reverse condensation reaction, Hydrolysis uses water and a significant input of energy to break the peptide bond, reattach the hydroxide to the hydrocarbon, and the hydrogen to the nitrogen, splitting the molecules and decaying the tissue. Without this reaction, the protein and tissue will remain intact{2}.

With this understanding of the chemistry involved, I will establish contention two.

Contention 2:
When preserved in an environment completely devoid of the components necessary to initiate and maintain a hydrolysis reaction, any given naturally occurring protein will remain preserves for hundreds of millions of years.


With the establishment of contention 2, I will extend this conclusion to establish contention 3.

Contention 3:

Since all instances of finding unfossilized tissues and proteins fit the conditions established in contention 2, they do not support the argument that dinosaurs lived 4-6000 years ago, and do not oppose the fact that dinosaurs lived 65MYR+ ago.


COUNTER ARGUMENT :

After establishing the previous contentions, I will now assert that this is in fact evidence in favor of the fact that dinosaurs lived 65MYR+ ago.

Given the fact that the chemistry, as found above, predicts that only fossils found in certain restricted conditions would be preserved in such a manner, and that anything outside of those parameters would have decayed and fossilized, one would conclude that the vast majority of fossils found would not contain soft tissue. When compared with the established findings of palaeontologists, we see that this prediction is realised without exception. Therefore, the soft tissue found and cited by my opponent is in fact evidence against his argument.

CONCLUSION:

In summary, I first illustrated that my opponents only cited evidence was void. I then established the parameters of decay and illustrated that decay cannot occur without those parameters. I then asserted that none of the samples cited were found within those parameters. Finally, I illustrated that the aforementioned was in fact an argument in favor of the multi-million year timeline.

I wish my opponent luck, and I look forward to an excellent reply.


Sources:

1. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...;

2.Mason, Kennith A., Susan R. Singer, Peter H. Raven, and George B. Johnson. "Peptide Bonds." Biology. By Jonathan B. Losos. 8th ed. N.p.: McGraw Hill, n.d. 46-48. Print.
Debate Round No. 2
creationtruth

Pro

Con and I agree on the presented findings except for DNA, and we obviously do not agree that these findings disprove a 65Myr old extinction for dinosaurs.

You say, "After carefully reviewing my opponents cited sources, I can confirm that these elements have all been found in dinosaur fossils dating 65MY+ with the exception of Nucleic Acid. The paper cited by my opponent does not confirm the discovery of any Nucleic Acid whatsoever, whether DNA, RNA, or any other type of Nucleic Acid dating 65MYR+." Dr. Schweitzer"s team detected DNA in three independent ways: one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double"stranded form. This shows that it was very well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don"t form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI lodges in a groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp. They also detected a special protein called histone H4, which is a specific protein for DNA. In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped (Segal, E. et al. "A genomic code for nucleosome positioning." Nature 442(7104):772"778, 17 August 2006). "Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4R42;,6R42;-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals. . . These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells" (Schweitzer, M. H., et al. "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Bone, 17 October 2012).

You say, "Sufficiently preserved dinosaur DNA has not been discovered." Its presence and endogenous probability were well established by Dr. Schweitzer and her team. So this does not "nullify" my quote of Dr. Allentoft.

You say, "This quote applies only to DNA, and even as such it emphasises the improbability of DNA amplification of an 80MYR+ sample, and Dr. Allentoft deliberately avoids stating that it is impossible." Any scientist avoids saying things are impossible I'm sure you aware of that. About the strongest statement an honest scientist could make is that something is "extremely improbable." The reason for his statement is more important than the statement itself; under the "best" conditions (which are extremely improbable themselves) DNA would not be detected after 6.8Myr. I used this quote because it was the most conservative. Other scientists have yielded much lower age estimates.

Using the kinetics of DNA depurination, Dr. Smith, et al, have conducted a comprehensive estimate of the limit of DNA survival; In dinosaur bone, a concentration of 0.001% DNA, at a constant temperature of 0 degrees C would yield a detection limit of 125,000 years, a temperature of 10 degrees C would yield a detection limit of 17,500 years, and a temperature of 20 degrees C would yield a detection limit of 2,500 years (Smith, C., et al. Nature 410: 771"777, 2001).

You say, "Here my opponent asserts that none of the aforementioned tissues could last millions of years. He claims to cite evidence, yet provides none." Here is my evidence for the other soft tissues: at 0 degrees C, a bone concentation of 22%collagen would not be detactable after 2,700,000 years, and at a more realistic temperature of 20 degrees C, collagen would not be detectable after 15,000 years. As for osteocalcin, a bone concentration of 0.2% at 0 degrees C would not be detectable after 110,000,000 years, but again, at a more realistic temperature of 20 degrees C, osteocalcin would not be detectable after 580,000 years (http://www.google.com...). I believe the other soft tissues can fit within the ranges of both collagen and osteocalcin.

You say, "When preserved in an environment completely devoid of the components necessary to initiate and maintain a hydrolysis reaction, any given naturally occurring protein will remain preserves for hundreds of millions of years." Hydrolysis is not the only reaction which causes tissue degradation. Bacterial degradation, thermo-degradation, radiation, oxidation, and enzymatic degradation all play roles in the degradation of soft tissues. This is why Dr. Schweitzer says, in the previously provided video, "When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it [soft tissues] should be gone, it should be degraded completely."

You say, "Since all instances of finding unfossilized tissues and proteins fit the conditions established in contention 2, they do not support the argument that dinosaurs lived 4-6000 years ago, and do not oppose the fact that dinosaurs lived 65MYR+ ago." Are you implying that hydrolysis could not have taken place for the cited examples? Can you provide evidence that the conditions in which these specimens were preserved were in fact "devoid of the components necessary to initiate and maintain hydrolysis?" Are you saying that the environment remained anhydrous for millions of years? That's very hard to believe. It should be noted that these specimens were all partly fossilized, and water is a key element in permineralization. Am I missing something here?

In conclusion, your first contention is false, evidence of the presence of DNA in Dr. Schweitzer's specimen is very strong; your second contention ignores other potential degredating factors such as bacterial degradation rendering your statement moot; and your third contention is unsubstantiated as it is quite implausible to think that ubiquitous ground water, or water of some source, was not present in the fossil's environment for millions of years.

Since your three contentious statements are not substantiated, your counter argument is moot.

I maintain that since there is no potential way for soft tissues to last 65+ million years, these tissues found in dinosaur bone reveal that they are much younger and fit just fine within the Biblical Creation model which places these fossils at the time of the Flood ~4,000 years ago.
PotBelliedGeek

Con


Clause 1:


"Con and I agree on the presented findings except for DNA, and we obviously do not agree that these findings disprove a 65Myr old extinction for dinosaurs."

Here my opponent continues to assert that sufficiently preserved dinosaur DNA has been discovered, citing a paper by Dr. Shweitzer published in 2012. He supports his statement with the following assertions.

1."one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double"stranded form. This shows that it was very well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don"t form stable duplexes."

Here my opponent alters the findings of the paper to and reports a section that seems to support his contentions. Upon reading the paper, the voter will discover that my opponent has attributed to the paper that which it did not say. I will clarify. The paper never claimed to find DNA. It claimed to find the protein residue of once existant DNA, and expressed optimism about one day finding a preserved peice of DNA. It is unfortunate that copyright does not allow me to post the paper here, for voter reference.

2. "They also detected a special protein called histone H4, which is a specific protein for DNA."

Here my opponent cites the fact that a histone has been recovered from a fossil, and tries to use it as evidence to support the idea that DNA was recovered from said sample. The rebuttal to the is quite simple. A histone is a protein, not a Nucleic Acid. The histone protein is a binding agent, who's main function is the bundling of DNA, and unpackaging sections of it at a time for mitosis. It is often found attached to DNA. However, DNA is much larger than a Histone protein. See the following visual representation.



In light of this, I will assert that if DNA were present, attached to the Histone, researchers would have recovered the DNA before the Histone. This is not the case. The researchers reported that they recovered a histone, not DNA. According to this evidence, the logical conclusion is that DNA was once present in the sample, but decayed, leaving behind the longer lasting protein skelaton. This is also the conclusion of those researchers.

3. "Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures,"

Here my opponent refers to a DNA detection technique known as blotting, in which researchers tag an antibody designed to bond with certain proteins within DNA, often TLR9. Here is an example of a western blot.

s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />

Just as with the histones, this technique works by locating protiens that are often connected to or closely associated with certain genes. The same argument that I used against the histones applies here.

4. "These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells"

As I have illustrated in this clause, these data support the presence of DNA in the cells at some point in the past. DNA has not been recovered by the researchers in this paper, they have recovered protein skelatons of DNA. I light of this I will establish contention one.

Contention one:
Sufficiently preserved dinosaur DNA has not been recovered from any sample to date.

Clause 2:

As for osteocalcin, a bone concentration of 0.2% at 0 degrees C would not be detectable after 110,000,000 years, but again, at a more realistic temperature of 20 degrees C, osteocalcin would not be detectable after 580,000 years (http://www.google.com......). I believe the other soft tissues can fit within the ranges of both collagen and osteocalcin."

Here my opponent cites a scientific paper establishing an average degredation rate for the proteins found in bone. He uses this article as evidence that bone tissue and proteins could not have remained preserved for 65MYR+. The rebuttal to this argument is actually quite simple. Had my opponent read and properly understood the paper, he would notice that the experiment was very explicitly measuring hydrolysis-based decay rates. I have already addressed the idea of hydrolysis based decay rates in round two. I will refer the voters to my statements there.

"Hydrolysis is not the only reaction which causes tissue degradation"

I provided a reputable, respected academic source stating that it is. My opponent has not supported this denial with any evidence or source.



Bacterial degradation

Bacteria use hydrolysis to degrade proteins.

thermo-degradation

Thermoradiation is a type of radiation, so i will include the rebuttal to this under the rebuttal to radiation.

Radiation

I agree that radiation does indeed degrade materials. It does not, however, do so chemically. See the following.



Radiation damages materials by literally knocking bits and peices out of their atomic structure. This happens to all things exposed to high doses of radiation, not simply soft tissue. However, the amount of radiation necessary to degrade protein in such a manner is extremely high. The necessary level of radiation has only ever existed on this earth once, that was a one mile radius around the ground zero of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs at the time of detonation. Never before and never since has the earth experienced levels of radiation necessary to complelty decay protein. If it had, why does nothing else in the recovered sample show signs of radioactive damage? This point is baseless.

Oxidation

A simple review of basic chemistry reveals that proteins do not oxidize.

Enzymatic Degredation

Hydrolysis is an ezymatic-catalyst reaction. All hydrolysis is enzimatic degredation, and all enzymatic degredation of protein is hydrolysis.

"Are you implying that hydrolysis could not have taken place for the cited examples? Can you provide evidence that the conditions in which these specimens were preserved were in fact "devoid of the components necessary to initiate and maintain hydrolysis?"

Here I will ask my opponent to carefully review the instances he cited of the discovery of dinosaur protein. Each of these specimens were found under extraordinary circumstances, in which they had been sealed by various methods. They were kept dry, cold, sealed of from any bacteria or anything else that could have initiated and maintained hydrolysis. This concept is a key idea that is conveyed by the researchers who discovered these samples. It is made very clear, especially in the video that my opponent cited.

Are you saying that the environment remained anhydrous for millions of years? That's very hard to believe. It should be noted that these specimens were all partly fossilized, and water is a key element in permineralization. Am I missing something here?"

It should also be noted that these tissues were not fossilized, thus did not have anything to do with permineralization. The outside of the sample fossilized in such a way as to seal off the inside, forming a barrier preventing any element of hydrolysis from contaminating the sample, where all of the proteins were found.


Conclusion:


I have illustrated in detail that the cited study makes no claim whatsoever as to the presence of intact DNA. It very clearly states that no actual DNA was recovered from the sample.


I have clearly illustrated that the only possible way proteins can be degraded is hydrolysis, I have supplied reputable evidence to support the claim in round 1, and i have illustrated that my opponents "other methods" are either impossible, or in actuality hydrolysis.

and your third contention is unsubstantiated as it is quite implausible to think that ubiquitous ground water, or water of some source, was not present in the fossil's environment for millions of years.



My opponents own sources refuted this claim for me, as I have very clearly illustrated.


I would like to point out that i have presented no new arguments in this round, and have only replied to my opponents rebuttals. I will ask my opponent to do the same; please refrain from presenting any new arguments in this round, as I ill not be able to address them. I would like to thank my opponent for an excellent debate.



Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LOL!
That'll be Fun!

Cannot wait for you to present your evidence for Creation.

And Why is "Creation" Not Considered as a Scientific Theory?

I bet you cannot answer that one truthfully!

I'll give you a tip, it has nothing to do with Atheism!
Nor the belief systems of Scientists!

Aye M8! :-D~
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
Sagey's claims are unfounded and seemingly emotionally driven. I have challeneged him to a debate on the topic of creation vs evolution. Lets see if he accepts the challenge. If not then I must conclude that his argument is just "cotton candy" claims, all fluff and no substance, sweet to those who eat it up but lacking any nutrition.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BTW: I got Michael Behe's employer wrong, as Leahy University is another institution in Australia, whereas Lehigh University is the institution that had to deny any connection to Behe's nonsense.
Just though I'd clear that up, as I often get those two confused as they sound the same in vocally.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Though Christian groups and pseudo-Christians like the YEC groups can change.

I remember that 30 years ago I used to have such arguments with the Jehovah Witnesses.
They were staunch Young Earth Creationists back then.

But, surprisingly, they have eventually accepted most of Evolution and they even publish actual evolutionary science occasionally in their publications which I have applauded them for.
Though they do still get it confused and obfuscate it a little to suit their dogma, though it was a step in the right direction to improve the average intelligence of their children's education.

Though I cannot say the same for Creation.com and Answers-in-Genesis, form of Pseudo-Christian followers. There is no hope for them to be intelligent and their children will never receive a real education unless they divorce themselves from their parent's nonsense.

:-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Young Earth Creationists continually cite Genesis 1, just as the Seventh Day Adventists led by Ellen White's Hallucination.
Historically, Genesis 1 was destroyed by Galileo because it describes the Earth as like being inside a Snow Globe with air instead of water and the dome has stars glued on the inside that fall to earth when shaken.
And that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Both of these Genesis misconceptions of the ancient observers who wrote it were proven false by Galileo.

This Astrological knowledge and the writings of many wiser, more knowledgeable advocates for naturalism, some mentioned by PZ in that lecture of his, took such YEC beliefs out of the general consensus of reality and confined it to being views only held by a tiny, extremely unintelligent minority.

YEC views are still held by the most unintelligent members of the community, but post Seventy Day Adventism and George McReady Price's silly "Flood Geology" concepts became popular.

Those extremely unintelligent YEC groups have become much more vocal and have been trying to make themselves appear more intelligent by attempting to Obfuscate Science.

They are still the least intelligent group of humans on the planet.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Your Argument follows William Paley's Watchmaker Scenario.

If you wandered a beach and found a rock, you would think nothing of it, but if you found a watch, you would consider it designed and there is a designer.

Your main argument is about Complexity and because you find such complexity and cannot believe that such complexity can arise from just chemical reactions, you assert that there is a Designer.

Those are both Arguments From Ignorance.
Paley was Ignorant of his misconceptions concerning his watch scenario and you are ignorant of the fact that Abiogenesis and increasing complexity is indeed possible without a Designer.
Just because science hasn't put together all the jigsaw puzzles to explain Abiogenesis and increasing complexity fully, it is part way there, is no reason to make the quantum leap of asserting a designer.

The Irreducible Complexity argument is also an Argument From Ignorance, by that extremely Ignorant Micheal Behe and it has been debunked many times and Leahy University denies any connection with Behe's nonsense as it even posted such a disclaimer on it's website.

It is ignorant of the fact that Complexity is increasing as genetics has and is continually increasing in complexity through mutations, genetic duplication (the source of our increased intellect over other primates) and random recombination in sexual reproduction (Mitosis) often producing offspring with an increased DNA complexity.
Such as many humans have additional DNA characteristics from humans having mated with Neanderthals, so they are carrying Neanderthal traits along with pre-existing common traits.

You have a lot to Learn!

And you won't learn anything from Creation.org.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Hey CreationLies: That is the Pot calling the Kettle Black, for certain.

I have not made a single fallacious claim.
You are the only one here doing that.

My knowledge of evolution far outweighs yours, because you read too much into nonsense sites like Creation.org, Answers-In-Genesis and as PZ Myers stated, these sites contain nothing but complete nonsense.
There is no valuable science to learn from any of them.
A little of the actual chemistry may be real, but the reasoning behind why they exist is all fallacious.

Your entire argument here is an "Argument From Ignorance".

That's an Absolute Fact!
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
@Sagey - Your statements simply convey your ignorance. Name one lie that I said and we can debate it. You have made enough fallacious arguments and erroneous statements already.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Besides Mary Schweitzer found what is most likely medullary bone, in the T-Rex which is specifically found in birds for storing calcium to produce egg shells. She considered the T-Rex as being similar in bone structure to an Ostrich. Since we know dinosaurs laid eggs, there is such an obvious connection to birds.
The Link between dinosaurs and birds is definite.
Birds are little dinosaurs.
Absolutely no doubt there.

BTW Mary Schweitzer is a Christian and an old earth creationist.
So she had no reason to hide any of her findings against Christianity.
She is a scientist, they don't lie, like Young Earth Creationists lie.
Young Earth Creationists lied about Mary Schweitzer's findings and she is not happy with those lies.
The same lies that Pro's argument is based on.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
creationtruthPotBelliedGeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Of course soft tissue can survive 65Myrs. The fossilization process entombs the tissue in the center of the bones and the chemical reaction of the high iron content in dinosaur blood, forms an embalming agent of Formaldehyde, so they are very protected from the fossilization and oxidation processes that effect the external bone regions. Though the tissues and DNA are somewhat contaminated and not usable for any cloning of dinosaurs. If they were only 6000 years old, the DNA would be in far better condition and cloning would be possible, such as the frozen neanderthal's DNA.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
creationtruthPotBelliedGeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. I had to look this one over a few times because, as a Political Science and History double-major with a minor in moral Philosophy, this topic was a bit out of my wheelhouse. That being said, I do feel sufficiently comfortable in my understanding to cast a ballot. Pro, your formatting was much harder to follow, and it was occasionally difficult to decipher. Please avoid wall-of-text-style presentations. Con, I felt you could have expanded more in a few areas. Due to the controversy over sources, I will not score sourcing. Conduct seemed fine. S/G goes Con. Pro's formatting and typos were distracting. As for arguments, I found that Con was able to distill his points into more understandable terms. Ultimately, I buy that tissue would only be preserved in certain limited cases, and that citing a few examples of unearthed tissues are insufficient to prove Dinosaurs' recent existence. Thus, Pro can't meet his BOP, and I vote Con. [Disclosure: I was asked to vote by Pots]
Vote Placed by medic0506 2 years ago
medic0506
creationtruthPotBelliedGeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this debate is a clear win for Pro, who showed reputable sources telling how long the structures should last, given an assumed temperature. Con did not seem to contest that argument. Con's argument on hydrolysis could have been effective if he could argue that no permineralization were present, but Pro countered effectively that partial fossilization had occurred, requiring the presence of water. Sources and conduct to Pro. I found it disconcerting that Con made arguments, in a formal debate, for which he could not provide a reference. While not meant to be an egregious tactic, doing so is akin to making a new argument in the last round. It puts the evidence in the mind of the voter, without giving Pro the opportunity to cross examine the source, or make sure it shows what is claimed. For that reason, I think it is warranted to grant the conduct point to Pro.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
creationtruthPotBelliedGeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con implies there was no DNA found. This is not correct. An argument for the dye being incalacting by PRO was given and not addressed. Con put forward a convincing argument for the preservation of proteins but refused to acknowledge the DNA acid tests. I think this confused many of the readers, and even if a misunderstanding was misrepresenting the science. so conduct goes to Pro, Argument was not fully rebutted or convincingly enough So Arg goes to Pro. Sources argued over were provided by Pro so sources as well.
Vote Placed by Enji 2 years ago
Enji
creationtruthPotBelliedGeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the chemistry in this debate, arguing that peptide bonds do not decay and are destroyed via hydrolysis which requires water. In the absence of water hydrolysis cannot occur and hence proteins cannot decay. Pro should have provided an example to the contrary, rather than ask Con to prove that the samples have never been in such an environment, but Con sufficiently defends this. Pro provides numerous examples of preserved soft-tissue, but Pro's argument that soft tissues could not last millions of years was based on Allentoft's paper on the preservation of DNA and his evidence for the preservation of DNA was based on Dr. Schweitzer's paper which includes a criticism of the conclusions published by Allentoft while noting that the evidence wasn't sufficient to claim that the DNA discovered was ancient -- Arguments to Con. Pro's R3 was exceptionally difficult to read -- S&G to Con. [edit: removed conduct point as Con noted his error]
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
creationtruthPotBelliedGeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Diagrams helped make Con's points easier to understand. Con also showed how hydrolysis would be the only way that Pro would be correct with his arguments, and pointed out that hydrolysis would not have happened in those fossils.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
creationtruthPotBelliedGeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm very disappointed in this debate. I'm giving S&G to Con because Pro's arguments and sources were VERY hard to read, and Con used colorful, visually appealing graphics to make his points. Con wins because he showed that hydrolysis was the only way Pro's evidence could have decayed, and showed that hydrolysis was not possible because it was sealed off. I'm still undecided as to whether or not DNA actually was found in the specimens in question, and I've even read the abstracts of some of the papers and I'm still not sure. But it doesn't matter. I did not watch the video and I find it repulsive that Pro would expect me to watch a freaking 13 minute video.