Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

collagen and hemoglobin in dinosaur bones

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 7:01:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

The Atheist mind can't allow anything to even support a universe with a God in it.

This is why when the Theory of the Big Bang was first published so many secular people hated it. They said it was injecting religion into science.

Atheist think Science is a safe place from God. But God is the maker of the universe. Nothing in Science will reject God's existence.

But as you see this mentality plays out yet again. He is incapable of intellectually debating the facts even in a scientific manner about the scientific results.

Because he assumes it is an attempt to validate religious thought. And that at the utmost he can not have ever.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 9:37:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 7:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

The Atheist mind can't allow anything to even support a universe with a God in it.

This is why when the Theory of the Big Bang was first published so many secular people hated it. They said it was injecting religion into science.

Atheist think Science is a safe place from God. But God is the maker of the universe. Nothing in Science will reject God's existence.

But as you see this mentality plays out yet again. He is incapable of intellectually debating the facts even in a scientific manner about the scientific results.

Because he assumes it is an attempt to validate religious thought. And that at the utmost he can not have ever.

Well said, Im just trying to have a basic discussion about it God or no God. Even if this dinosaur evidence of the topic meant scientists have to revise how long ago dinosaurs were around then so be it. I mean this is like getting combative about a mathematical equation. Who cares about implications outside of the problem itself. All that matters is the content.

We are talking about iron not just having to increase the lifespan of hemoglobin or collagen by a few hundred or thousand fold, rather a few billion fold. 7 billion minimum
24 billion maximum. Im all ears to anyone that wants to consolidate this fact.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 9:52:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I state for the record I know nothing about the mechanism behind the denaturing of dinosaur collagen and even less (if that is possible) about the role of iron in affecting the rate of such mechanisms.

At 8/13/2016 7:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The Atheist mind can't allow anything to even support a universe with a God in it.
This is why when the Theory of the Big Bang was first published so many secular people hated it. They said it was injecting religion into science.
Atheist think Science is a safe place from God. But God is the maker of the universe. Nothing in Science will reject God's existence.
But as you see this mentality plays out yet again. He is incapable of intellectually debating the facts even in a scientific manner about the scientific results.
Because he assumes it is an attempt to validate religious thought. And that at the utmost he can not have ever.

I think the problem is that we all have experience of entering into a thread innocently enough only to discover it was a set up with an ambush in mind. Undoubtedly DM intended to get his counter-strike in first. I don't know bigotry had an ambush in mind, but dinosaur soft tissue is a contentious issue which does invite suspicion of ulterior motives!

Like it or not Myk, science has evolved into an endeavour to explain the world in purely natural (ie not supernatural) terms. As a well known cartoon reminds us, miracles are not allowed in science. http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com...
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:22:35 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Let me respond with this:

You are expressing skepticism about the idea that these results, which have shown that these tissues can remain identifiable after two years in the conditions tested, demonstrate that there may be a way for them to remain intact after a temporal range of 68 million years or more.

Yet, what you believe is that these creatures died out several thousand years ago. Let's just say that they died in the flood, yes? I believe that 4,000 years is the length of time that most of the bible believers have settled on as the temporal range since the global flood, so that would indicate that these soft tissues have remained identifiable after this length of time.

These results show that these tissues can, at room temperature and in anoxic conditions with no further accommodations, remain identifiable. You and your fellow fundamentalists are willing to swallow that they have remained identifiable after 4,000 years without anyone directly observing them for those thousands of years, yet you then vehemently deny that they can exist for 68 million years because no one has directly observed this.

I'm fully aware of the arithmetic, of course, but my point is this: on what grounds do you assert that soft tissue can remain identifiable and pliable after 4,000 years, but absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, remain identifiable and pliable after 68 million years?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:39:01 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

No suggestion?

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

Tell us what the half-life of the most stable element in the universe is. Go ahead.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

Tell us truthfully. Isn't this exactly what you and other theist posters are thinking when you start up such topics in the Science forum?

Yours is the classic argument from personal incredulity fallacy. You can't understand how something works so you don't think anyone else possibly can either. Instead of asking a respectful question, we have "Does anyone honestly believe ...". The implication being that if you do believe that it is possible that iron in haemoglobin can preserve tough collagen protein for millions of years, with an experiment suggesting that the preserving effect is significant, then you are being less than honest.

And then you have the nerve to question why you are called out for such behaviour?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:41:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 7:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

The Atheist mind can't allow anything to even support a universe with a God in it.

This is why when the Theory of the Big Bang was first published so many secular people hated it. They said it was injecting religion into science.

Atheist think Science is a safe place from God. But God is the maker of the universe. Nothing in Science will reject God's existence.

But as you see this mentality plays out yet again. He is incapable of intellectually debating the facts even in a scientific manner about the scientific results.

Because he assumes it is an attempt to validate religious thought. And that at the utmost he can not have ever.

I notice you have retreated to sniping about me in the third person.
It's much safer that way, yeah? :-)
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:47:22 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:22:35 AM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Let me respond with this:

You are expressing skepticism about the idea that these results, which have shown that these tissues can remain identifiable after two years in the conditions tested, demonstrate that there may be a way for them to remain intact after a temporal range of 68 million years or more.

Yet, what you believe is that these creatures died out several thousand years ago. Let's just say that they died in the flood, yes? I believe that 4,000 years is the length of time that most of the bible believers have settled on as the temporal range since the global flood, so that would indicate that these soft tissues have remained identifiable after this length of time.

These results show that these tissues can, at room temperature and in anoxic conditions with no further accommodations, remain identifiable. You and your fellow fundamentalists are willing to swallow that they have remained identifiable after 4,000 years without anyone directly observing them for those thousands of years, yet you then vehemently deny that they can exist for 68 million years because no one has directly observed this.

I'm fully aware of the arithmetic, of course, but my point is this: on what grounds do you assert that soft tissue can remain identifiable and pliable after 4,000 years, but absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, remain identifiable and pliable after 68 million years?

+1

(Watch the squirming, if he doesn't ignore you completely).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:48:04 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:41:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

The Atheist mind can't allow anything to even support a universe with a God in it.

This is why when the Theory of the Big Bang was first published so many secular people hated it. They said it was injecting religion into science.

Atheist think Science is a safe place from God. But God is the maker of the universe. Nothing in Science will reject God's existence.

But as you see this mentality plays out yet again. He is incapable of intellectually debating the facts even in a scientific manner about the scientific results.

Because he assumes it is an attempt to validate religious thought. And that at the utmost he can not have ever.

I notice you have retreated to sniping about me in the third person.
It's much safer that way, yeah? :-)

Deem I was talking to Bigotry. Because what I wanted to say was to about Atheist in general. I have plenty of contentions about what you say. But there is no point in wasting my time.

See when two intellectual people choose to debate or argue a matter they begin from a place of mutual agreement. The very basic plane of agreement is what can be recognized as "Logic".

Because from my perspective you lack any critical thought, I don't even attempt to use "Logic" with you.

And What I said to Bigot I will say to you. You are strongly biased. This bias against anything and everything that might allude to a God is vehemently rejected by you. Attacked, disregarded, ridiculed...

This includes even non-religious contexts. You have a deep seeded double standard. I suspect because you hate God for some reason. Good day De'em.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 2:02:03 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:48:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 1:41:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

The Atheist mind can't allow anything to even support a universe with a God in it.

This is why when the Theory of the Big Bang was first published so many secular people hated it. They said it was injecting religion into science.

Atheist think Science is a safe place from God. But God is the maker of the universe. Nothing in Science will reject God's existence.

But as you see this mentality plays out yet again. He is incapable of intellectually debating the facts even in a scientific manner about the scientific results.

Because he assumes it is an attempt to validate religious thought. And that at the utmost he can not have ever.

I notice you have retreated to sniping about me in the third person.
It's much safer that way, yeah? :-)

Deem I was talking to Bigotry.

About me. Making defamatory and untrue remarks. That's plain rude.

Because what I wanted to say was to about Atheist in general.

That's why you began "He ...".

I have plenty of contentions about what you say. But there is no point in wasting my time.

But you have lots of time to snipe from the sidelines?

See when two intellectual people choose to debate or argue a matter they begin from a place of mutual agreement. The very basic plane of agreement is what can be recognized as "Logic".

Please identify anything I said to bigotry which was illogical.

Because from my perspective you lack any critical thought, I don't even attempt to use "Logic" with you.

I've noticed. Lol.

And What I said to Bigot I will say to you. You are strongly biased. This bias against anything and everything that might allude to a God is vehemently rejected by you. Attacked, disregarded, ridiculed...

So nothing about the OP, just more of your usual nonsensical ad hominem attacks.

This includes even non-religious contexts. You have a deep seeded double standard. I suspect because you hate God for some reason. Good day De'em.

Another scintillating non-contribution to intellectual debate. Mhykiel has done his job again and rides off into the sunset ...

(Btw, once again, it's "deep seated"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com... ).
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 2:38:57 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:22:35 AM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Let me respond with this:

You are expressing skepticism about the idea that these results, which have shown that these tissues can remain identifiable after two years in the conditions tested, demonstrate that there may be a way for them to remain intact after a temporal range of 68 million years or more.

Yet, what you believe is that these creatures died out several thousand years ago.
Allow me to stop you right there. Show me any quote from myself anywhere in my forum saying this. I just got done doing a debate in support of gap theory in which the bible makes no claim to the age of anything. I personally refuse to take a position on if the earth is indeed billions of years old, millions or thousands. So please keep that in mind for future discussions.

Let's just say that they died in the flood, yes? I believe that 4,000 years is the length of time that most of the bible believers have settled on as the temporal range since the global flood, so that would indicate that these soft tissues have remained identifiable after this length of time.

As I have expressed in this topic, I don't think its necessary to jump to the creation world view if you indeed don't believe in that just because dinosaurs may be younger than previously thought but since you did bring it up if that is the amount of time that's passed since the flood (which it may or may not be) that represents a 1,333 fold increase in preservation. Now I tried the best I could to find the half life for iron in the blood but for the life of me I cannot, maybe someone else can and that would provide direct insight into how long it could possible preserve it.

These results show that these tissues can, at room temperature and in anoxic conditions with no further accommodations, remain identifiable. You and your fellow fundamentalists are willing to swallow that they have remained identifiable after 4,000 years without anyone directly observing them for those thousands of years, yet you then vehemently deny that they can exist for 68 million years because no one has directly observed this.

hm maybe I should start a separate thread of if humans have seen dinosaurs or not. Things thought to be extinct show up all the time and that's where my skepticism starts. Theres a cool documentary (that is admittedly intended to be persuasive) called dragons and dinosaurs. Its got a very cheesy beginning and ending but the info in it is solid.

I'm fully aware of the arithmetic, of course, but my point is this: on what grounds do you assert that soft tissue can remain identifiable and pliable after 4,000 years, but absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, remain identifiable and pliable after 68 million years?
The half life of iron itself.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 3:21:17 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:39:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

No suggestion?

That's what a non response is...

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?


Yes its called the half life of iron itself.
Tell us what the half-life of the most stable element in the universe is. Go ahead.

Exactly, if it was solely responsible there would be hemoglobin in every single fossil ever found.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

Tell us truthfully. Isn't this exactly what you and other theist posters are thinking when you start up such topics in the Science forum?

no, I actually was genuinely interested in how old this really puts dinosaurs.

Yours is the classic argument from personal incredulity fallacy. You can't understand how something works so you don't think anyone else possibly can either. Instead of asking a respectful question, we have "Does anyone honestly believe ...". The implication being that if you do believe that it is possible that iron in haemoglobin can preserve tough collagen protein for millions of years, with an experiment suggesting that the preserving effect is significant, then you are being less than honest.

I'm just expressing how I think its a little silly given the math and an absence of hemoglobin in similarly preserved fossils.

And then you have the nerve to question why you are called out for such behaviour?
combative. Its ok
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 3:45:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 3:21:17 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/14/2016 1:39:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/13/2016 6:56:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/13/2016 7:52:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

No suggestion?

That's what a non response is...

Exactly. You ignore questions to which you have no answer. Is that intellectually honest?

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

Tell us what the half-life of the most stable element in the universe is. Go ahead.

Exactly, if it was solely responsible there would be hemoglobin in every single fossil ever found.

It's obvious that you don't even understand the concept of a half-life which usually applies to radioactive isotopes. In case I am wrong, please give us your understanding and how it relates to the assertion you made above that the half-life of iron is the limiting factor. We're still waiting for an answer for what the half-life of iron is. Do you have any plans to actually answer the question since it was you who made the assertion?

As to your new assertion which is a tactical diversion. Are you under the impression that there is only one method of fossilization and that every single animal which we have discovered a fossil of died in exactly the same manner, in exactly the same environment and experienced the exact same chemical, temperature and pressure conditions during the process of fossilization? Another argument from personal ignorance.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

Tell us truthfully. Isn't this exactly what you and other theist posters are thinking when you start up such topics in the Science forum?

no, I actually was genuinely interested in how old this really puts dinosaurs.

This is not a technique for dating dinosaur fossils. The article you linked to has nothing to do with dating fossils. Your comment reveals your true agenda. Because of your religious beliefs, nothing to do with actual science, you are skeptical about the age of dinosaur fossils. You saw this article (probably linked to from some creationist site you frequent) and leapt on an opportunity to cast doubt on the dating methods used on fossils. You haven't stated this directly in the OP but you insinuated it. Now your comment above confirms it.

Clearly your agenda is God-Did-It and the science about the real age of fossils must be wrong. The article was your chance, via an argument from personal incredulity, to fling a little mud and hope that some of it sticks. Why do you even bother to deny it when your true motives are so easily exposed?

Yours is the classic argument from personal incredulity fallacy. You can't understand how something works so you don't think anyone else possibly can either. Instead of asking a respectful question, we have "Does anyone honestly believe ...". The implication being that if you do believe that it is possible that iron in haemoglobin can preserve tough collagen protein for millions of years, with an experiment suggesting that the preserving effect is significant, then you are being less than honest.

I'm just expressing how I think its a little silly given the math and an absence of hemoglobin in similarly preserved fossils.

And your hypothesis for those fossils without soft tissue preservation is???

Let me see if I understand your argument. Oooh, I did some basic aithmetic and I got some big numbers. Scary. Therefore impossible. Does that about sum it up? Do you really think that this is how science operates? Lol.

And then you have the nerve to question why you are called out for such behaviour?

combative. Its ok

I don't like posters who set out to deceive. You can call it combative. I call it holding you acountable.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:47:34 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Do you have a suggestion for the lab on how they can make time run faster so that they can test over a period greater than 2 years in 2 years? Lol.

No suggestion?

That's what a non response is...

Exactly. You ignore questions to which you have no answer. Is that intellectually honest?

That's like asking for a response to a way to solve 2-2=1
I don't know why you think every little thing ever said warrants a response. Mostly when people don't respond or comment they are agreeing with the narrative...

They have an over 200-fold increase in tissue stability and counting. Is there something which prevents it being far greater other than your personal incredulity?

Yes its called the half life of iron itself.

Tell us what the half-life of the most stable element in the universe is. Go ahead.

Exactly, if it was solely responsible there would be hemoglobin in every single fossil ever found.

It's obvious that you don't even understand the concept of a half-life which usually applies to radioactive isotopes. In case I am wrong, please give us your understanding and how it relates to the assertion you made above that the half-life of iron is the limiting factor. We're still waiting for an answer for what the half-life of iron is. Do you have any plans to actually answer the question since it was you who made the assertion?
This is what I mean about your combative discussion style. The point was that because iron is stable, it doesn't make sense that's the factor responsible here as every bone ever would contain hemoglobin that's fossilized. But they don't. Instead you go off on this tangent thinking I'm trying to say iron is a limiting factor or trying to get to the bottom of what the half life of iron is smh.

As to your new assertion which is a tactical diversion. Are you under the impression that there is only one method of fossilization and that every single animal which we have discovered a fossil of died in exactly the same manner, in exactly the same environment and experienced the exact same chemical, temperature and pressure conditions during the process of fossilization? Another argument from personal ignorance.
Those that have under similar conditions don't all have hemoglobin in them. If you bothered to read what I cited, roughly half the bones they tested had hemoglobin and collagen fibers. There is no diversion, its an answer to your question of what limits iron from having a 7-24 billion fold effect on hemoglobin and heme.

But wait, we have an alternative explanation. God-Did-It. Yes, that's so much better. They can just pack up those experiments and go home. Problem solved.

Instead of contributing you choose to become combative. Why is that?

Tell us truthfully. Isn't this exactly what you and other theist posters are thinking when you start up such topics in the Science forum?

no, I actually was genuinely interested in how old this really puts dinosaurs.

This is not a technique for dating dinosaur fossils. The article you linked to has nothing to do with dating fossils. Your comment reveals your true agenda. Because of your religious beliefs, nothing to do with actual science, you are skeptical about the age of dinosaur fossils. You saw this article (probably linked to from some creationist site you frequent) and leapt on an opportunity to cast doubt on the dating methods used on fossils. You haven't stated this directly in the OP but you insinuated it. Now your comment above confirms it.

Why cant it? Dates get changed around all the time. You simply don't stay caught up apparently with modern science. I just got done debating plant evolution and in the debate I pointed out the tomatillo plant has stayed the same for at least 50 million years due to fossil evidence. This has completely screwed with the phylogenic tree evolutionists came up with for the tomatillo plant and has to be rewritten or examined. This example provides more than enough reason the 65 million year idea needs to be re-examined.

Clearly your agenda is God-Did-It and the science about the real age of fossils must be wrong. The article was your chance, via an argument from personal incredulity, to fling a little mud and hope that some of it sticks. Why do you even bother to deny it when your true motives are so easily exposed?

You don't get it mr. Dawkins. Quote one place so far I said "God-Did-It" and if I really wanted to I can just say God did it anyway but IM NOT. Theres 0 intellectual content in anything youv put together thus far.

Yours is the classic argument from personal incredulity fallacy. You can't understand how something works so you don't think anyone else possibly can either. Instead of asking a respectful question, we have "Does anyone honestly believe ...". The implication being that if you do believe that it is possible that iron in haemoglobin can preserve tough collagen protein for millions of years, with an experiment suggesting that the preserving effect is significant, then you are being less than honest.

I'm just expressing how I think its a little silly given the math and an absence of hemoglobin in similarly preserved fossils.

And your hypothesis for those fossils without soft tissue preservation is???

That iron cant be responsible or we would find hemoglobin in them as well.

Let me see if I understand your argument. Oooh, I did some basic aithmetic and I got some big numbers. Scary. Therefore impossible. Does that about sum it up? Do you really think that this is how science operates? Lol.

24 billion fold is quite the far reach for hemoglobin preservation. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest anything is capable of doing this. merely guesses, like the ostrich blood study. At that they were truthful and honest and claimed 240 fold. They didn't say this is what did it, they asserted it could be possible. Something that completely went over your head.

And then you have the nerve to question why you are called out for such behaviour?

What does nerve have to do with facts about data?

combative. Its ok

I don't like posters who set out to deceive. You can call it combative. I call it holding you acountable.
Are you a JW, you really do sound like one in all of your postings.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 2:35:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 7:47:34 AM, bigotry wrote:

Exactly. You ignore questions to which you have no answer. Is that intellectually honest?

That's like asking for a response to a way to solve 2-2=1

Is it? Really? You think?

I don't know why you think every little thing ever said warrants a response. Mostly when people don't respond or comment they are agreeing with the narrative...

You asked this question in the OP (my bold):

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

That must mean you agree that the question was inane. Yes?

It's obvious that you don't even understand the concept of a half-life which usually applies to radioactive isotopes. In case I am wrong, please give us your understanding and how it relates to the assertion you made above that the half-life of iron is the limiting factor. We're still waiting for an answer for what the half-life of iron is. Do you have any plans to actually answer the question since it was you who made the assertion?

This is what I mean about your combative discussion style.

So you can't give us your understanding. You also can't give us a half-life for iron since you now realize that you have been talking through your hat and iron is stable. Will you admit to your ignorance? No, of course not.

The point was that because iron is stable, it doesn't make sense that's the factor responsible here as every bone ever would contain hemoglobin that's fossilized. But they don't.

That wasn't your point at all. This is you moving the goalposts once one objection is knocked down. This new assertion you make has already been refuted, so why make it again?

Instead you go off on this tangent thinking I'm trying to say iron is a limiting factor or trying to get to the bottom of what the half life of iron is smh.

You raised the inane issue of the half-life of iron and it was in response to me asking what you thought prevented the preservative effect of iron exceeding that measured by the 2-year experiment. Now you try and pretend I am off on a tangent! How dishonest can you get?

As to your new assertion which is a tactical diversion. Are you under the impression that there is only one method of fossilization and that every single animal which we have discovered a fossil of died in exactly the same manner, in exactly the same environment and experienced the exact same chemical, temperature and pressure conditions during the process of fossilization? Another argument from personal ignorance.

Those that have under similar conditions don't all have hemoglobin in them. If you bothered to read what I cited, roughly half the bones they tested had hemoglobin and collagen fibers.

I did read the article. It says "other fossils". From the article:

The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.

What part of that tells you that conditions were identical in every respect?

There is no diversion, its an answer to your question of what limits iron from having a 7-24 billion fold effect on hemoglobin and heme.

Firstly, it's not a billions fold increase. Your own link states that under ideal conditions soft tissue was expected to only last 1 million years or less. So the increase is around 150 to 200 fold. Secondly we have already established that this is a diversion to cover your faux pas with the half-life of iron.

This is not a technique for dating dinosaur fossils. The article you linked to has nothing to do with dating fossils. Your comment reveals your true agenda. Because of your religious beliefs, nothing to do with actual science, you are skeptical about the age of dinosaur fossils. You saw this article (probably linked to from some creationist site you frequent) and leapt on an opportunity to cast doubt on the dating methods used on fossils. You haven't stated this directly in the OP but you insinuated it. Now your comment above confirms it.

Why cant it? Dates get changed around all the time. You simply <off-topic rambling snipped>.

No, they don't. Stop lying. We're discussing dinosaur fossils and no dinosaur fossil has ever been dated earlier than 65 mya in modern times.

Clearly your agenda is God-Did-It and the science about the real age of fossils must be wrong. The article was your chance, via an argument from personal incredulity, to fling a little mud and hope that some of it sticks. Why do you even bother to deny it when your true motives are so easily exposed?

You don't get it mr. Dawkins. Quote one place so far I said "God-Did-It" and if I really wanted to I can just say God did it anyway but IM NOT. Theres 0 intellectual content in anything youv put together thus far.

Another reading comprehension failure. This was your agenda without you stating it explicitly, as I said.

I'm just expressing how I think its a little silly given the math and an absence of hemoglobin in similarly preserved fossils.

And your hypothesis for those fossils without soft tissue preservation is???

That iron cant be responsible or we would find hemoglobin in them as well.

Really? Then how do you explain the experimental results? Lol.

Your answer doesn't even make sense. If we found iron (from haemoglobin breakdown) and no soft tissue preservation, that might be an indicator that iron is not the answer. Not the other way around.

Note the hypocrisy. You linked the article. And you used their data as the basis for your mathematical calculations. Now you are telling us the experiment is completely off-track? That means your entire argument in the OP based on a useless experiment is out of the window, correct?

Let me see if I understand your argument. Oooh, I did some basic aithmetic and I got some big numbers. Scary. Therefore impossible. Does that about sum it up? Do you really think that this is how science operates? Lol.

24 billion fold is quite the far reach for hemoglobin preservation.

Says the world authority on the preservation effects of iron. Lol.

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest anything is capable of doing this. merely guesses, like the ostrich blood study. At that they were truthful and honest and claimed 240 fold.

How could they claim any more since the experiment has only been running two years? Lol.

They didn't say this is what did it, they asserted it could be possible. Something that completely went over your head.

Not at all. That is exactly how science operates. There was a set of observations. Hypotheses were made. An experiment was devised to test one of them. The experiment was successful. A tentative conclusion has been reached and more experimentation suggested. All eminently reasonable, yeah?

However, bigotry comes along:

That iron cant be responsible or we would find hemoglobin in them as well

He just knows that they must be wrong because, well, just because. Lol.

And then you have the nerve to question why you are called out for such behaviour?

What does nerve have to do with facts about data?

Behaviour. Do you know what the word means?

I don't like posters who set out to deceive. You can call it combative. I call it holding you acountable.

Are you a JW, you really do sound like one in all of your postings.

Nice ad hom, but I'm still going to hold you accountable.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 5:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 2:35:04 PM, dee-em wrote:

Is it? <off-topic rambling snipped>.
Yes it is.

You asked this question in the OP (my bold):

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

That must mean <off-topic rambling snipped>.
See the content I posted.

This is what I mean about your combative discussion style.

So you can't give us your understanding. <off-topic rambling snipped>.
See the quote below.

The point was that because iron is stable, it doesn't make sense that's the factor responsible here as every bone ever would contain hemoglobin that's fossilized. But they don't.

That wasn't your point at all. <off-topic rambling snipped>.
Yes it was.

Instead you go off on this tangent thinking I'm trying to say iron is a limiting factor or trying to get to the bottom of what the half life of iron is smh.

You raised the inane issue of the half-life of iron and it was in response to me asking what you thought prevented the preservative effect of iron exceeding that measured by the 2-year experiment. <off-topic rambling snipped>.

Nope.

As to your new assertion which is a tactical diversion. Are you under the impression that there is only one method of fossilization and that every single animal which we have discovered a fossil of died in exactly the same manner, in exactly the same environment and experienced the exact same chemical, temperature and pressure conditions during the process of fossilization? <off-topic rambling snipped>.
See post #1.

Those that have under similar conditions don't all have hemoglobin in them. If you bothered to read what I cited, roughly half the bones they tested had hemoglobin and collagen fibers.

I did read the article. It says "other fossils". From the article:
See post #1 for the dates.

The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.

What part of that tells you that conditions were identical in every respect?
They are articulated and buried in sandstone.

There is no diversion, its an answer to your question of what limits iron from having a 7-24 billion fold effect on hemoglobin and heme.

Firstly, it's not a billions fold increase. Your own link states that under ideal conditions soft tissue was expected to only last 1 million years or less. So the increase is around 150 to 200 fold. Secondly we have already <off-topic rambling snipped>.
Firstly it is. The study cited is based on a 3 day decay rate not a million year decay rate which is why they in an honest way said over 200 fold. If its known the tissue will last 1 million years or less than the tissue has to be less than a million years old and the dates revised. That is likely the actual threshold for how long iron can preserve and that is still impressive.


Why cant it? Dates get changed around all the time. You simply <off-topic rambling snipped>.

No, they don't. <off-topic rambling snipped>.
I already gave an example of the tomatillo. Peaches are another example. Do we really need to go over creatures in general?


You don't get it mr. Dawkins. Quote one place so far I said "God-Did-It" and if I really wanted to I can just say God did it anyway but IM NOT. Theres 0 intellectual content in anything youv put together thus far.

Another reading comprehension failure. This was your agenda without you stating it explicitly, as I said.
So no quote?

I'm just expressing how I think its a little silly given the math and an absence of hemoglobin in similarly preserved fossils.

And your hypothesis for those fossils without soft tissue preservation is???

That iron cant be responsible or we would find hemoglobin in them as well.

Really? Then how do you explain the experimental results? Lol.
Of a 200 fold increase? Requiring a 7-24 billion fold effect? Known samples of tissue lasting a million years? The thing speaks for itself.

Your answer doesn't even make sense. If we found iron (from haemoglobin breakdown) and no soft tissue preservation, that might be an indicator that iron is not the answer. Not the other way around.
Yes it does. If iron preserves hemoglobin and soft tissue to the hypothesized extent your comming up with, all similar fossils will have hemoglobin. If they dont (only about half did) iron is not the reason. There is an unknown factor still.

Note the hypocrisy. You linked the article. And you used their data as the basis for your mathematical calculations. Now you are telling us the experiment is completely off-track? That means your entire argument in the OP based on a useless experiment is out of the window, correct?

Where did I say the experiment is off track?

Let me see if I understand your argument. Oooh, I did some basic aithmetic and I got some big numbers. Scary. Therefore impossible. Does that about sum it up? Do you really think that this is how science operates? Lol.

24 billion fold is quite the far reach for hemoglobin preservation.

Says the world authority on the preservation effects of iron. Lol.
Well they are saying 240 fold. Not even a million fold.

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest anything is capable of doing this. merely guesses, like the ostrich blood study. At that they were truthful and honest and claimed 240 fold.

How could they claim any more since the experiment has only been running two years? Lol.

They didn't say this is what did it, they asserted it could be possible. Something that completely went over your head.

Not at all. That is exactly how science operates. There was a set of observations. Hypotheses were made. An experiment was devised to test one of them. The experiment was successful. A tentative conclusion has been reached and more experimentation suggested. All eminently reasonable, yeah?

Sure and ill revisit this thread in a million years to see who is right. We have fossils without hemoglobin in similar preserved states yes?

However, bigotry comes along:

That iron cant be responsible or we would find hemoglobin in them as well

He just knows that they must be wrong because, well, just because. Lol.
The math says it all. The fossil evidence says it all. You are aware of other fossils like this right?



What does nerve have to do with facts about data?

Behaviour. Do you know what the word means?

So your rejecting the data based on my "nerve" hahaha

I don't like posters who set out to deceive. You can call it combative. I call it holding you acountable.

Are you a JW, you really do sound like one in all of your postings.

Nice ad hom, but I'm still going to hold you accountable.
Ok mr JW.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 8:08:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 9:52:35 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I state for the record I know nothing about the mechanism behind the denaturing of dinosaur collagen and even less (if that is possible) about the role of iron in affecting the rate of such mechanisms.

At 8/13/2016 7:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The Atheist mind can't allow anything to even support a universe with a God in it.
This is why when the Theory of the Big Bang was first published so many secular people hated it. They said it was injecting religion into science.
Atheist think Science is a safe place from God. But God is the maker of the universe. Nothing in Science will reject God's existence.
But as you see this mentality plays out yet again. He is incapable of intellectually debating the facts even in a scientific manner about the scientific results.
Because he assumes it is an attempt to validate religious thought. And that at the utmost he can not have ever.

I think the problem is that we all have experience of entering into a thread innocently enough only to discover it was a set up with an ambush in mind. Undoubtedly DM intended to get his counter-strike in first. I don't know bigotry had an ambush in mind, but dinosaur soft tissue is a contentious issue which does invite suspicion of ulterior motives!

Like it or not Myk, science has evolved into an endeavour to explain the world in purely natural (ie not supernatural) terms. As a well known cartoon reminds us, miracles are not allowed in science. http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com...

Supernatural and miracle are defined by mankinds limited knowledge. When a miracle is found it only brings light to the fact that there is more out there than we know about.

That's why they don't satisfy as explaination but they are awe inspiring as a mystery.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 8:33:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
But as the cartoon satirically illustrates, miracles just aren't allowed in science. That isn't actually written down anywhere (at least not as bluntly as far as I know), but it underpins how science is carried out, right or wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:55:35 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

You're just looking at the data that agrees with you, and ignoring everything else.

So, just to clarify.

1.) Radiometric dates indicate such fossils are old; that's how they come up with the dates.

2.) Such dates always give broadly the same age range for a given fossil based on the sedimentary layer that is dated and it's found in.

3.) Multiple independent types of radiometric dating that are based on different portions of the laws of physics, have different rates, and different chemical properties all corroborate with each other; that both showing the same age despite having some weird chemical process that changed the age or date is so incredibly unlikely it can be discounted.

4.) Such dates also correlated with non radiometric physical dates, such as fission tracking, corroboration with the recession of the moon, dates of coral deposits and the expected age of the day as can be determined from those dates.

5.) Geological processes at work take a long time, and would explained the geological complexity of the earth if the earth was old.

6.) As well as independently verifiable dates that all appear to corroberate with each other; you also have innumerable layers around the world stacked on top of each other which, despite each being supposedly exposed to some strange process across the board that speeds up the radiometric clock; all show a correlating sequentially increasing age consistent with long term geological deposition and activity.

7.) As well as the layering corroboration, you also have a corrolation with the expected phylogeny; with more simpler and more basal organisms appearing at the bottom, and more complex modern life of the type we see around us today appearing at the top.

8.) As well as the layering corrolation, and the phylogeny correlation, many of the ages match with DNA sequence dating where DNA analysis of bottle necks and subsequent mutations, fossil dates, and geological dates give not just the same date, but a detailed description of what happened to humanity.

9.) As well as all of that, which all correlates to show a consistent narrative of evolution and geological activity over many billions of years through multiple independent means, you have basic chemistry at work to. There are many examples, including but not limited to humans, dogs and mammoths that show excellent preservation even over tens of thousands of years, including preservation of almost the entire animal, organs, flesh, muscle, bone, DNA and protein sequences throughout the entire body; with dates obtained through carbon dating indicating a date of tens of thousands of years, correlating with geological or historic age of the sample.

Yet none of the creates older than, say a million years show anything more than tiny fragments of broken down organic material buried within the mineralized non-organic bone fossil they were found it. This is almost across the board.

10.) Even were it not for all these, we still have a consistent and correlating set of independent measures by which we can ascertain the age of the earth to some degree or another; speed movement of the north american plate together with geographic location and dating of eruptions in the snake river plane showing the north american continent moving over a relatively stationary hot spot.

11.) As well as that, you have all the innumerable experiments, validation, testing, research that have gone in to trying to discover all the intricate mechanisms that could potentially cause any one of those particular dates to be wrong to some degree over the last 50 years, with not a single example, measurement, process or theory that can account for any of the correlations described above.

12.) Oh, and by correlation I do not mean "meh, it's kinda in the same ballpark, almost", we're talking across the board correlation when accounting for margin for error, process that we can discover and know can change dates, and basic common sense understanding of how the theories that you are testing actually work; that are only ever sniped at, with a lack of understanding or intentional misrepresentation concerning what any of those terms actually mean.

So, we have all of that; and with that we know the bone those fragments are taken from is old, whether we have an explanation for them or not.

It's not the case whether I find it potentially believable that decay that normally occurs almost in it's entirety over 3 days being limited to next to 0 decay over 3 years; could mean that in the right chemical circumstances that this near 0 decay over 3 years could equate to almost but not quite total decay over 100 million.

But, I ask you; given that no creationist has ever sought, attempted, or provided an explanation of why all the intricate little processes or errors they cite as reasons why any of the above explanations are wrong, all add up in just the right way in just the right amounts across the board in it's entirety even though such a correlation is based on wholly independent measures unaffected by individual different or errors.

So please, explain to me the reasons for which you feel you are so utterly justified in your conclusion that there is no possible way that any human being will ever discover to use natural circumstances to preserve fragments of organic material for 100 million years; that the massive universally impossible coincidence of innumerable processes working together in a convoluted and nonsensical way to all contrive to make the planet much younger than it actually is, is more likely.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 11:57:08 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 5:06:06 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:35:04 PM, dee-em wrote:

So, bigotry has now achieved a new level of dishonesty even for him. I snipped a single comment of his for being off-topic. He started talking about the age of a plant fossil. A plant has no haemoglobin or collagen. Neither is a plant a dinosaur. Completely off-topic. He raised the subject in true gish gallop style to divert the discussion away from his failures. In retaliation he has now childishly snipped most of my comments which were completely on-topic. Fine, he thereby concedes them. I will only respond below to bits of the conversation he hasn't butchered.

Those that have under similar conditions don't all have hemoglobin in them. If you bothered to read what I cited, roughly half the bones they tested had hemoglobin and collagen fibers.

I did read the article. It says "other fossils". From the article:

See post #1 for the dates.

Incoherent response.

The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.

What part of that tells you that conditions were identical in every respect?

They are articulated and buried in sandstone.

And that makes the conditions as they lay buried for tens of millions of years absolutely identical? What planet are you living on?

You don't get it mr. Dawkins. Quote one place so far I said "God-Did-It" and if I really wanted to I can just say God did it anyway but IM NOT. Theres 0 intellectual content in anything youv put together thus far.

Another reading comprehension failure. This was your agenda without you stating it explicitly, as I said.

So no quote?

Still no reading comprehension.

I'm just expressing how I think its a little silly given the math and an absence of hemoglobin in similarly preserved fossils.

And your hypothesis for those fossils without soft tissue preservation is???

That iron cant be responsible or we would find hemoglobin in them as well.

Really? Then how do you explain the experimental results? Lol.

Of a 200 fold increase?

D'oh, yeah. How do you explain it?

Requiring a 7-24 billion fold effect? Known samples of tissue lasting a million years? The thing speaks for itself.

Incoherent response to the point I was making.

Your answer doesn't even make sense. If we found iron (from haemoglobin breakdown) and no soft tissue preservation, that might be an indicator that iron is not the answer. Not the other way around.

Yes it does. If iron preserves hemoglobin ...

Let me stop you right there because your basic science illiteracy is on display again. Haemoglobin is a molecule carried by red blood cells. The iron in the molecule gives blood its distinctive red colour. The iron doesn't preserve the haemoglobin. Lol. If you had bothered to read the article you linked you would find that as haemoglobin breaks down the iron is released as free radicals which are thought to have a preserving effect similar to formaldehyde.

... and soft tissue to the hypothesized extent your comming up with, all similar fossils will have hemoglobin.

False premise leads to nonsensical conclusion.

If they dont (only about half did) iron is not the reason. There is an unknown factor still.

Incoherent response probably based on the nonsense preceding it.

Note the hypocrisy. You linked the article. And you used their data as the basis for your mathematical calculations. Now you are telling us the experiment is completely off-track? That means your entire argument in the OP based on a useless experiment is out of the window, correct?

Where did I say the experiment is off track?

When you said "That iron cant be responsible ...". That renders the whole experiment as flawed since it is testing the efficacy of a mechanism you have specifically ruled out. How can you not understand this?

Let me see if I understand your argument. Oooh, I did some basic aithmetic and I got some big numbers. Scary. Therefore impossible. Does that about sum it up? Do you really think that this is how science operates? Lol.

24 billion fold is quite the far reach for hemoglobin preservation.

Says the world authority on the preservation effects of iron. Lol.

Well they are saying 240 fold. Not even a million fold.

Another disassociated and incoherent response.

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest anything is capable of doing this. merely guesses, like the ostrich blood study. At that they were truthful and honest and claimed 240 fold.

How could they claim any more since the experiment has only been running two years? Lol.

No answer, as expected. Bigotry tells us this signifies he concedes the point.

They didn't say this is what did it, they asserted it could be possible. Something that completely went over your head.

Not at all. That is exactly how science operates. There was a set of observations. Hypotheses were made. An experiment was devised to test one of them. The experiment was successful. A tentative conclusion has been reached and more experimentation suggested. All eminently reasonable, yeah?

Sure and ill revisit this thread in a million years to see who is right.

No need. We have examples of organic material (including DNA) being preserved for close to a million years:

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk...

I believe there are reports of skin from a homonoid species being found in Africa which dates back 2 million years. Given that the experiment gives us a 200+ fold increase in preservative effect if iron is released under the right conditions, then 100+ million years is well within the scope of possibility.

We have fossils without hemoglobin in similar preserved states yes?

What does this even mean?

However, bigotry comes along:

That iron cant be responsible or we would find hemoglobin in them as well

He just knows that they must be wrong because, well, just because. Lol.

The math says it all. The fossil evidence says it all. You are aware of other fossils like this right?

Another incoherent response disconnected from anything resembling an argument. The math does not say it all. The fossil evidence does not say it all, except to contradict your assertions.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 2:35:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 11:55:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
I was reading an article in which they attempted to explain the preservation of the collagen fibers and hemoglobin in the T-rex bone Schweitzer discovered was due to iron and that this could somehow account for 68 million years and "the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, "
http://www.livescience.com...
We are told:
"Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25"C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Just doing a bit of math:
The current stabilization time was said to be 3 days at room temperature. To go to 2 years would be a 243 fold increase.
65 million years= 23.725 billion days. For Iron to account for this it would be making it stable by a 7.908 billion fold increase.

For the other bones cited at 145-199 million years represents 52.925 - 72.365 billion days. If the rate of decay is 3 days this is 17.641 - 24.211 billion fold.

Does anyone honestly believe that the presence of Iron can really do that in the absence of it being shown in the lab?

Yeah, I wish I had more specific technical knowledge here, but this really seems like a nuclear bomb to the status quo timeline.

I was brought up YEC, or so I thought. So I thought until someone introduced me to the 'gap theory', where the creation week is separated from the creation of the cosmos by some indeterminate period, and unknown pre-history. At that makes sense to me, both scientifically and textually. But at the same time, the fantastic ages of the evolutionary story seemed pretty suspect. Common sense tells us that nothing lasts for 200 million years, and certainly not soft tissue. So it really does seem like a house of cards has come tumbling down with this discovery. It's kind of like discovering penicillin, it just changes everything.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 2:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 11:57:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
...

Let me stop you right there because your basic science illiteracy is on display again. Haemoglobin is a molecule carried by red blood cells. The iron in the molecule gives blood its distinctive red colour. The iron doesn't preserve the haemoglobin. Lol. If you had bothered to read the article you linked you would find that as haemoglobin breaks down the iron is released as free radicals which are thought to have a preserving effect similar to formaldehyde.

"Preserving effect similar to formaldehyde". And how long does formaldehyde preserve a specimen for?

Seriously, I think some of you evos have blinders on here. You're just not letting yourself have any real world sense of the difference in scales here. The dinosaurs apparently just aren't ANYWHERE NEAR 10s of millions of years old. The numbers are just fabulously wrong.

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, you know. It doesn't rock my world if God was doing things on earth a 100 million years before he made Adam. Then blam, he soaks the whole thing in water and does a fresh start. I dunno. It also doesn't rock my world if he didn't do anything like that at all. But I think it's clear at this point that the dinosaurs in question need to have a bunch of zeros chopped off their estimated age.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 4:49:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
If so, it will happen. But science is notoriously conservative and rightly so. But in the end the truth wins out. It is, after all, regular scientists not creation scientists who are trying to understand the anomalies. They aren't being swept under the carpet. Its just that preliminary findings don't overturn well established science overnight. There are lots of very good reasons to think dinosaurs are very old, and not many reasons to think they might not be.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 2:42:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:57:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
...

Let me stop you right there because your basic science illiteracy is on display again. Haemoglobin is a molecule carried by red blood cells. The iron in the molecule gives blood its distinctive red colour. The iron doesn't preserve the haemoglobin. Lol. If you had bothered to read the article you linked you would find that as haemoglobin breaks down the iron is released as free radicals which are thought to have a preserving effect similar to formaldehyde.

"Preserving effect similar to formaldehyde". And how long does formaldehyde preserve a specimen for?

Seriously, I think some of you evos have blinders on here. You're just not letting yourself have any real world sense of the difference in scales here. The dinosaurs apparently just aren't ANYWHERE NEAR 10s of millions of years old. The numbers are just fabulously wrong.

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, you know. It doesn't rock my world if God was doing things on earth a 100 million years before he made Adam. Then blam, he soaks the whole thing in water and does a fresh start. I dunno. It also doesn't rock my world if he didn't do anything like that at all. But I think it's clear at this point that the dinosaurs in question need to have a bunch of zeros chopped off their estimated age.

To chope a bunch of 0's off the estimated age, there needs to be at least 12 undocumented, undescribed and unmeasurable processes that work over the entire planet; in multiple areas (radioactivity, chemistry, phylogeny, gravity, and more) are all mostly incoherent, are not causally linked, and require an immeasurably incredibly improbable set of specific values to make the world look like it is.

Or, instead of 12, you can chose 1 unknown process; for which there is some evidence, matches with all the other facts, and assumes that rates of decomposition in specific conditions could be sufficiently slow in some limited scenarios to cause tiny fragments of organic material to last much longer than we thought possible.

What you're doing, is literally cherry picking based on your preferred conclusion.

Indeed, the evidence based on those 12 individual steps are stronger individually then the claim you're making for organic material; and all together simply makes it neither reasonable, nor rational to conclude the sample isn't the age it says it is.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 5:37:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 5:08:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 2:42:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:57:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
...

Let me stop you right there because your basic science illiteracy is on display again. Haemoglobin is a molecule carried by red blood cells. The iron in the molecule gives blood its distinctive red colour. The iron doesn't preserve the haemoglobin. Lol. If you had bothered to read the article you linked you would find that as haemoglobin breaks down the iron is released as free radicals which are thought to have a preserving effect similar to formaldehyde.

"Preserving effect similar to formaldehyde". And how long does formaldehyde preserve a specimen for?

Seriously, I think some of you evos have blinders on here. You're just not letting yourself have any real world sense of the difference in scales here. The dinosaurs apparently just aren't ANYWHERE NEAR 10s of millions of years old. The numbers are just fabulously wrong.

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, you know. It doesn't rock my world if God was doing things on earth a 100 million years before he made Adam. Then blam, he soaks the whole thing in water and does a fresh start. I dunno. It also doesn't rock my world if he didn't do anything like that at all. But I think it's clear at this point that the dinosaurs in question need to have a bunch of zeros chopped off their estimated age.

To chope a bunch of 0's off the estimated age, there needs to be at least 12 undocumented, undescribed and unmeasurable processes that work over the entire planet; in multiple areas (radioactivity, chemistry, phylogeny, gravity, and more)

huh? Gravity, lol? You're bluffing, Ram. Most dating methods are decay methods, and you want to throw out the one with a known starting point. "Phylogeny" is your real bugaboo, of course - evolution doesn't work even as a story without vast periods of time. But evolution just doesn't work, period. It's an antiquated argument from ignorance that has been thoroughly discredited by modern micro-biology. So there's no need for dinosaurs to be a zillion years old - they lived when they lived, whenever that was.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 5:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 4:49:19 PM, keithprosser wrote:
If so, it will happen. But science is notoriously conservative and rightly so. But in the end the truth wins out.

"Truth wins out" - ? Sounds positively divine, Keith, but I happen to know you don't believe in all that.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:06:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 5:37:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/16/2016 5:08:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 2:42:28 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:57:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
...

Let me stop you right there because your basic science illiteracy is on display again. Haemoglobin is a molecule carried by red blood cells. The iron in the molecule gives blood its distinctive red colour. The iron doesn't preserve the haemoglobin. Lol. If you had bothered to read the article you linked you would find that as haemoglobin breaks down the iron is released as free radicals which are thought to have a preserving effect similar to formaldehyde.

"Preserving effect similar to formaldehyde". And how long does formaldehyde preserve a specimen for?

Seriously, I think some of you evos have blinders on here. You're just not letting yourself have any real world sense of the difference in scales here. The dinosaurs apparently just aren't ANYWHERE NEAR 10s of millions of years old. The numbers are just fabulously wrong.

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, you know. It doesn't rock my world if God was doing things on earth a 100 million years before he made Adam. Then blam, he soaks the whole thing in water and does a fresh start. I dunno. It also doesn't rock my world if he didn't do anything like that at all. But I think it's clear at this point that the dinosaurs in question need to have a bunch of zeros chopped off their estimated age.

To chope a bunch of 0's off the estimated age, there needs to be at least 12 undocumented, undescribed and unmeasurable processes that work over the entire planet; in multiple areas (radioactivity, chemistry, phylogeny, gravity, and more)

huh? Gravity, lol? You're bluffing, Ram. Most dating methods are decay methods, and you want to throw out the one with a known starting point. "Phylogeny" is your real bugaboo, of course - evolution doesn't work even as a story without vast periods of time. But evolution just doesn't work, period. It's an antiquated argument from ignorance that has been thoroughly discredited by modern micro-biology. So there's no need for dinosaurs to be a zillion years old - they lived when they lived, whenever that was.

Bluffing? Not really. The moon is moving away from us at a rate determinable by gravity and tidal friction. Ancient coral is datable via radiometric methods, but you can also use them to determine the length of the day at the time they were laid down. And bingo, the radiometric age correlates and the length of the day measured correlates with the expected length of the day given the moons position on that date.

I know you don't like Phylogeny; hence why you ignore it; but you have to admit it's an uncomfortable coincidence for you that dating methods, fossil strata, what is fossilized and what is not, and what is found mummified and what is not matches perfectly with the evolutionary narrative; and simply cannot be explained by any other means.

I know this because you chose not to argue against any of these, and use the same sort of terse dismissal without reason or justification as you normally do; together with simply ignoring all the others, it seems to me that you should just admit that you don't care what the evidence actually is, you're going to believe what you want to anyway.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:27:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:06:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
... it seems to me that you should just admit that you don't care what the evidence actually is, you're going to believe what you want to anyway.

We're discussing very specific evidence, Ram. In this case you are the one dismissing it - there must be some way it doesn't mean what it obviously means. I just know the samples in the OP aren't 200 million or 60 million years old. I don't have the expertise to know how old they actually are, but they aren't anywhere near that old, obviously. Hey, what can I say, common sense and living in the real world seems to be a good plan for contemporary reality, so I'm going to stick with that plan.
This space for rent.