Soft tissue in dinosaur bones, explained:

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

The secret was iron, it forms compounds which preserve soft tissue. Creationists, weep, not 6000 years old after all.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

The secret was iron, it forms compounds which preserve soft tissue. Creationists, weep, not 6000 years old after all.

Isn't that wonderful, we can have something hide how old something looks!
Makes you wonder what else is out there hiding that fact with other forms
of dating methods?

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

The secret was iron, it forms compounds which preserve soft tissue. Creationists, weep, not 6000 years old after all.

That is just more evolutionist's nonsense trying to save the evilution theory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Isn't that wonderful, we can have something hide how old something looks!
Makes you wonder what else is out there hiding that fact with other forms
of dating methods?

That's actually a very good question. As a scientist you'd now study properties of various forms of matter to see if there are more specific questions to ask along that same line. Then you form your hypotheses, test those hypotheses, and you may push the boundaries of science forward. Kinda like what Schweitzer and her team did when they first discovered "soft tissue" and how iron from the animal's own blood stream acts like a preserver, if buried quickly.

I for one am excited and looking forward to reading both your hypotheses and test results. It doesn't matter if your hypotheses turn out to be correct or not, since any result will add to our collective, scientific knowledge. Before you do all this though, you may wish to get up to date on what scientists have already done to unearth flaws in the various dating methods, and how they take those flaws into account when using those methods. Or else it might get embarrassing, I'm afraid.

"Carbon 14 dating is not always reliable!!!"
"No shlt, Sherlock."

Originally posted by C Hess
That's actually a very good question. As a scientist you'd now study properties of various forms of matter to see if there are more specific questions to ask along that same line. Then you form your hypotheses, test those hypotheses, and you may push the boundaries of science forward. Kinda like what Schweitzer and her team did when they first discovered "sof ...[text shortened]... embarrassing, I'm afraid.

"Carbon 14 dating is not always reliable!!!"
"No shlt, Sherlock."

Yep, yep...everyone knows there is a lot we don't know...I'd be willing to
bet we discover more about how we measure time, and other things....you
can even put money on that if you'd like!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yep, yep...everyone knows there is a lot we don't know...I'd be willing to
bet we discover more about how we measure time, and other things....you
can even put money on that if you'd like!

And I am willing to bet that you won't accept those discoveries if they contradict your religion, just as you don't accept a large proportion of current scientific discoveries.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is just more evolutionist's nonsense trying to save the evilution theory.

And, since you actually have a Phd in biology, you KNOW all those readings are false. Have you published your results in a journal yet? I'm sure there will be a lot of controversy when your results are published.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And, since you actually have a Phd in biology, you KNOW all those readings are false. Have you published your results in a journal yet? I'm sure there will be a lot of controversy when your results are published.

Have Scientists Explained Soft Tissue on Dinosaur Fossils ?

The correct answer is NO.

Within the Creation and Evolution debate, anything that is strong evidence for a young earth is a matter evolutionists take seriously – in short, they are driven to find a way to explain it away. In recent years, one of the strong evidences has been the finding of soft tissues still preserved on dinosaur fossils. Scientists have been at a loss to answer how tissue could survive for 60 million years (the age which they claim dinosaurs disappeared from history). Recently, Mary Schweitzer has suggested that iron could act as a preservative on soft tissues as described in this article: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained.

Her actual experiment was soaking blood vessels in an iron rich liquid. After two years, the blood vessels were still recognizable. I find this interesting, but even if iron acts somewhat as a preservative, there is a huge difference between 2 years and 60,000,000 years. Her explanation states that:

Dinosaurs’ iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. 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.

From: http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

As I read a statement like this, many questions come to mind. Do we know that dinosaur blood was (especially) rich in iron? The slippery words of ‘may explain’ and ‘may wick away bacteria’ could undermine the entire idea and does not sound like a solid explanation at all. Furthermore, describing something as well preserved because of quick burial makes me think of expected flood conditions.

From a creationist perspective, the answer is simple. Soft tissue still exists on dinosaur fossils because they formed only thousands of years ago rather than millions.

http://www.baraminology.info/dinosaur-tissue/

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have Scientists Explained Soft Tissue on Dinosaur Fossils ?

The correct answer is NO.

Within the Creation and Evolution debate, anything that is strong evidence for a young earth is a matter evolutionists take seriously – in short, they are driven to find a way to explain it away. In recent years, one of the strong evidences has been the finding of sof ...[text shortened]... ly thousands of years ago rather than millions.

http://www.baraminology.info/dinosaur-tissue/

Her theory about iron is just the latest idea on the subject. The problem with your creationist idea is there are plenty of fossils that have ZERO anything in them and that flies in the face of your effort to prove science wrong and your idea of the bible right. Oh yeah, I forgot, it isn't YOUR idea, it is other people you let do your thinking for you. Excuse me.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Her theory about iron is just the latest idea on the subject. The problem with your creationist idea is there are plenty of fossils that have ZERO anything in them and that flies in the face of your effort to prove science wrong and your idea of the bible right. Oh yeah, I forgot, it isn't YOUR idea, it is other people you let do your thinking for you. Excuse me.

You need to let other people think for you because you don't think too good for yourself. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You need to let other people think for you because you don't think too good for yourself. 😏

Wow, what a tremendous come back.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, what a tremendous come back.

Glad you appreciate it.

The Near Genius