Originally posted by C Hess
Of course. The standards of science are quite rigorous. The very reason science works.

However, this is the Spirituality Forum where we can include both the natural and the spiritual in our arguments. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
Throw ten ants, ten spiders, ten mice and ten dogs (all dead, or it's animal cruelty) into a large pool. Throw in a lot of mud, rocks and sand too. Let the water receed.

If you have all the mud, sand and rocks in distinct layers at the bottom, with all the ants in the lowest layer, all the spiders and dogs in the middle layer, and all the mice in the top l ...[text shortened]... of forms).

Saying that the layering occured while the waters receeded explains none of that.

Footprints and man and dinosaur have been found together.

YouTube

Originally posted by C Hess
I didn't mean to imply that the man in the video is a YEC. I haven't watched the video, so I wouldn't know exactly what flavour of creationism he adheres to. I merely pointed out that if he is, he's wrong. As for other flavours of creationism, I'd have to hear their arguments.

Regarding soft tissue in dinosaurs, that certainly was mysterious when it was fi ...[text shortened]... -t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Maybe I will watch the video when I have the time, and respond to it.

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

Thanks. I check it.

I don't know C. Hess. I read the article with this -

The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

Two years is one thing. Sixty eight million years is, um, a bit more.

Thanks for the info though.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Footprints and man and dinosaur have been found together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFGWrwN6deU

No, they haven't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

Originally posted by sonship
I don't know C. Hess. I read the article with this -

The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

Two years is one thing. Sixty eight million years is, um, a bit more.

Thanks for the info though.

If you have the right conditions for fossilisation (and we did, or there would be no fossil), and the conditions are also right for preventing microbes from breaking the tissue down within weeks (and we did, or the tissue wouldn't have lasted more than, well, weeks), then iron can preserve the tissue almost indefinitely. Only when it's exposed to the atmosphere again, does it continue to break down.

Originally posted by C Hess
If you have the right conditions for fossilisation (and we did, or there would be no fossil), and the conditions are also right for preventing microbes from breaking the tissue down within weeks (and we did, or the tissue wouldn't have lasted more than, well, weeks), then iron can preserve the tissue almost indefinitely. Only when it's exposed to the atmosphere again, does it continue to break down.

What is the evidence that proves these soft tissues from the dinosaur bones were in a state that they were being preserved almost indefinitely? That is all BS speculation, nothing more.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is the evidence that proves these soft tissues from the dinosaur bones were in a state that they were being preserved almost indefinitely? That is all BS speculation, nothing more.

The only reason that soft tissue decomposes within weeks under normal conditions is because of autolysis and putrefaction. If conditions are such that none of these processes are no longer in effect, as is the case with fossilisation, then the tissue will last indefinitely (if undisturbed). Fossilised bones attest to this fact. So, if iron can preserve soft tissue for the first few years, then it will be included in the fossilisation process, and preserved indefinitely (if undisturbed).

Originally posted by C Hess
The only reason that soft tissue decomposes within weeks under normal conditions is because of autolysis and putrefaction. If conditions are such that none of these processes are no longer in effect, as is the case with fossilisation, then the tissue will last indefinitely (if undisturbed). Fossilised bones attest to this fact. So, if iron can preserve soft t ...[text shortened]... n it will be included in the fossilisation process, and preserved indefinitely (if undisturbed).

That is BS. If that were so, some company would have adopted that method to preserve food. That is just more of the evolutionist's nonsense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is BS. If that were so, some company would have adopted that method to preserve food. That is just more of the evolutionist's nonsense.

You do realise that this is a recent discovery, right? And you understand that drenching food in iron will change the properties of the food? It will not be the same food anymore. But it obviously can be used to preserve proteins for years (and maybe even DNA), and that's all we need to explain how tissue can survive fossilisation.

Originally posted by C Hess
You do realise that this is a recent discovery, right? And you understand that drenching food in iron will change the properties of the food? It will not be the same food anymore. But it obviously can be used to preserve proteins for years (and maybe even DNA), and that's all we need to explain how tissue can survive fossilisation.

No, I am not aware of any such discovery. However, if iron turns out to be a preservative for a few years, it still would be only speculation that iron could preserve tissue for a few thousand years, much less 65 to 70 million years.

But then the evolutionists needs to determine what other than a worldwide flood would account for the sudden fossilization of a graveyard of dinosaurs. Why are there fossilized fish, whales, and other marine animals in the high mountains all over the world? I believe the Biblical flood account and the the rising of mountains and the falling of valleys with the receding of the waters during that year of Noah's flood is the simplest explanation.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, they haven't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

With one stubborn hold out🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
But then the evolutionists needs to determine what other than a worldwide flood would account for the sudden fossilization of a graveyard of dinosaurs. Why are there fossilized fish, whales, and other marine animals in the high mountains all over the world? I believe the Biblical flood account and the the rising of mountains and the falling of valleys with the receding of the waters during that year of Noah's flood is the simplest explanation.

http://www.universetoday.com/29833/how-mountains-are-formed/

http://paleobiology.si.edu/dinosaurs/info/everything/why.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is the evidence that proves these soft tissues from the dinosaur bones were in a state that they were being preserved almost indefinitely? That is all BS speculation, nothing more.

BS speculation stands for Basic Science speculation no doubt.

Originally posted by sonship
BS speculation stands for Basic Science speculation no doubt.

Of course, since RJ obviously has a Phd in biology, he WOULD know more than ANYONE else, right?