1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    17 Apr '15 23:00
    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.
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    18 Apr '15 00:39
    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?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    18 Apr '15 03:091 edit
    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.
  4. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    18 Apr '15 06:44
    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."
  5. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    18 Apr '15 10:47
    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!
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Apr '15 11:42
    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.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    18 Apr '15 14:27
    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.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    18 Apr '15 17:53
    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/
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    20 Apr '15 00:32
    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.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    20 Apr '15 02:021 edit
    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. 😏
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    20 Apr '15 12:59
    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.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    20 Apr '15 13:10
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Wow, what a tremendous come back.
    Glad you appreciate it.

    The Near Genius
Back to Top