RSR's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

[6days]

As he knows, anything older than about fifty thousand years comes out as fifty thousand years, since C14 can be created by radiation in rock.

We are talking about dates younger than 50,000 years. (I don't think anyone but you mentioned dates older than 50,000)

 

[The Barbarian]

The 50,000 year date is the best you can get with the most up-to-date equipment, and a rigorous exclusion of spurious carbon.

This is why the results are always below 50,000 years, but well above the 10,000 years required by YE creationism.

 

[6days]

The 50,000 year date is the best you can get with the most up-to-date equipment, and a rigorous exclusion of spurious carbon.

This is why the results are always below 50,000 years, but well above the 10,000 years required by YE creationism.

C14 dates of 20,000 to 40,000 is consistent with the creation / flood model expectations.
A C14 date of 22,000 years on Dino tissue is a problem to the 65,000,000 yr + belief system.

 

[The Barbarian]

C14 dates of 20,000 to 40,000 is consistent with the creation / flood model expectations.

Nope. It's completely outside the time frame for YE creationism.

A C14 date of 22,000 years on Dino tissue is a problem to the 65,000,000 yr + belief system.

Nope. For the same reason that a temp of 250 on a candy thermometer is not a problem for a smeltering furnace.

And you know that, even if you won't admit it.

 

[6days]

C14 dates of 20,000 to 40,000 is consistent with the creation / flood model expectations.

Nope. It's completely outside the time frame for YE creationism.*

It's completely outside the time limit of evolutionism and the belief in tens of millions of years.*C14 dates of 20,000 to 40,000 is consistent with the creation / flood model expectations.*

 

[musterion]

Before anyone else does, I plan to write a childrens' book about modern day dinos resulting from cloned soft tissue. It will be called, "Billy and the Cloneasaurus." I think it will do well.

 

[6days]

Before anyone else does, I plan to write a childrens' book about modern day dinos resulting from cloned soft tissue. It will be called, "Billy and the Cloneasaurus." I think it will do well.

Far fetched in the minds of evolutionists perhaps. DNA should not exist in their model..... it may possibly exist if the DNA is only a few thousand years. Perhaps some of the dinosaurs preserved in Antarctica would yield DNA.

 

[The Barbarian]

HOT OFF THE PRESSES! Another RSR Prediction Fulfilled! NOW, allegedly 530 million-year-old soft tissue: Tune into the above program for our excerpts from a Journal of Paleontology paper on the soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worm" fossils that we've added to our list of dinosaur soft tissue discoveries!

And yet another misrepresentation. The paper does not say tissue was preserved. It mentions a couple of organic compounds that survived. But that some organic compounds can survive for millions of years has been known for decades.

The fine microstructure of the organic tube in Sabellidites is multi-layered and has discrete layers composed of differently orientated and perfectly shaped fibers embedded in an amorphous matrix. The highly ordered and specific pattern of fiber alignment (i.e., the texture of organic matter) is similar to that of representatives of the family Siboglinidae. The biogeochemistry of the organic matter that comprised the tube, which was inferred from its properties, composition, and microstructure, is consistent with chitin and proteins as in siboglinids.


Did anyone even bother reading it?

 

[6days]

And yet another misrepresentation. The paper does not say tissue was preserved. It mentions a couple of organic compounds that survived. But that some organic compounds can survive for millions of years has been known for decades.

You already were proved wrong on that point.
Guy Smalley: "You seem to have the problem calling it tissue. The two papers Bob linked to that I looked at use the words 'soft tissue.' I suppose the rest do too."
Or... are you discussing a different point? It would be easier if you learned to quote properly.

 

[gcthomas]

You already were proved wrong on that point.
Guy Smalley: "You seem to have the problem calling it tissue. The two papers Bob linked to that I looked at use the words 'soft tissue.' I suppose the rest do too."
Or... are you discussing a different point? It would be easier if you learned to quote properly.

The Journal Of Palaeontology paper doesn't mention soft tissue in the title of abstract. Which papers are you referring to?

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course, it doesn't matter. They just make it up as they go. The paper refers to some organic molecules, which we already know can survive millions of years.

But not tissue. They just claimed it did.

 

[gcthomas]

Of course, it doesn't matter. They just make it up as they go. The paper refers to some organic molecules, which we already know can survive millions of years.

But not tissue. They just claimed it did.

I'm sure I remember from my youth that the Bible mentions some sort of mortal sin of bearing false witness. Is lying for Jesus exempted somehow?

 

[6days]

Guy Smalley: "You seem to have the problem calling it tissue. The two papers Bob linked to that I looked at use the words 'soft tissue.' I suppose the rest do too."
Or... are you discussing a different point? It would be easier if you learned to quote properly.

The Journal Of Palaeontology paper doesn't mention soft tissue in the title of abstract. Which papers are you referring to?

Which papers was Barbarian referring to? That's why I said he should learn to quote properly.

Guy Smalley earlier in this thread told Barbarian, *"You seem to have the problem calling it tissue. The two papers Bob linked to that I looked at use the words 'soft tissue.' I suppose the rest do too."

Paleontologists to the dismay of the deniers continue to find "SHOCKING" dinosaur soft tissue structure.

June 16, 2015
"Out*of eight dinosaur bones the researchers examined, they found some kind of soft tissue structure – be it blood cells, collagen fibers, or unknown carbon-rich structures – in six of them. This came as a shock. The bones were fragments. The sort of scrap curators are ok with paleontologists using for “consumptive analysis” because they’re unremarkable and often unidentifiable beyond the skeletal element. If these humble fossil...."
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...-fossils-yield-possible-dinosaur-blood-cells/

 

[gcthomas]

'Soft tissue structure' is not 'soft tissue'

 

[6days]

'Soft tissue structure' is not 'soft tissue'

OK. ... so soft tissue structure is found even in Dino bones that have suffered significant degradation.

Evolutionists admit "SHOCK"..... Soft tissue "structure" in dino bones is evidence of a young earth

 

[gcthomas]

OK. ... so soft tissue structure is found even in Dino bones that have suffered significant degradation.

Evolutionists admit "SHOCK"..... Soft tissue "structure" in dino bones is evidence of a young earth

Is English your second language, by any chance? You seem unable to parse short sentences. :chuckle:

 

[way 2 go]

OK. ... so soft tissue structure is found even in Dino bones that have suffered significant degradation.

Evolutionists admit "SHOCK"..... Soft tissue "structure" in dino bones is evidence of a young earth

Evolutionists admit shock
millions and millions of years and
not completely fossilized fossils .

Kept from completely fossilizing by snake oil .

 

[Bob Enyart]

By the start of 2021 and we have 113 biomaterials fossil papers published in science journals as cataloged at bflist.rsr.org! Way 2 Go guys (and Mary)! Plus, we're currently evaluating another paper published in a microscopy journal.

 

[Sherman]

With these animals being entombed by the flood 4000 years ago, soft issue is not surprising. They are going to find more of it.