toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?

[The Barbarian]

Translated. The catholic interpretation of the Bible is the only acceptable interpretation.

That's not an honest representation. There are Catholics who don't accept the mainstream understanding of Genesis, some of them YE creationists.

Some pope decided long ago that augustine's commentary on genesis was the correct interpretation.

No. But most Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians have thought so.

I am sorry, but I do not agree that the catholic church is infallible and is the only true church ever in history.

Well, if you capitalized it, you'd be right. The Roman Catholic Church only the largest of a number of Biblical churches. But there are many other Christians not belonging to a church in the Biblical sense, who are still Christians.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's true. If you aren't claiming that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, then it's not you who must provide the evidence. Whoever made the claim is laying low right now, um?

I merely expressed skepticism, and invited anyone who supported the claim to provide some evidence for it. So far, all we've gotten is "I don't believe it could last that long, so it can't be so."

Which, I'm sure you'll agree, is pretty weak.

Please tell me you are kidding me with that post,

Afraid not. YEC aren't very good at supporting their claims. You'll notice that no one was willing to step up and show that organic material can't be preserved for millions of year.

how can anyone prove a negative?

For example, we can show that mammals and birds are not as closely related as birds and crocodiles. We can show that it's impossible for the Grand Canyon to have been excavated in a single large flood.

But as you see, no one is willing to provide any evidence for the YE claim.

Beside that though -
You are who made the claim that there is evidence that soft tissue can last millions of years

(Barbarian considers) Well, actually, I expressed skepticism about the claim that it couldn't. Didn't say there was evidence for it, but I now that you mention it, I suppose there is. For example, we can show the rocks in which the T Rex was found, are millions of years old. That's an important difference between science and creationism.

If someone steps up and provides some evidence for your claim, I'll note that there are exceptions, of course.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Fossils found in amber arent soft tissue,

well, Barbarian there probably knows more about it than me but with what I'm reading it seems like there are dimensions of a term like 'soft tissue' that are kind of abstract. And I have been reading (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) that in fact they have seem to have found fragments of whatever you might define as soft tissue within the items preserved in amber.

You seem to have a fixation with a term such as "soft tissue" when indeed, perhaps we can see the broader picture with a term such as organic matter - giving us a more scientific outlook to find materials which are comparable relative to the find we are discussing.

I'm thinking now of that mammoth they found a couple years back that got a write up in the national geographic. What is it, 40,000 years old? That thing looks like it would rot on a good florida day, surely it has enough organic matter and soft tissue, but why don't we just find nicely preserved mammoths everyday?

Who knows there might have been a million mammoths, all we really find nicely preserved is that one right? Ok, now we can think that there could have been a million t-rexs. All we really find is that one bone with organic stuff in it. There probably are odds at work here.

 

[Stripe]

well, Barbarian there probably knows more about it than me but with what I'm reading it seems like there are dimensions of a term like 'soft tissue' that are kind of abstract. And I have been reading (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) that in fact they have seem to have found fragments of whatever you might define as soft tissue within the items preserved in amber.

You seem to have a fixation with a term such as "soft tissue" when indeed, perhaps we can see the broader picture with a term such as organic matter - giving us a more scientific outlook to find materials which are comparable relative to the find we are discussing.

I'm thinking now of that mammoth they found a couple years back that got a write up in the national geographic. What is it, 40,000 years old? That thing looks like it would rot on a good florida day, surely it has enough organic matter and soft tissue, but why don't we just find nicely preserved mammoths everyday?

Who knows there might have been a million mammoths, all we really find nicely preserved is that one right? Ok, now we can think that there could have been a million t-rexs. All we really find is that one bone with organic stuff in it. There probably are odds at work here.

There's a difference between the classic "fossil" and what we are talking about here. With the classic fossil, what you have is complete replacement of biological material with minerals. The animal is buried and, instead of decomposing, cement rich water penetrates every part and solidifies what was flesh and bone into rock.

It is widely taught that this process is a thorough one and that no biological material remains, which would make sense to an evolutionist who envisions fossilisation to be a long and slow process. Discovering that the animal has not been thoroughly cemented was not a prediction of the mainstream idea of fossilisation. In fact, lecturers would stress that fossils were not at all biological when I went through the system.

Discovering biological material in fossils means the cementation process ended before fossilisation was complete. Or when the water/cement supply ended. If the animal was protected well enough by the treatment it got, it might today be found as a fossil. If it were not cemented enough it would certainly have decomposed by now. So we might find a certain degree of fossilisation below which no remains will be found and up to complete fossilisation - the classic fossil.

Amber is a different process. Amber simply encases the organism. There is no difference provided in how long the amber is supplied for. There is no degree of fossilisation to an organism found in amber.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Afraid not. YEC aren't very good at supporting their claims. You'll notice that no one was willing to step up and show that organic material can't be preserved for millions of year.

It is not possible to prove a negative since there is nothing to use to prove it, but you are saying it CAN be - which is a positive - so if you say it can be, then you need to provide the evidence.

No YEC is "stepping up" here because there isnt anything to step up to, since no one can give evidence of something that doesn't exist.

Since you are claiming it DOES exist, then YOU are who need to be providing the evidence that it does.

sheesh

 

[The Barbarian]

It is not possible to prove a negative since there is nothing to use to prove it

That's obviously wrong. For example, you can prove that in Euclidean space, two parallel lines will never cross.

But science isn't about "proof." It's about inferences from evidence. So if you make a claim, then it's incumbent on you to provide evidence for the claim. As you see, creationists who assert organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, are unable or unwilling to show us any evidence for that claim. That being so, the claim fails.

If that bothers you, provide some evidence. If you admit that there's no evidence regarding how long it could be preserved in fossils, then it remains an open question, and not a factor in assessing the age of the fossils.

You decide.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

It is possible to prove a negative. But that's beside the point. Everything we know to date about the decay process, etc. tells us that organic material such as this can't last millions of years. The only reason that's now being questioned (rather than asking the obvious questions) is because belief in the supposed age of the fossil takes precedence over everything else.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is possible to prove a negative. But that's beside the point. Everything we know to date about the decay process, etc. tells us that organic material such as this can't last millions of years.

Sounds a bit outlandish, but show us your evidence.

The only reason that's now being questioned (rather than asking the obvious questions) is because belief in the supposed age of the fossil takes precedence over everything else.

As you know the evidence from a wide variety of sources shows the rocks in which fossils are found, to be very old. So an unsupported claim that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years isn't going to be very persuasive, unless you have some evidence. And that's where we are at the moment.

You have some?

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Discovering biological material in fossils means the cementation process ended before fossilisation was complete. Or when the water/cement supply ended. If the animal was protected well enough by the treatment it got, it might today be found as a fossil. If it were not cemented enough it would certainly have decomposed by now.

You seem to be illustrating to me that what we see in this fossil ought to be impossible in any case. It seems almost like a hamburger or steak that someone tried to cook without defrosting it. The outside was cooked, but the inside was 'protected' from the heat effects. Or like wood that was water-treated, it seems something had stopped nature itself from penetrating the bone, that something about the bone itself was to block all forms of calcification, almost as if the bone were chemically treated in some way we don't understand?

So we might find a certain degree of fossilisation below which no remains will be found and up to complete fossilisation - the classic fossil.

so you're saying it would be partly hollow?

Amber is a different process. Amber simply encases the organism. There is no difference provided in how long the amber is supplied for. There is no degree of fossilisation to an organism found in amber.

so what your saying is that in that case, the bugs or leaves or whatever are generally soft tissue items that if extracted could be dissected, would rot etc.?

 

[Stripe]

You seem to be illustrating to me that what we see in this fossil ought to be impossible in any case. It seems almost like a hamburger or steak that someone tried to cook without defrosting it. The outside was cooked, but the inside was 'protected' from the heat effects. Or like wood that was water-treated, it seems something had stopped nature itself from penetrating the bone, that something about the bone itself was to block all forms of calcification, almost as if the bone were chemically treated in some way we don't understand?

The fossilisation process was incomplete. The source of cement-bearing water dried up too quickly in that location.

so you're saying it would be partly hollow?

I believe this leg bone was so.

so what your saying is that in that case, the bugs or leaves or whatever are generally soft tissue items that if extracted could be dissected, would rot etc.?

Have you seen Jurassic Park? :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Since no one seems to be able or willing to support the belief that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, we'll just take note of that fact, and conclude the claim is invalid, pending some evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Since no one seems to be able or willing to support the belief that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, we'll just take note of that fact, and conclude the claim is invalid, pending some evidence.

Thats right, Barbie. Your precious evolution is safe again. :chuckle:

 

[Zetetic]

Thats right, Barbie. Your precious evolution is safe again. :chuckle:

...because holding your own worldview in high esteem is foolish, and cherishing it is downright pathetic. If only those crazy evolutionists would be as stoic and objective as us Christians!

 

[Stripe]

...because holding your own worldview in high esteem is foolish, and cherishing it is downright pathetic. If only those crazy evolutionists would be as stoic and objective as us Christians!

Who are you? :idunno:

No, seriously. I've never seen you before.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe projects:

Thats right, Barbie. Your precious evolution is safe again.

Zetetic has a little fun with it:
...because holding your own worldview in high esteem is foolish, and cherishing it is downright pathetic. If only those crazy evolutionists would be as stoic and objective as us Christians!

:rotfl:

 

[Zetetic]

Who are you? :idunno:

No, seriously. I've never seen you before.

I am no one of consequence. I come here primarily to see what keeps other Christians up at night. Being one myself and being often disappointed at how little my fellows really think about their own belief system, I find it refreshing to see people working it out.

Then again, places like this also attract people who are merely lovers of debate - they are looking for a fight rather than looking for the truth. Some times I read threads and am happy to see people who are unafraid to walk the knife edge between the blind faith and dead reason. Other times I am saddened to see how many people are motivitied purely by the opportunity form gangs and become aggresive toward outsiders.

In any case, I have read plenty of your threads over the years, perhaps engaging in one or two. It's good to meet you.

 

[Zetetic]

Since no one seems to be able or willing to support the belief that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, we'll just take note of that fact, and conclude the claim is invalid, pending some evidence.

Zetetic has a little fun with it:
...because holding your own worldview in high esteem is foolish, and cherishing it is downright pathetic. If only those crazy evolutionists would be as stoic and objective as us Christians!

:rotfl:

Oh my humor cuts both ways. Observe my innocent game of Mad Libs:

"Since no one seems to be able or willing to support the belief that [there is no God], we'll just take note of that fact, and conclude the claim is invalid, pending some evidence."

I think you have managed to find the argument to end all arguments! It's perfect technique!

Step 1: Be the first to demand evidence - that way if neither of you have any, you still come out on top.

Step 2: Refuse to accept any evidence as being good evidence. No evidence is perfect, merely find something you don't like about it and beat...that...drum.

Step 3: Just at that moment that happens in every debate, when too many points have been raised, not enough of them have been addressed, and it feels like it's going nowhere, just then step in and insist that you've won since the burden of proof was on the other guy (because you got there first, remember).
​

You cannot lose!!

Let's be honest, sometimes we can all be a little ridiculous in our arguments. I've done it myself and thought later how silly I had been. Hope you don't mind my having a bit of sport!

 

[Stripe]

I am no one of consequence. I come here primarily to see what keeps other Christians up at night. Being one myself and being often disappointed at how little my fellows really think about their own belief system, I find it refreshing to see people working it out.

Then again, places like this also attract people who are merely lovers of debate - they are looking for a fight rather than looking for the truth. Some times I read threads and am happy to see people who are unafraid to walk the knife edge between the blind faith and dead reason. Other times I am saddened to see how many people are motivitied purely by the opportunity form gangs and become aggresive toward outsiders.

In any case, I have read plenty of your threads over the years, perhaps engaging in one or two. It's good to meet you.

Ah, a lurker! I didn't think there were any of yous left.

Nice to meet you too.

What do you think about evolution?

 

[The Barbarian]

"Since no one seems to be able or willing to support the belief that [there is no God], we'll just take note of that fact, and conclude the claim is invalid, pending some evidence."

Which is why no one with any sense tries to make God a scientific claim. Science depends on evidence, not faith. On the other hand, a scientific claim has to pass muster with evidence. This is what Gould meant by "non-overlapping magesteria."

I think you have managed to find the argument to end all arguments! It's perfect technique!
Step 1: Be the first to demand evidence - that way if neither of you have any, you still come out on top.

It has a weakness. The person making the claim is required to present evidence. A person who merely expresses skepticism has no such burden.

Hence, a claim that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years requires evidence. So would a claim that it can be. But without any evidence, we can only say "maybe." We can't make any conclusions one way or another, based on "maybe", so we're back to looking at other evience for age.

Step 2: Refuse to accept any evidence as being good evidence. No evidence is perfect, merely find something you don't like about it and beat...that...drum.

It's quite possible to do, but over time, that's a loser, too. Denial is an easy way out, and often the last tactic before abusive behavior begins.

3: Just at that moment that happens in every debate, when too many points have been raised, not enough of them have been addressed, and it feels like it's going nowhere, just then step in and insist that you've won since the burden of proof was on the other guy (because you got there first, remember).

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Or maybe fortunately. It's why skeptics have a better record than true believers.

Hope you don't mind my having a bit of sport!

Doesn't hurt any of us to have a little fun poked at us from time to time.

 

[Stripe]

Science depends on evidence, not faith.

Faith depends upon evidence as well.

It has a weakness. The person making the claim is required to present evidence. A person who merely expresses skepticism has no such burden.

I doubt genetic material can last millions of years.

Hence, a claim that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years requires evidence. So would a claim that it can be. But without any evidence, we can only say "maybe." We can't make any conclusions one way or another, based on "maybe", so we're back to looking at other evience for age.

Genetic material is present. That means, in all likelihood, the fossil is not millions of years old. Pretty interesting evidence. :up: