Sort Tissue

[Papias]

Here's post #3, with the popes removed.

The "soft" tissue topic has been around for awhile. The main point to remember is that preservation is not a constant rate "clock", but rather is a complex set of chemical reactions that depend on local conditions. If something resists decay for a long time, say 20 years, then there is a good chance it can withstand longer times, etc.

In the case of dinosaur "soft" tissue, this was recognized from the start as being consistent with an age of over 65 million years. The "soft" tissue was only "soft" after being chemically treated in the lab. It was called "soft" because "soft tissue" is a biological term to differentiate it from "hard tissue" - bone. So the discovery is simply material that isn't bone being preserved - that's not even the first time it's been seen. Later work determined the exact chemical mechanism, though that wasn't really needed anyway. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/soft-tissue-found-on-t-rex-explained/

In the case you cited, a technician appears to have made up a bunch of public and unsupported claims, and the news media was gullible enough to report it.

None of this is evidence of a young age for any dinosaurs. The fact that this article is over a year old with no further discussion shows that this was recognized early on as another creationist fabricated "controversy".​

 

[-57]

Here's post #3, with the popes removed.

The "soft" tissue topic has been around for awhile. The main point to remember is that preservation is not a constant rate "clock", but rather is a complex set of chemical reactions that depend on local conditions. If something resists decay for a long time, say 20 years, then there is a good chance it can withstand longer times, etc.

In the case of dinosaur "soft" tissue, this was recognized from the start as being consistent with an age of over 65 million years. The "soft" tissue was only "soft" after being chemically treated in the lab. It was called "soft" because "soft tissue" is a biological term to differentiate it from "hard tissue" - bone. So the discovery is simply material that isn't bone being preserved - that's not even the first time it's been seen. Later work determined the exact chemical mechanism, though that wasn't really needed anyway. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/soft-tissue-found-on-t-rex-explained/

In the case you cited, a technician appears to have made up a bunch of public and unsupported claims, and the news media was gullible enough to report it.

None of this is evidence of a young age for any dinosaurs. The fact that this article is over a year old with no further discussion shows that this was recognized early on as another creationist fabricated "controversy".​

People arn't buying that. 65+ MY's is an awful long time to have the tissue not fossilize or decay away to nothing. Especially when tissue right next to the soft tissue has fosilized or decayed.

So Papias....keep trying.

 

[Willtor]

People arn't buying that. 65+ MY's is an awful long time to have the tissue not fossilize or decay away to nothing. Especially when tissue right next to the soft tissue has fosilized or decayed.

So Papias....keep trying.

These processes you're describing are chemical processes. They don't just happen because of time. There are environmental causes that allow them to happen. For example: in certain conditions, a body will never decay, nor fossilize. One such condition is a vacuum. If you're uncertain about whether there are other conditions that can lead to this, probably talk to somebody in the relevant field... like Papias.

 

[-57]

These processes you're describing are chemical processes. They don't just happen because of time. There are environmental causes that allow them to happen. For example: in certain conditions, a body will never decay, nor fossilize. One such condition is a vacuum. If you're uncertain about whether there are other conditions that can lead to this, probably talk to somebody in the relevant field... like Papias.

With all due respect...the conditions were not met.
In my post I said "Especially when tissue right next to the soft tissue has fossilized or decayed." Why would the conditions right next to the tissue be in a vacuum or whatever else you dream up while the fossilized portions not?

 

[Willtor]

With all due respect...the conditions were not met.
In my post I said "Especially when tissue right next to the soft tissue has fossilized or decayed." Why would the conditions right next to the tissue be in a vacuum or whatever else you dream up while the fossilized portions not?

I don't think environmental impact is transitive. Again, maybe ask someone in a related field.

 

[-57]

I don't think environmental impact is transitive. Again, maybe ask someone in a related field.

I've asked people in the related field. The conclusion.....the earth is not as old as the anti-bible people think it is.

 

[Papias]

People arn't buying that. 65+ MY's is an awful long time to have the tissue not fossilize or decay away to nothing.

Yes, they are. Dr. Schweitzer and others have plenty of papers about it, and there is no one seriously suggesting that these materials are less than 65 mya, or that they are "impossible" somehow. Old tissue remains are not unknown, nor considered "impossible". Here's another example - showing that the experts in the field certainly are "buying" it, and have been for a long time. :

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2400788?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


The fact that you, personally, find that unbelievable is nothing more than an argument from incredulity from someone who doesn't understand taphonomy anyway.

Especially when tissue right next to the soft tissue has fosilized or decayed.

It's unsurprising that the tissue from elsewhere in the same animal has decayed - as we've shown, decay is dependent on conditions, including chemical conditions, and of course those can vary from one location to one next to it.

In fact, this is clear evidence that your "no tissue could survive that long" argument is dead wrong. If it were only time that determined the decay rate, then there would be no variations from place to place. If that were the case, then all of the animal would still be present, or all of it would be gone. Since some is gone and some not, this specimen itself shows that decay is condition dependent, not just time dependent.

In my post I said "Especially when tissue right next to the soft tissue has fossilized or decayed." Why would the conditions right next to the tissue be in a vacuum or whatever else you dream up while the fossilized portions not?

Because as I explained in post #3, these are chemical conditions we are talking about - and of course chemical conditions can vary by inches - heck , they can change over millimeters. As shown above, the fact that parts are gone and others aren't shows that time is not the only relevant factor.

I've asked people in the related field. The conclusion.....the earth is not as old as the anti-bible people think it is.

We have many clear statements that the consensus of those in the field is that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old, so you are either making things up, or have selected a few quacks to talk to. Here's one of many:

Misinterpreting the Bible's creation narratives as scientific statements, many creationists go so far as to attack the validity of geologic time — time that extends back billions of years. "Deep time" is the foundation of modern geology. It was actually well established, though not quantified, by geologists decades before Darwin published his ideas or most scientists came to accept evolution as the explanation for the history of life. Furthermore, thousands of geologists employing many new modes of research refined the geologic time scale during the Twentieth Century. Near the start of that century, the discovery of naturally occurring radioactive substances provided clocks for measuring actual ages for segments of the geologic record. Today, some billion-year-old rocks can be dated with a precision of less than a tenth of one percent. Moreover, modern geologists can identify particular environments where sediments that are now rocks accumulated hundreds of millions of years ago: margins of ancient oceans where tides rose and fell, for example, and valley floors across which rivers meandered back and forth, and ancient reefs that grew to thicknesses of hundreds of meters but were built by organisms that could not have grown faster than a few millimeters a year. By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth's history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life.

Acceptance of deep time is not confined to academic science. If commercial geologists could find more fossil fuel by interpreting the rock record as having resulted from a single flood or otherwise encompassing no more than a few thousand years, they would surely accept this unconventional view, but they do not. ​

That's from the Geological society of America.

In Christ-

Papias