Amino Acids/DNA in Dino bone

[Mallon]

Why not try sending an article for publication to "Science or Nature" magazine that has young earth evidence in it and see how far it gets?

If the evidence is sound, I don't doubt it would be published. That's how science progresses, after all -- by overturning that which we take for granted.

The problem is, no paper has ever been submitted to either Science or Nature that presents sound evidence for a young earth. Ever. And if you think otherwise, I would challenge you to dig up the rejection letter.

 

[Jim Larmore]

If the evidence is sound, I don't doubt it would be published. That's how science progresses, after all -- by overturning that which we take for granted.

The problem is, no paper has ever been submitted to either Science or Nature that presents sound evidence for a young earth. Ever. And if you think otherwise, I would challenge you to dig up the rejection letter.

Ever heard of Dr. Robert Gentry? He got published a few times as a physicist then all of a sudden they started to turn him down because of his interpretation of pleochloric halos in granite. You think all of the claims in this new movie are totally bogus?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. on an edit: many of the authors in ICR are doctors in their fields who have been rejected and placed on a black list by the major scientific magazines. Why not read some of their work on that web site. Also creationresearch.org is good.

 

[atomweaver]

There is no known mechanism chemical or geological to sustain any kind of biochemical for that long.

Agreed. This leaves two possible avenues; 'no mechanism exists', or 'a mechanism exists that is unknown'. Why do you insist that 'no mechanism' is the only possible conclusion? Are you so confident in scientific knowledge, that you can conclude we know everything about protein decomposition, already? No. You are being guided to that conclusion by your own pre-suppositions, and your penchant for doubting everything mainstream in science...

Your barking at the moon here. Even those who have analyzed this can't explain the death smell and the intact DNA and amino acids they found.

ORLY? They found intact DNA? Prove it. No one will even begin to take you seriously, Jim, if you insist on embellishing on the truth. Quit shooting your own credibility in the foot. The only thing Asara, et al found was mineralized fragments of collagen. Yes, collagen means amino acid sequences, its a protein. No, they did not find any intact T-Rex DNA.

Conclusions are not that hard to come up with. Even though change comes slow in science this find refutes long ages for fossils to form and millions of year old T-Rex or any other dinosaur.

Any student of science (hard or soft), statistics, economics, politics etc. who bases their conclusions on one data point would get run out of class with a big red F, and rightly so. Tell us why your conclusions on this one data point deserve anything better..?

 

[Jim Larmore]

Agreed. This leaves two possible avenues; 'no mechanism exists', or 'a mechanism exists that is unknown'. Why do you insist that 'no mechanism' is the only possible conclusion? Are you so confident in scientific knowledge, that you can conclude we know everything about protein decomposition, already? No. You are being guided to that conclusion by your own pre-suppositions, and your penchant for doubting everything mainstream in science...

Believing in an unknown mechanisms that would allow biochemicals to exist for millions of years is a pipe dream and irrational to say the least.

ORLY? They found intact DNA? Prove it. No one will even begin to take you seriously, Jim, if you insist on embellishing on the truth. Quit shooting your own credibility in the foot. The only thing Asara, et al found was mineralized fragments of collagen. Yes, collagen means amino acid sequences, its a protein. No, they did not find any intact T-Rex DNA.

Your right in this case amino acids were found. However there is a report of dino DNA by Dr. Scott R. Woodward at Brigham Young University. Whether its credible or not , who knows? BTW, I will repeat this, the fact they recovered amino acids strongly suggests the fossil coud not be millions of years old.

Any student of science (hard or soft), statistics, economics, politics etc. who bases their conclusions on one data point would get run out of class with a big red F, and rightly so. Tell us why your conclusions on this one data point deserve anything better..?

One data point? Come on brother, there's a whole lot more than one data point to consider for young life on the earth. It's not like we have all of a sudden found this one amazing thing. Theres a lot of things that refute the mainstream paradigm out there.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. on an edit: I don't have a penchant to refute all things the mainstream paradigm promotes just the things that the evidence properly interpreted refutes.

 

[Mallon]

Ever heard of Dr. Robert Gentry? He got published a few times as a physicist then all of a sudden they started to turn him down because of his interpretation of pleochloric halos in granite. You think all of the claims in this new movie are totally bogus?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. on an edit: many of the authors in ICR are doctors in their fields who have been rejected and placed on a black list by the major scientific magazines. Why not read some of their work on that web site. Also creationresearch.org is good.

Like I said, show me a rejection letter. Rejection letters are issued when a paper submitted to a journal does not pass the muster science-wise. The reviewers of the paper will comment on why the evidence presented does not support the conclusions drawn in the paper. Show me that neocreationist papers have been rejected for some reason other than unsound science. One rejection letter should do it. Perhaps one of your own?

 

[Assyrian]

Believing in an unknown mechanisms that would allow biochemicals to exist for millions of years is a pipe dream and irrational to say the least.

Well they have measured the rates of radioactive decay that tell us the collagen is million of years old. Believing multi million year old collagen exists when scientists found the stuff seems pretty obvious. The alternative is denying reality. Do we know the mechanisms? No. But what has that to do with the collagen being millions of years old?

What you are claiming is that with no knowledge of collagen preservation after fossilisation, over a wide range of conditions possible in the chemical structure of the fossil matrix surrounding it, that you can state categorically that it is impossible for collagen to survive million of years.

So on the one hand we have evidence of radiometric dating whose decay rates are corroborated from a wide range of sources, telling us the collagen is million of years old, and we have YECs with no absolutely no scientific data on collagen decay in those conditions over million of years, telling us it is impossible.

 

[atomweaver]

Believing in an unknown mechanisms that would allow biochemicals to exist for millions of years is a pipe dream and irrational to say the least.

Asserting with authority that no mechanism is possible based on one data point is likewise irrational. I draw no conclusion, until more data is available. You construct a conclusion that supports your a priori young earth position...

Your right in this case amino acids were found. However there is a report of dino DNA by Dr. Scott R. Woodward at Brigham Young University. Whether its credible or not , who knows?

We know (for at least 12 years) He found human DNA. It was a contamination of his sample;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n23_v148/ai_17909366/pg_1

One data point? Come on brother, there's a whole lot more than one data point to consider for young life on the earth.

Non sequitur. You are using one data point here (one find of fossilised collagen fragments), pairing it with your own assumption that proteins cannot survive so long, and then discounting totally unrelated well-founded geological dating methodologies. Sorry Jim, that earns you an F

Geological dating methodologies are well-established science, extensively used, and extensively accurate. The suvivability of proteins in deep time is an almost-totally unresearched topic, and unrelated in any direct sense to geological dating methodologies. The latter is a poor basis for arguing against the former...

p.s. on an edit: I don't have a penchant to refute all things the mainstream paradigm promotes just the things that the evidence properly interpreted refutes.

So, you are saying that the "proper interpretation" of this fossil is to ignore the age of the surrounding hundreds of cubic feet of sandstone, and form your conclusion that the fossil must be recent (based in part upon your assumption that collagen fragments cannot persist in a fossilized state). Somehow I doubt that a person can arrive at a "proper interpretation" by ignoring the context within which this find was made, and fixating upon an area with little or no basis in research (collagen preservation)...