Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[fargonic]

Soft tissue.

-sigh- Your knowledge is out of date. Your assumption is that organics should decay before 1 million years. A reasonable assumption without any real necessary evidence in every situation. In science when new evidence comes to the fore we alter the hypothesis. This is how concepts are falsified.

Now the assumption that organics would decay away before 1 million years is just that, an assumption. As a counterpoint when I was working with coal for my dissertation (that's the research one does to get a PhD) I was working with coal that was MANY millions of years old, in fact in the oil pumped out of the ground by geologists every day that is millions of years old we find organic molecules directly derived from the original chlorophyll in the algae that make up some oils.

So let's go back to "Dinosaur soft tissue", you may not have heard this (because your Creationist friends don't necessarily care to follow up on a scientific story once it no longer fits their narrative, and since you don't really care about "science" per se, only insofar as it can help you support your confirmation bias, but indeed the group who found the original "soft tissue" in the dinosaur fossils have an hypothesis as to how it was preserved.

Iron (found in biological systems...even YOU) can bind within the biochemical material around it and act to preserve organics not unlike formaldehyde (although by a different chemical mechanism).

You can read about it here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741

(Not that you necessarily will, it would require understanding some actual science and might not necessarily fit your confirmation bias).

Enjoy!

 

[AV1611VET]

It does. It is called "being idle".

LOL

 

[-57]

Thank you for flaming. I really dig the insults.

no..no flames.....just responding to your conceit..."The problem is people like me have a PhD in geology which means I've been out and looked at the rocks, I've learned how rocks function, I've spent years crawling across rock piles and even digging around in soft sediments."

I forgot your such an expert....all the while failing to realize other degreed scientist disagree with you...claiming they don't work in the real world....but I forgot...you crawl across rock piles.

 

[-57]

-sigh- Your knowledge is out of date. Your assumption is that organics should decay before 1 million years. A reasonable assumption without any real necessary evidence in every situation. In science when new evidence comes to the fore we alter the hypothesis. This is how concepts are falsified.

Now the assumption that organics would decay away before 1 million years is just that, an assumption. As a counterpoint when I was working with coal for my dissertation (that's the research one does to get a PhD) I was working with coal that was MANY millions of years old, in fact in the oil pumped out of the ground by geologists every day that is millions of years old we find organic molecules directly derived from the original chlorophyll in the algae that make up some oils.

So let's go back to "Dinosaur soft tissue", you may not have heard this (because your Creationist friends don't necessarily care to follow up on a scientific story once it no longer fits their narrative, and since you don't really care about "science" per se, only insofar as it can help you support your confirmation bias, but indeed the group who found the original "soft tissue" in the dinosaur fossils have an hypothesis as to how it was preserved.

Iron (found in biological systems...even YOU) can bind within the biochemical material around it and act to preserve organics not unlike formaldehyde (although by a different chemical mechanism).

You can read about it here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741

(Not that you necessarily will, it would require understanding some actual science and might not necessarily fit your confirmation bias).

Enjoy!

I've read the iDino Project Report....the iron idea was refuted.....It seems to me it is your knowledge that is out of date. Now that you know the iron was refuted, you're a little bit more up to date.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've read the Dino Project Report....the iron idea was refuted.....It seems to me it is your knowledge that is out of date. Now that you know the iron was refuted, you're a little bit more up to date.

You haven't refuted the age of the rocks that the fossil is found in.

 

[AV1611VET]

You haven't refuted the age of the rocks that the fossil is found in.

Some of us are more interested in the Rock of Ages than the age of rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some of us are more interested in the Rock of Ages than the age of rocks.

Then why are you posting in a thread about the age of rocks?

 

[durangodawood]

....other degreed scientist disagree with you...

As a layman, who should I trust:
A. some minuscule percentage of scientists whos primary goal is to preserve a pre existing theological commitment.
or
B. the vast majority who are just in it primarily to seek knowledge.
?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why are you posting in a thread about the age of rocks?

Not out of interest.

That's for sure.

 

[Astrophile]

Soft tissue can't survive for 65+ MY's

It survived long enough for the accumulation of tens of kilometres of Cenozoic (post-Mesozoic) sedimentary rocks.

All fossil dinosaurs are found in Mesozoic rocks. The maximum thicknesses of the rock series that follow the Mesozoic (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene) are thousands of metres, and the sum of these maximum thicknesses is >30 km.

These great thicknesses of rock could not be deposited by a single flood, or even in ten thousand years; their deposition needs millions of years. By the way, this conclusion does not depend on the validity of radiometric dating.

 

[fargonic]

I've read the iDino Project Report....the iron idea was refuted.....It seems to me it is your knowledge that is out of date. Now that you know the iron was refuted, you're a little bit more up to date.

Can you find the reference in an actual science journal somewhere? I don't give money to the Creation Research Society.

 

[fargonic]

no..no flames.....just responding to your conceit..

My "conceit" is borne of 11 years of university study, my friend. My "conceit" is borne of actually looking at rocks in the field, in the lab, under the microscope and any way you can imagine.

What is your conceit borne of?

I forgot your such an expert

you' meant "you're". Standard English contraction. "You are" = "you're"

....all the while failing to realize other degreed scientist disagree with you...claiming they don't work in the real world....but I forgot...you crawl across rock piles.

The number of geologists who are young earthers are vanishingly small. But again, you don't seem to show any understanding of how rocks work any way if you don't understand the concept of differential erosion. That's taught in one's freshman year in the "rox for jox" level classes.

You should take one or two. After you learn to write in proper English.

 

[durangodawood]

...The number of geologists who are young earthers are vanishingly small. But again, you don't seem to show any understanding of how rocks work any way if you don't understand the concept of differential erosion. That's taught in one's freshman year in the "rox for jox" level classes....

To paraphrase something I heard:
Why would someone with very little experience in a subject, a 'layman' basically, feel qualified to elevate the position of a tiny tiny minority of scientists over that of the vast majority???

Answer: for the preservation of a pre-existing personal theological commitment, and not for any actual scientific reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To paraphrase something I heard:
Why would someone with very little experience in a subject, a 'layman' basically, feel qualified to elevate the position of a tiny tiny minority of scientists over that of the vast majority???

Answer: for the preservation of a pre-existing personal theological commitment, and not for any actual scientific reason.

Why would someone with very little experience feel qualified to tell experts that they are wrong? It is a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Something we all perhaps have been guilty of at some point in our lives. Some of us realize our errors and learn and others don't. I know that I denied AGW for a while. Until I kept finding that the accusations of "wamers" about the topic were supported and that they tactics of those against it were not exactly honest. That learning experience made me appreciate the experts a bit more.

 

[-57]

Can you find the reference in an actual science journal somewhere? I don't give money to the Creation Research Society.

Such a typical answer.....If you slam the organization....you win? Right? Screw science, who needs that when the evo-babblers can just slam an organization.

 

[-57]

It survived long enough for the accumulation of tens of kilometres of Cenozoic (post-Mesozoic) sedimentary rocks.

All fossil dinosaurs are found in Mesozoic rocks. The maximum thicknesses of the rock series that follow the Mesozoic (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene) are thousands of metres, and the sum of these maximum thicknesses is >30 km.

These great thicknesses of rock could not be deposited by a single flood, or even in ten thousand years; their deposition needs millions of years. By the way, this conclusion does not depend on the validity of radiometric dating.

If the "depositions" took that long of a time to slowly deposit around the bones...the bones would have been scavenged or rotted away long before becoming buried..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such a typical answer.....If you slam the organization....you win? Right? Screw science, who needs that when the evo-babblers can just slam an organization.

It was not an unreasonable demand and since CRS openly admits that what they do is not science they are not a valid source in a science debate.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If the "depositions" took that long of a time to slowly deposit around the bones...the bones would have been scavenged or rotted away long before becoming buried..

Are you suggesting that bones cannot be thoroughly scavenged and still make it into the fossil record?

 

[fargonic]

Such a typical answer...

Well, you know how it is. Rather than having to buy some organization's book based on their preconceived notion of what HAS to happen in order to justify their reading of the Bible I'm probably going to wait until it comes out in a science journal.

OR you could explain to me the REACTIONS involved. I'd be open to that.

IF you can, that is.

..If you slam the organization....you win? Right? Screw science, who needs that when the evo-babblers can just slam an organization.

I don't know the organization, however I DO see that they have in their name an indication of a severe bias.

So if I found an organization called the "Organization Dedicated to Finding Error in the Bible" and they put out a book called "Errors in the Bible", would you consider it a critique of the Bible worthy of your trust sight unseen?

Or would you reason that the organization is going to find "errors" in the Bible that you probably disagree with? Wouldn't you think the organization is biased from the beginning?

 

[durangodawood]

I fine with slamming any organization that claims "science!" but is really just dedicated to the preservation of a particular conclusion.