Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This thread is not about soft tissue. It is about dating methods. If you think they are flawed then you need to explain how that specific dating method is flawed. Dinosaur fossils are not dated directly, the strata in which they are found is dated. Please address a specific dating method.
Do I really need to spell it out for a man of your caliber and expertise? The strata dates the dino fossil. Your claim is that the strata is 65 MY+ old. So, they pull out some dino fossil...from your supposed 65+ My old strata...and find soft tissue. The question now becomes....is the strata really that old? Are the strata dating techniques really accurate? The soft tissue seems to disagree with your strata dating techniques.
I don't really care if we find tons of soft tissue or just one. Th problem for the old earthers...is THEY FIND SOFT TISSUE.
The discovery of soft tissue in fossils does not disprove dating of the geological strata with regards to deep time.
You keep saying it does, and just leave it at that. You're basically saying "Take my word for it."
If that's how you feel, you should make a topic about it.Oh, and I should take your word for it that soft tissue can survive for 65+ MY's? It's a question that needs to be answered. It's a question that topples the current dating techniques.
Oh, and I should take your word for it that soft tissue can survive for 65+ MY's? It's a question that needs to be answered. It's a question that topples the current dating techniques.
That first paragraph should state it clearly: the entirety of the dinosaur was fossilized, but the soft tissue was found INSIDE the fossil.The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rexfinally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
Do I really need to spell it out for a man of your caliber and expertise?
Yes, generally within a few a few hundred thousand to few million years. It depends upon site circumstances on how accurate it can be. Specific problems and techniques of dating of any site is usually described in detail in the published research.The strata dates the dino fossil.
Your claim is that the strata is 65 MY+ old.
So, they pull out some dino fossil...from your supposed 65+ My old strata...and find soft tissue.
The question now becomes....is the strata really that old? Are the strata dating techniques really accurate?
The soft tissue seems to disagree with your strata dating techniques.
Here's an article on how soft tissue can survive the fossilization process: http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
From the very first paragraph:
That first paragraph should state it clearly: the entirety of the dinosaur was fossilized, but the soft tissue was found INSIDE the fossil.
That proves that your claim is completely unfounded.
I made no claim of the age whatsoever. I've been trying to get you to get on topic for this thread and start you own thread on dinosaur soft tissue if you wish to discuss it. Doing so would be much appreciated.
A 2 year test is a long way from 65+ MY's. You can't really draw much of a conclusion.
Irrelevant. Your claims that the discovery of soft tissue invalidates geological dating is unfounded. Simple as.
Well yeah...it's a no brainer. If the tissue can't survive for 65+ MY's...your dating technique is bogus.
Yes you did. Your faulty dating techniques identified the strata as 65+ MY's old. The soft tissue found in those fossils contained in the mis-dated strata clearly indicate the tissue is not that old.
You made the age claim not me. Actually if I recall correctly from the specific paper describing the soft tissue, they had the age at 68 million years.
The fact that soft tissue was extracted from mineralized rock only questions what we know about the mineralization process. It has nothing to do with any geologic dating method.
If soft tissue can only last for a few thousand years...you have a major big time problem with your dating techniques.
Do you deny that?
The opening post said "Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity."MOD HAT ON
The OP is pretty specific. If you cannot post on topic, staff will need to take action. If you feel that what you want to talk about is that important, start another thread.
MOD HAT OFF
The opening post said "Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity."
Creation science begs to differ with the accuracy of the dating techniques used by the old earth scientist. The soft tissue was brought up to show one of the differences with geologic dating methods. The reasons were explained in previous post.
So, how is that off topic?
The opening post said "Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity."
Creation science begs to differ with the accuracy of the dating techniques used by the old earth scientist. The soft tissue was brought up to show one of the differences with geologic dating methods. The reasons were explained in previous post.
So, how is that off topic?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?