Deep Time

[-57]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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."

 

[lasthero]

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.

Funnily enough, this find has been around for a while, and they don't seem all that worried.

 

[-57]

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."

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.

 

[lasthero]

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.

If that's how you feel, you should make a topic about it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[RickG]

Do I really need to spell it out for a man of your caliber and expertise?

Master of Science, University of Memphis, 1977. And your expertise on geologic dating methods is from where?

The strata dates the dino fossil.

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.

Your claim is that the strata is 65 MY+ old.

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.

So, they pull out some dino fossil...from your supposed 65+ My old strata...and find soft tissue.

No, not in the way you are describing it.

The question now becomes....is the strata really that old? Are the strata dating techniques really accurate?

Then you need to demonstrate how dating methods are wrong. The soft tissue has nothing to do with dating methods.

The soft tissue seems to disagree with your strata dating techniques.

Then, in your own thread where the topic is dino soft tissue, you need to demonstrate why.

 

[-57]

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.

A 2 year test is a long way from 65+ MY's. You can't really draw much of a conclusion.

 

[-57]

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.

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

 

[-57]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well yeah...it's a no brainer. If the tissue can't survive for 65+ MY's...your dating technique is bogus.

No it isn't! In the article I linked, the soft tissue, which was formed from iron in the blood cells forming the tissue in to collagen, was found INSIDE a fossil which was date to be over 68 million years old.
That does not invalidate the dating techniques, in any way shape or form.
The only thin that's bogus is your claim.

 

[RickG]

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.

 

[-57]

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?

 

[RickG]

If soft tissue can only last for a few thousand years...you have a major big time problem with your dating techniques.

Then start your own thread on that topic. Soft tissue is off topic here. Show how a dating method is wrong.

Do you deny that?

Based on my professional experience I certainly do.

 

[Hammster]

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

 

[-57]

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?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

Because soft tissue in fossils is not geology!! It's not that hard to understand.
Mineralization of a creatures body =/= geology.

 

[lasthero]

Just start your own topic, -57. Is it that hard?

 

[RickG]

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?

-57, we understand what you are saying and what your specific concern is. However, that concern is outside the scope of this thread. The only thing soft tissue brings into question is our understanding of how and how long it can remain. That in itself has nothing to do with any geologic dating method. Again, here is the OP:

"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."​