YECs and Tar Pits

[Loudmouth]

No, I tried to figure it out, but there's tissue in a dinosaur they dated as millions of years old and I think that's impossible although they come up with an explanation of iron, that's just wanting to stick to your old age/ evolution model.

Do you have any info showing that it is impossible for this type of tissue preservation over millions of years?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, I tried to figure it out, but there's tissue in a dinosaur they dated as millions of years old and I think that's impossible although they come up with an explanation of iron, that's just wanting to stick to your old age/ evolution model.

Your feelings don't constitute evidence.

I was reading on radiation decay, that it was first much more, with the fall and flood, which the others say can't be true, I dunno,

The rest of us know. The idea of faster decay in the past can't be true, it would kill the life at that time. It would show up in astronomical observations. And there are other indicators of age besides radioactive decay that agree with it.

the dinosaur convinced me, also because there is one in Job.

That's not a dinosaur.

Somehow I guess it's all younger than they think. I was convinced GAP theory was true until 2 days ago, but they say He only made the sun and moon give light again and the Bible just says He placed them there and that in combination with dinosaur soft tissue and Job makes me think that a lot died before the flood with the vulcanoes and the earth dividing in the days of Peleg, there were already mountains with fossils when Noah got into the ark.

You are so unfamiliar with the biblical narrative that you think Job and Peleg predated Noah?

The tar pits is maybe just because of the flood. Maybe dinosaurs lived in a different place. I don't think man lived nearby dinosaurs. Or they were so heavy they got to the ground first, sorry, I studied for a year physical geography, but they told me I was too stupid for it. I'm open for other ideas, but I think it's young earth now.

Well I don't think you're stupid but I would agree you probably didn't assimilate the lessons in your geography class.

Here's what I do with Genesis 1. I view the days as being arranged by topic instead of in chronological order. I view them as covering epochs as in "a day is as a thousand years".

And I view God as using evolution to do His creating.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I was reading on radiation decay, that it was first much more, with the fall and flood, which the others say can't be true, I dunno, the dinosaur convinced me, also because there is one in Job. Somehow I guess it's all younger than they think. I was convinced GAP theory was true until 2 days ago, but they say He only made the sun and moon give light again and the Bible just says He placed them there and that in combination with dinosaur soft tissue and Job makes me think that a lot died before the flood with the vulcanoes and the earth dividing in the days of Peleg, there were already mountains with fossils when Noah got into the ark.

The "dinosaur" in Job has been debated on this forum and elsewhere often enough. Here, for instance.
ETA: The dictionary link in that old post is not working any more. Try this instead.

 

[Messy]

Do you have any info showing that it is impossible for this type of tissue preservation over millions of years?

Dinosaur soft tissue - creation.com

 

[Messy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdCrPkuAoag

 

[RickG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdCrPkuAoag

Has it ever occurred to you that you are getting your science from non science sources? Do your really think that people without credentials in an area know more than the experts? Do you really want to associate yourself with sources that is so easily shown to be deliberate misrepresentations?

 

[RickG]

Dinosaur soft tissue - creation.com

Hey Messy, I've got an idea. Why not go to the actual source of the soft tissue issue, instead of those who misrepresent it. You know, the REAL SCIENCE, not the creation.com made up stuff.

Here it is: Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer

 

[Loudmouth]

Dinosaur soft tissue - creation.com

Scientific papers, please. I want to see the papers written by the scientists who did the actual science.

Please reference material written in a real scientific paper showing that soft tissue can not be preserved for 65 million years as seen in the dinosaur fossil.

 

[lasthero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdCrPkuAoag

Let's assume for a moment that this isn't garbage. Totally is, total bull, but we'll pretend it's not for the sake of argument.

So, it's a dinosaur Job is talking about. What does that have to do with evolution?

 

[Dizredux]

Dinosaur soft tissue - creation.com

Just a thought, we are talking about science related subjects. Don't you think it would be appropriate to go to science related sources for information?

Here are some reputable sources discussing this. Note that there still some controversies involved but these are discussed and and this is not considered a problem at this point as the scientific method will iron all this out in the fullness of time.


Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells : Nature News & Comment

New evidence backs up claim of dinosaur soft tissue find

As a Christian, I am sorry that Creation.com is very long way from a being a reputable science based site.


Dizredux

 

[FoxyRoxy]

I don't understand the controversy... Soft tissue fossilization occurs all the time in animals that live in sediments like trilobites. True, it's rare for a dinosaur to have preserved blood vessels and osteocytes; but it was probably buried very quickly like in a landslide.

Am I missing the point? Are people arguing that soft tissue fossilization can't last for more than a few thousands years? How can you assume that?

 

[lasthero]

I don't understand the controversy... Soft tissue fossilization occurs all the time in animals that live in sediments like trilobites. True, it's rare for a dinosaur to have preserved blood vessels and osteocytes; but it was probably buried very quickly like in a landslide.

Am I missing the point? Are people arguing that soft tissue fossilization can't last for more than a few thousands years? How can you assume that?

They can't. It's one of those things that creationist just sort of feel to be true, even though they don't have any evidence. They don't think it's possible based on their intuition.

 

[Messy]

Let's assume for a moment that this isn't garbage. Totally is, total bull, but we'll pretend it's not for the sake of argument.

So, it's a dinosaur Job is talking about. What does that have to do with evolution?

Nothing, they could have been there before too (GAP), but indeed it's more of a feeling that it can't be true that soft tissue is preserved for millions of years. so if they rate that thing on millions of years and it's only thousands because of the soft tissue, everything is way younger than they think. It's no science what they do, but I think YEC is no science, it's just interpreting the Bible. Now GAP could be true, but several ice ages and animals dying, survival of the fittest makes no sense to me, God creating it like that, with death and all, Death comes through sin, so if satan sinned and the creation was destroyed, that makes sense, but you can't have an angel falling every time and death coming in and an ice age and creation again. Makes no sense to me.

 

[lasthero]

but indeed it's more of a feeling that it can't be true that soft tissue is preserved for millions of years

A feeling? That's it?

 

[Messy]

A feeling? That's it?

LOL, Always trust my feelings guys. You don't need science.

 

[Andy 998]

LOL, Always trust my feelings guys. You don't need science.

Says the person who relies on science to stay alive, without science you and I would not be here today.

Living in the Netherlands I expect you might even be under water now if it were not for science.

 

[Messy]

Says the person who relies on science to stay alive, without science you and I would not be here today.

Living in the Netherlands I expect you might even be under water now if it were not for science.

Yeah that's true!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah that's true!

Stooping to quacksalvers to make a sterile point?

 

[[serious]]

Stooping to quacksalvers to make a sterile point?

Are you playing mad libs?

You seem to be robustly choosing cantankerous terms with which to construct your dog

 

[AV1611VET]

Bye.

Asta ki umali’e’ hit ta’lo.