Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 181 of 190 (194235)
03-24-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by JonF
03-24-2005 5:00 PM


Re: This just in ...
Yahoo Search - Web Search
Scroll down to the "Newly Found Dinosaur Tissue Raises Hope of Extracting DNA" item.
Eentsy-weentsy pictures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by JonF, posted 03-24-2005 5:00 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by JonF, posted 03-24-2005 9:00 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 182 of 190 (194239)
03-24-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RandyB
03-24-2005 8:10 PM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
I am just going by the news stories and what the scientists have themselves reported
Going by the news stories is a bad idea. Bet you haven't read what the scientists themselves wrote.
As quoted at Dino-blood and the Young Earth, what the scientists themselves wrote is
quote:
While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues.
{emphasis added - JonF}
Doesn't sound as if they are sure at all. But there probably are traces of dinosaur collagen there. You have yet to establish that it is unreasonable to expect that such things should occasionally happen in mainstream science timelines. Your opinion doesn't count (given that you have no demonstrated and relevant expertise); facts, evidence, and analysis do.
Actually these bones were found in porous rock (i.e. Sandstone) so that, coupled with the fact that bone itself is porous, suggests quite strongly (in my opinion) that such would be "unusual"
Even assuming that you are correct about the type of rock (unlikely given your track record in geology), it comes down to ... your opinion.
But, yes, it would be unusual. Unusual happens. Deal with it.
opinion based on sound principles of science, as opposed to the wild and fantasy ridden speculations of so called "Scientists" who are to this day, propagating gross distortions and lies to the American public with regard to the unscientific hypothesis of the spontaneous generation of life apart from a Creator.
Glad to see that you agree that all you have is your opinion ... this item, at least, is not even evidence. Much less "overwhelming" evidence. I'm really underwhelmed so far.
When are you going to post a measurement of the age of the Earth that yields less than 1,000,000 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RandyB, posted 03-24-2005 8:10 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by RandyB, posted 03-24-2005 10:29 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 183 of 190 (194241)
03-24-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by JonF
03-24-2005 8:32 PM


Re: This just in ... I don't believe the mods are letting me get away with this
A report is expected at The Panda's Thumb Real Soon Now, but PZ Myers has posted some great pictures (including SEM shots) at Pharyngula, in Tyrannosaur morsels.
Caption: Exploded T. rex vessel showing small round microstructures partially embedded in internal vessel walls.
He quotes the paper and comments:
quote:
quote:
we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality. Additionally, we can isolate three-dimensional osteocytes with internal cellular contents and intact, supple filipodia that float freely in solution. This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity. The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels. Because they have not been embedded or subjected to other chemical treatments, the cells and vessels are capable of being analyzed further for the persistence of molecular or other chemical information.
So, basically, these cells were entombed in a thick mineral sarcophagus, protected from bacteria and other external insults. There have to have been other factors at playcells are full of enzymes that trigger a very thorough self-destruct sequence at deathso I'm definitely looking forward to the molecular analysis. Even if their form was preserved, I expect these cells to be denatured monomer soup on the inside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by JonF, posted 03-24-2005 8:32 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by edge, posted 03-24-2005 9:31 PM JonF has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 184 of 190 (194247)
03-24-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by JonF
03-24-2005 9:00 PM


Re: This just in ... I don't believe the mods are letting me get away with this
So, basically, these cells were entombed in a thick mineral sarcophagus, protected from bacteria and other external insults.
Yes, and I'm pretty sure this was the case with the other occurrence as well. Just going by memory, the bones were silicified, so they weren't really normal bones any more and the collagen was protected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by JonF, posted 03-24-2005 9:00 PM JonF has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 190 (194256)
03-24-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by JonF
03-24-2005 8:45 PM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Jon said: Re: This just in ...
Yahoo Search - Web Search
Scroll down to the "Newly Found Dinosaur Tissue Raises Hope of Extracting DNA" item.
Randy: Like I said: The Dinosaurs are NO OLDER than the Mammoths and Mammoth bones buried in the tundra soil and in Ice.
Message 182 of 184
03-24-2005 08:45 PM Reply to: Message 180 by RandyB
03-24-2005 08:10 PM IP Logged
Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
With regard to Collagen, Randy said:
"I am just going by the news stories and what the scientists have themselves reported"
Jon: Going by the news stories is a bad idea. Bet you haven't read what the scientists themselves wrote.
Randy: I have read some of the technical articles, and newspaper articles, and I also have several more (very technical papers on this) that I have not read yet -- because I am still studying Fossil trees.
Jon: As quoted at Dino-blood and the Young Earth, what the scientists themselves wrote is
quote:While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues.
{emphasis added - JonF}
Randy: At least one of the articles I recall said that they had DEFINITELY isolated Collagen molecules.
Jon: ... But there probably are traces of dinosaur collagen there. You have yet to establish that it is unreasonable to expect that such things should occasionally happen in mainstream science timelines. Your opinion doesn't count (given that you have no demonstrated and relevant expertise); facts, evidence, and analysis do.
Randy: Integrity is, in my opinion, a LOT more important than "so called" expertise. And until the "scientific" community comes clean and admits that they have LIED to the public with regard to the scientifically impossible "odds" of a self-replicating cell organizing itself, they have ZERO credibility. In other words: A degree is only as good as the person using it. And it is a FACT that almost all scientists are BIASED when it comes to their opinions regarding the (subjective) FACTS and what they really mean.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by JonF, posted 03-24-2005 8:45 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 03-25-2005 7:40 AM RandyB has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 186 of 190 (194378)
03-25-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by RandyB
03-24-2005 10:29 PM


Still looking for any evidence, especially overwhelming evidence
Like I said: The Dinosaurs are NO OLDER than the Mammoths and Mammoth bones buried in the tundra soil and in Ice.
Yes, you said, and your only support is your opinion. The sum total of your support for your claim is the claim itself, when you asserted "just like the Mammoth bones found today in the actic regions".
Evidence is what you are supposed to be supplying here, remember? Overwhelming evidecne is what you offered, and you've failed miserably at providing any evidence. I even outlined what you could do to try so support your opinion with evidence, which you ignored.
Like I said, and backed up with detailed discussion and evidence: "... thousands of studies using different and independent methods, cross-correlated and triple-checked, all pointing a complex and long but coherent and consistent history of the Earth ... that's overwhelming evidence. You haven't even got intriguing rumors."
But there probably are traces of dinosaur collagen there. You have yet to establish that it is unreasonable to expect that such things should occasionally happen in mainstream science timelines. Your opinion doesn't count (given that you have no demonstrated and relevant expertise); facts, evidence, and analysis do.
Randy: Integrity is, in my opinion, a LOT more important than "so called" expertise. And until the "scientific" community comes clean and admits that they have LIED to the public with regard to the scientifically impossible "odds" of a self-replicating cell organizing itself, they have ZERO credibility. In other words: A degree is only as good as the person using it. And it is a FACT that almost all scientists are BIASED when it comes to their opinions regarding the (subjective) FACTS and what they really mean.
Interesting. I make a side comment on expertise, and that's what you choose to rant about. Having a little trouble responding tho the substantive portions of the posts?
Integrity is probably more important than expertise; similarly, evidence is definitely more important than expertise. You have yet to establish that it is unreasonable to expect that such things should occasionally happen in mainstream science timelines. Your opinion doesn't count; facts, evidence, and analysis do.
Still waiting for your response to the rest of the points in Message 166, especially your further discussion of the San Andreas Fault in The San Andreas Fault: Randy Berg's evidence for YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by RandyB, posted 03-24-2005 10:29 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RandyB, posted 03-26-2005 10:07 PM JonF has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 190 (194749)
03-26-2005 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by JonF
03-25-2005 7:40 AM


Re: Still looking for any evidence, especially overwhelming evidence
Randy: Like I said: The Dinosaurs are NO OLDER than the Mammoths and Mammoth bones buried in the tundra soil and in Ice.
Jon: Yes, you said, and your only support is your opinion... you asserted "just like the Mammoth bones found today in the actic regions".
Jon: Evidence is what you are supposed to be supplying here, remember? Overwhelming evidecne is what you offered,
Randy: Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones have also been found in the Arctic, in about the same condition as Mammoth bones. But as far as "evidence" goes, when someone wants to believe something very badly, they tend to shut out any and all evidence that is contrary to what they believe -- even if it is BOLDLY staring them right in the face.
Anyway: Here is a Link with more info on those Unfossilized Dino bones.
Page not found – Earth Age
Below is some more info and Refs regarding this.
At:
www.earthage.org/youngearthev/...
{Shortened display form of URL. - Adminnemooseus}
we find: A 1987 article in the Journal of Paleontology begins as follows: "Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska." 51 What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of permineralization."52,53 In fact, the people who discovered them didn't report it for 20 years because they thought they were bison bones. Because these bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt,54 and because every year the snow melts, this means that every year these bones are subject to the elements for two to three months. These bones represent another significant blow to the evolutionary-based dating of dinosaurs.
51. Davies, Kyle L., "Duck-Bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) From The North Slope Of Alaska," Journal Of Paleontology, Vol. 61, No. 1, Jan. 1987, pp. 198-200.
52. Ibid. 51, p. 198; and ibid. 36-A, pp. 11-12.
53. Ibid. 50 p. 29.
54. Ibid. 51 p. 198.
Sorry no more time.
Randy
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-27-2005 02:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 03-25-2005 7:40 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 03-26-2005 11:21 PM RandyB has not replied
 Message 189 by JonF, posted 03-27-2005 8:41 AM RandyB has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 188 of 190 (194754)
03-26-2005 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by RandyB
03-26-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Still looking for any evidence, especially overwhelming evidence
Randy: Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones have also been found in the Arctic, in about the same condition as Mammoth bones. But as far as "evidence" goes, when someone wants to believe something very badly, they tend to shut out any and all evidence that is contrary to what they believe -- even if it is BOLDLY staring them right in the face.
Anyway: Here is a Link with more info on those Unfossilized Dino bones.
Page not found – Earth Age
Sorry, once again, Randy, but the bones are not unmineralized. Check out these references. There is also no DNA present.
http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Aug/msg00337.html
http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Aug/msg00313.html
In my own inquiries, I have also found that there is the possibility that there is confusion regarding the hadrosaur fossils and a nearby concentration of mammal bones in the recent sediments. Once again, it appears that YECs hear what they want to hear and disregard good science... even when it is staring them boldly in the face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RandyB, posted 03-26-2005 10:07 PM RandyB has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 189 of 190 (194799)
03-27-2005 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by RandyB
03-26-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Still looking for any evidence, especially overwhelming evidence
So, Randy, as edge pointed out your claim of unfossilized dinosaur bones is probably totally wrong and questionable at best ... and even if one or two unfossilized dinosaur bones were found, that would not be justification for equating the condition or age of all dinosaur bones with the condition or age of typical mammoth bones. This is "overwhelming" evidence?
Still waiting for your response to the rest of the points in Message 166, especially your further discussion of the San Andreas Fault in The San Andreas Fault: Randy Berg's evidence for YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RandyB, posted 03-26-2005 10:07 PM RandyB has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 190 of 190 (194833)
03-27-2005 2:46 PM


Beyond terminal topic drift - Closing topic
Much of the recent messages have no real contact with the theme of the topic. Indeed, I think there are other active topics which should be the home of some of this stuff.
Do you people pay absolutely no attention to the topic title?
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024