Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

Is the coal question settled one way or the other?It doesn't appear to me that it is.

Jon suggested that I: "Perhaps...present this overhwhelming evidence for a young Earth?Sure:
Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones, Organic Collagen, and protein fragments -- including Heme (along with little Red round things that looked Just like red blood cells that were found inside of a Dinosaur Bone).Descriptions of two different Very Dinosaur-like creatures in the Old Testament Book of Job.The Year of the Dragon, from the Chinese.Legends of Dinosaur / Dragons from just about every nation on earth.The remarkable similarity of such dragons with what we now know about dinosaurs.The fact that, according to "Legend" there were Swimming, Walking, and Flying dragons vs our current knowledge that there were at one time (in the not too distant past) similar Swimming, Walking and Flying dinosaurs.Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones and unfossilized wood from supposedly very "Old" (i.e. "mythions of years") strata.Niagara Falls,The Non-existence of Dark MatterThe fact that Metamorphosis could not have evolved, but rather had to have been programmed into the DNA of every creature that undergoes such (spontaneous) total transformation.The presence of organic ligaments on (supposedly) 165 "million year old" Ammonites.Supposedly 45-60 million year old (totally) unfossilized Logs, and pine cones, and pine needles and leaf-litter found on Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands.The fact that Frozen mammoths display no more proteins, or DNA fragments than do unfossilized dinosaur bones.Organic woody matter present in (supposedly) 300 m.y.o. fossilized trees from Nova Scotia.The San Andreas FaultThe fact that no fossil trees on earth were older than about 1600 years -- as displayed by their tree rings.The fact that the Oldest trees on earth are only about 5,000 years old (max) and still getting older.Gotta Go now.Cheers,
Randy

Rereading does not change my opinion that a book on coal is going to be talking about...coal. Thus it discusses the views of Lyell's school (that phrase itself implying that Lyell's views - including an old Earth - already had a following in geolgy) on the formation of coal.Now if those ideas WERE very important for the then current estimates of the age of the Earth I would certainly expect a modern author to explicitly say so. I will allow the possibility that an author writing 100 years ago might be more reticent, but even if the lack of an explicit statement does not allow us to reasonably assume the contrary it hardly represents support for your claim.As for your claim that there is "overwhelming" evidence that the Earth is less than a million years old I have to say that it represents a complete disconnection form reality.

Well, I'll give you some credit for trying ... but you forgot the part where you discuss the claims, the evidence for them, and provide references. And almost none of the claims that you posted is evidence for a young Earth or even relevant to the age of the Earth! This is possibly evidence about how recently dinosaurs lived, not the age of the Earth. Sorry, what you claim is just not so. What was found was very probably (not certainly) degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that may represent altered blood remnants. The bone was incompletely fossilized and, while it is certainly unusual that such compounds should have survived for millions of years, it's not impossible. See Claim CC371. Any connection from the Biblical account and the legends you mention to dinosaurs is very tenuous at best (very few scholars think that the beasts from Job were dinosaurs or anything similar) ... and is again irrelevant to the age of the Earth. At best it's about how recently dinosaurs lived. You're kidding, right? Common features of dragon legends are breathing fire, and of large animals flying on ridiculously tiny wings. Do you think that dinosaurs breathed fire, or that any of the flying dinosaurs looked anything like the descriptions and depictions of dragon legends? (and, to be pedantic, most of what people think of as flying dinosaurs [such as pterodactyls and pteranadons] were not dinosuars, they were reptiles). Now I know you're pulling my leg. BUt what does this have to do with the age of teh Earth?(Oh, and there were no swimming dinosaurs. Aquatic reptiles, all of 'em.) You're really into dinosaurs, aren't you? I thought we were supposed to be talking about the age of the Earth? You are probably referring to the CSREF episode. The procedure was improperly applied, and they were told that by the laboratory. From Feedback for May 1997:

quote:

---

... CSREF's claims have been answered by Brad Lepper (1992). ... Carbon dating is fairly reliable when applied carefully and properly. Unfortunately, CSREF did not do so. In fact, prior to an actual date being computed, the U. of Arizona lab told them that: (1) the fossil bone contained no collagen (meaning that all of the original bone material had been replaced and any resulting date could not possibly represent the time of death of the animal that the bone came from); and (2) it was loaded with shellac "and other contaminants" (meaning that it was known in advance that the resulting date would not be valid). CSREF told the laboratory to go ahead and perform the date anyway. Obviously CSREF wasn't interested in an honest test of carbon dating; they misrepresented the source of the material and ignored checks which indicated its unsuitability for dating. As Brad Lepper said:

​

quote:

---

"Such deliberate disregard of the warnings from both the Carnegie and Arizona suggests not mere ignorance of the limitations of radiocarbon dating nor even simple incompetence, but a premeditated intent to deceive. CSREF researchers must have known the radiocarbon dates on the Carnegie speciments would be hopelessly compromised by the contaminants. They knew the "dates" would be meaningless, but they also knew they would appear recent."
1992, p. 8

---

​

Reference:

​

Lepper, Bradley T., 1992. "Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones? A Critical Look at Recent Creationist Claims" in Creation/Evolution 30 pp. 1-10. (Available from NCSE)

---

Now, this might actually be relevant to the age of the Earth. But the dating of "unfossilized wood from supposedly very old strata" is nothing of the kind; it's not wood. See Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?. Snelling's come up with another supposed sample of wood in basalt, but the samples are not available for others to view, the details have not been published in a form that others can evaluate, and as of now is just another unsubstatiated claim. Not evidence for a young Earth. All we can say is that the Earth is older than Niagara Falls. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth, and an unsubstantiated claim to boot. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth, and another unsupported assertion. This one is technically known as "begging the question" or "assuming the consequent"; you assume that what your are trying to prove is true and, voila, you've proved it! This has been rumored, and reported in the creationist press as fact; but the truth is that nobody has come up with a sample that can be independently tested. Another unsupported assertion. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth. There are indeed some remarkably preserved items there. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Huh? Frozen mammoths retain most of their protein, and the very few unfossilized dinosaur bones that have been found have very little if any proteins or DNA fragments. Still irrelevant to the age of the Earth. You're not referring to Joggins, are you? If not, what are you referring to? Still not evidence for a young Earth. As for Niagara Falls above, all this proves is that the Earth is older than the San Andreas Fault. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth. So what? Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, that says nothing about how old the trees themselves are; why couldn't a 100,000,000 year old tree have lived for only 1,600 years? As for Niagara Falls above, all this proves is that the Earth is older than those trees. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.By the way, the oldest living things are much older than 5,000 years. See Oldest Living Organism.This message has been edited by JonF, 03-23-2005 09:27 AM

This is like saying that since the oldest human lived to be 116 years old, that must be the age of the earth. Clearly, Randy didn't put much thinking into this airtight piece of evidence. This is a common problem in YECdom. They have all these clocks that measure something other than the age of the earth and cite them as evidence for a young earth. Seldom will they tell you, however, just exactly what all of the clocks actually SAY what the age of the earth is.What astounds me is that Randy has obviously spent thousands of hours doing research and putting his website together and it's all based on this type of logic.

Ned Said: Is the coal question settled one way or the other?It doesn't appear to me that it is.Response: Some would like you to think that it is, but others, such as myself, dispute this, and believe that the Peat-Bog / in situ growth theory is incorrect.Also, in this regard, I just "stumbled upon" a few more facts: which I will quote below.A note about underclays, in general: George M. Price, in his book "The New Geology" quotes Arber as follows, with regard to underclays:"Professor E. A. N. Arber, of Cambridge University, has given us some very enlightening remarks about the 'underclays.' He says that 'nothing could be more unlike a soil, in the usual sense of the term, than an underclay.' ("Natural History of Coal," p. 95) He further points out: 'Not only are fire clays commonly found without any coal seams above them, but they may occur as the roof above the seam, or in the seam itself... Sometimes coals occur without any underclay, and rest directly on sandstones, limestones, conglomerates, or even on igneous rocks.' -- P. 98. 'Another difficulty in connection with the underclays is that their thickness commonly bears no relation to the extent of the seam above. Often thick coals overlie thin underclays, and vice versa.'""Regarding the many instances of upright stems, this author argues that --'These stems in some instances are certainly not in situ. Examples have been found which are upside down, and in some districts the prone stems far exceed those still upright. No doubt the majority, if not all of these trunks have been drifted.' -- P. 114." (Price, p. 464)----------------------------------------------------------------------
I also found a Link referring to an article that I ref. in Part II of my Paper with regard to Marine influences present during coal formation, and the aquatic nature of Sigillaria (primarily due to the spiral nature of their rootlets -- which are only seen among aquatic plant today). Anyway here is the Link -- along with what it says:At http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/2mlcd10.txt
We find the following quote from a Book titled: More Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2LETTER 555. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, May 22nd, 1860."Lyell tells me that Binney has published in Proceedings of Manchester
Society a paper trying to show that Coal plants must have grown in very marine marshes. (555/1. "On the Origin of Coal," by E.W. Binney, "Mem. Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester," Volume VIII., 1848, page 148. Binney examines the evidence on which dry land has been inferred to exist during the formation of the Coal Measures, and comes to the conclusion that the land was covered by water, confirming Brongniart's opinion that Sigillaria was an aquatic plant. He believes the Sigillaria 'grew in water, on the deposits where it is now discovered, and that it is the plant which in a great measure contributed to the formation of our valuable beds of coal.'
(Loc. cit., page 193.)) Do you remember how savage you were long years ago at my broaching such a conjecture?"Randy

Randy, just a quick question: who says that all soils are also underclays? Also find where anyone here has said that a soil must be present under coal beds. I don't think that anyone knows exactly what significance underclays have as to the age and formation of coal. This is a red herring. In some cases, yes, certainly. However, does your logic tell you that, '...therefor all stems must be transported'? I don't know of anyone here who has said that no trees are transported, so what is the point? Randy, do you realize that not all dry land is 'dry'? Or that it may not always be wet?

John said: This is possibly evidence about how recently dinosaurs lived, not the age of the Earth. Sorry, what you claim is just not so. What was found was very probably (not certainly) degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that may represent altered blood remnants. The bone was incompletely fossilized and, while it is certainly unusual that such compounds should have survived for millions of years, it's not impossible. See Claim CC371.Randy: These "degraded hemoglobin fragments" produces immune responses in rats. The bones also contained collagen, and in my opinion are (almost certainly) NOT "mythions of years" old, but rather only a few thousand -- just like the Mammoth bones found today in the actic regions.Descriptions of two different Very Dinosaur-like creatures in the Old Testament Book of Job.The Year of the Dragon, from the Chinese.Legends of Dinosaur / Dragons from just about every nation on earth.Jon: "Any connection from the Biblical account and the legends you mention to dinosaurs is very tenuous at best (very few scholars think that the beasts from Job were dinosaurs or anything similar)"Randy: Frankly I don't care what a scholar cares, unless either I trust his judgment, believe he is unbiased, and is not trying to promote the unscientific theory of evolution.But these descriptions, by the way, do not fit those of any known creatures that are living today. For example, Behemoth was almost certainly some type of Apatasaurus (formerly Brontasaurus) since he had Bones like Bronze, lived among the swamps and river banks, and could swing his tail "like a Cedar" tree. Have you ever seen a Cedar Tree? They are, by the way, VERY LARGE trees.Jon:"... and is again irrelevant to the age of the Earth. At best it's about how recently dinosaurs lived."Which: "at best" completely demolishes the Geological Time Fable -- along with its "mythions of years."The remarkable similarity of such dragons with what we now know about dinosaurs.You're kidding, right? Common features of dragon legends are breathing fire, and of large animals flying on ridiculously tiny wings. Do you think that dinosaurs breathed fire, or that any of the flying dinosaurs looked anything like the descriptions and depictions of dragon legends? (and, to be pedantic, most of what people think of as flying dinosaurs [such as pterodactyls and pteranadons] were not dinosuars, they were reptiles).Reponse: My reasons for accepting the "Fire-breating" Dragon scenario are as follows:1. We are told in Job, that Leviathan could make the deeps to boil -- meaning that he could exhale fire.2. According to MANY legends of Dragons, Some of them could exhale fire.3. Many Dinosaurs and Teradactyls had large Crests on their heads.4. Such large crest contained multiple air chambers -- or which we can only speculate as to what they were used for.5. And last but not least, Little Bombie: the Bombardier Beetle -- who can shoot hot (pulsating) gasses (at 212 deg. F) out of his little rear end, and even direct which way it goes. All without blowing himself up -- via the controlled use of chemical reactions.The fact that, according to "Legend" there were Swimming, Walking, and Flying dragons vs our current knowledge that there were at one time (in the not too distant past) similar Swimming, Walking and Flying dinosaurs.Jon: (Oh, and there were no swimming dinosaurs. Aquatic reptiles, all of 'em.)OK: Swimming reptiles that were very large.Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones ...You're really into dinosaurs, aren't you? I thought we were supposed to be talking about the age of the Earth?Randy: If the Geological Time Fable collapses, as I believe is will, so do the Mythions of years (of evolution) with it.Niagara FallsJon: Not evidence for a young Earth. All we can say is that the Earth is older than Niagara Falls. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.Randy: What it tells us is that our own (North American) Continent is very likely less than 10,000 years old (max).The Non-existence of Dark MatterIrrelevant to the age of the Earth, and an unsubstantiated claim to boot.Randy: Quite relevant and quite "substantiated." Here is a link for those who wish to see for themselves.What Happened to all the Dark Matter? – Earth Age
See also: Is The Big Bang Real? – Earth AgeThe fact that Metamorphosis could not have evolved, but rather had to have been programmed into the DNA of every creature that undergoes such (spontaneous) total transformation.Irrelevant to the age of the Earth...Quite Relevant, and it also means that there VERY LIKELY never were Mythions of years of evolution, but rather simply a LOT of programming and organizing by the Creator going on during those first few days of Creation.The presence of organic ligaments on (supposedly) 165 "million year old" Ammonites.This has been rumored, and ...And quite well documented as well.
Here is the Link for all those who want to know more (or check this out for themselves). A 165 Million Year Surprise | Answers in Genesis Supposedly 45-60 million year old (totally) unfossilized Logs, and pine cones, and pine needles and leaf-litter found on Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands.There are indeed some remarkably preserved items there. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth.If you say so, but lets not forget the link for those who might care to question it. Page not found | Earth and Environmental SciencesWhere we are told:
"The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications. Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al. 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots etc.
Where these are not compressed, they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests... The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al. 1991)."See also: http://www.geocities.com/eureka2000_ca/forest.html
Page not found | Geophysical Institute
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/.../articles/colville.html
Page not found | Earth and Environmental SciencesThe fact that Frozen mammoths display no more proteins, or DNA fragments than do unfossilized dinosaur bones.Huh? Frozen mammoths retain most of their protein...That is so fragmented that it can't be used for cloning.Organic woody matter present in (supposedly) 300 m.y.o. fossilized trees from Nova Scotia.You're not referring to Joggins, are you?Sure am: Here is the Info:In addition to the above, Scott et al. report that the organic cell walls of some trees are still intact. 89 Dawson also reported finding similar organic material in fossil trees at Wallace Harbor. 90 With regard to this Dawson noted that after the calcareous mineral matter (filling the pores) was dissolved with hydrochloric acid, what was left was a piece of wood retaining the same size and shape as the original--only now it could be bent or burned in a fire just like ordinary wood.See Page not found – Earth Age for refs.Jon: Still not evidence for a young Earth.Randy: If you say so.The San Andreas FaultAs for Niagara Falls above, all this proves is that the Earth is older than the San Andreas Fault. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.Here's the Link:
Is the Continental Drift Theory Real? – Earth Age:The fact that no fossil trees on earth were older than about 1600 years -- as displayed by their tree rings.Jon:So what? Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, that says nothing about how old the trees themselves are; why couldn't a 100,000,000 year old tree have lived for only 1,600 years?Randy: Good point. All it suggests is that the Biblical Time line -- of about 1600 years from the time of Creation until the Time of the Flood -- is probably correct.

Edge: Randy, do you realize that not all dry land is 'dry'? Or that it may not always be wet?Randy: The significance of Sigillaria trees being able to intertwine their (mostly hollow) roots and (perhaps) float upon the water's surface, is that they may have formed extremely LARGE forests that literally floated on top of (much of) the worlds (pre-flood) Oceans. I realize that this is (at least somewhat) speculatory since we don't have any living specimens to examine, nor do we know how salty the pre-flood oceans were, etc. However, the very shape of their Stigmaria rootlets suggests that they were aquatic.Randy

Yes, that's how they knew that the degraded fragments came from hemoglobin. They are still degraded fragements. See the reference I provided earlier. That has not been confirmed. But, even if it's there, the conditions under which the bone was preserved are so unusual that fragments of collagen could have survived for millions of years. So, the first item of overwhelming evidence is your opinion. You mis-spelled "totally unlike the unfossilized mammoth bones found today in the Arctic regions, which contain significant quantities of hemoglobin and collagen and other proteins" ... unless, of course, you want to post a detailed comparison of the two types of bones demonstrating why they are "just like" each other. So what? Who made the rule that all descriptions of these creatures had to fit known creatures of any time? We have lots of mythical descriptions of creatures that obviously never existed, such as the Fachen: "It is covered by with feathers, having a tuft of them which grew like a comb on a cock's head. It has one mangled hand that grows from the center of its chest, and one leg that grows out of its body at an angle. It also has one eye set in the middle of its forehead." (from Encyclopedia of Monsters, etc..) Yes, and the author was probably making the point the Behemoth had a huge penis. Many scholars think that "tail" is a euphemism introduced the the KJV translators. (I realize that you aren't interested in what scholars think, only your opinion counts, but others don't share that high opinion of your sholarship). Or it could be the trunk of an elephant.Even if "tail" meant tail, still an extremely tenuous connection. This is supposed to be overwhelming evidence? Which "boil down to" your interpretation of the Bible, speculation about air chambers, and the introduction of the Bombardier beetle .. the latter is irrelevant and the former is strained. Dinosaurs did not breathe fire.This is supposed to be "overwhelming evidence" for a young age? The time at which the dinosaurs went extinct is not very closely connected to the age of the Earth. No, what it tells us is that Niagara Falls is very likely approximately 10,000 years old, and that the North American continent is therefore as old as or older than 10,000 years, which still is irrelevant to a young Earth (althouugh it is one of many pieces of evidence that the Earth is not 6,000 years old). You keep confusing "minimum age" with "probable actual age"; that's a serious logical error. Please stop doing it. Er, your opinions and quote mines are not impressive substantiation. However, still irrelevant. Remember, you wrote "overwhelming evidence for a young Earth". This is supposed to be about evidence for a young Earth, not just speculation about what might be. Perhaps somewhat connected, but your "fact" is no such thing. It's just your personal incredulity. When it is establshed that metamorphosis could not have evolved, we'll talk. Please, gentle readers, do go check out that link. Lots of references to peer-reviewed scientific papers ... and the only reference for the claim of organic ligaments is a newspaper report. Hardly well-documented scientific evidence. No mention of it in Science magazine (very short, and may require free registration) Jurassic Squid. At Evolution is a Lie, and you Skeptics KNOW it! Part 4 I find the claim that:

quote:

---

But this article in the New Scientist says, "Neville Hollingworth of the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon has found a fossil of Sigaloceras calloviense whose outer shell has dissolved away to reveal the outline of adductor muscles and tentacles in the honey-coloured calcite inside." That doesn't describe unfossilized organic ligaments!

---

I don't have access to verify whether or not that claim is accurate; but it's clear that the documentation for your claim is sadly lacking.{Added by edit: I find the same quote at the creationist site Creation Research, with a cite to New Scientist, 4 September 1999, page 25. More indication that the quote is probably accurate.} Your use of the phrase "no more" means quantity, not quality. So your original claim is wrong (there's lots more organic matter in those mammoth bones than in that dinosaur bone); you probably meant "no better" or something like that, instead of "no more". But "so fragmented that it can't be used for cloning" is only a qualitative measure; if you want to establish "no better" you need to come up with a quantitive measure. Even that wouldn't be convincing without some evidence that "same quality of protein remnants" means "same age". OK, I'll accept the existence of such matter, now you need to establish that this is incompatible with the supposed age of the samples. "Rare" is not "impossible". My, my, so many errors. First, of course, you've once again confused "minimum age" with "probably actual age". Second, you've assumed equal motion all along the fault. Third, you've ignored any possible factors that erase any offset produced by motion. Fourth, the map you show is obviously schematic. You never responded to Roxrkool's detailed criticism at Message 1; I'll leave detailed discussion ot that thread, after you respond there. It suggests nothing at all beyond coincidence. Your interpretation of a particular religion's holy text (which interpretation is questioned by many) comes up with a number that is equal to the approximate age at which some trees died is not impressive ... especially in light of the fact that we have lots of evidence that those trees did not die at anywhere near the same time.So, this is the "overwhelming evidence for a young Earth"? The only numbers you've come up with are a couple of minimum ages ("most probable age" and "maximum age" are different kettles of fish), and one of your numbers is suspect. You've come up with a few unusual examples of organic matter surviving for what mainstream science thinks is a long time, and one of those is suspect. You've put forth a tenuous correlation between dinosaurs and legends, which legends may or may not be (and probably aren't) based on fact.Now, 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.This message has been edited by JonF, 03-24-2005 10:32 AMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-27-2005 02:38 PM

Non sequitur. You've really got the Gish Gallop down well, Randy. Hmm, weren't you the on talking about myths? So, these intertwined, floating roots managed to support entire forests in growth position above the raging flood waters and yet they managed to untwine and sink like lead weights to hold the trees then in normal position UNDER the water. SUUUUUUURE, Randy. But then they suddenly became terrigenous so that they could be set in soils and then covered by fluvial sands... Hmmm, sounds like a myth to me. This is the least consistent, just-so stories you've come up with yet.

I thought it was chickens. Then you have evidence that fragments of organic molecules cannot survive for million or years under very special conditions? Please reference this.

Chickens 'n rats 'n mammals, oh my! Just a moment...:

quote:

---

Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

---

Randy: note "blood-derived hemoglobin compounds", not "hemoglobin". Note also from the paper itself:

quote:

---

Geochemical interactions with biomolecules preserved in fossil bone over millions of years are to be expected, and the presence of additional, nonhemoglobin signals detected by the various physical methods is not unexpected given the highly degraded and diagenetically altered biological compounds in the bone {emphasis added - JonF}.

---

And from Dino-blood and the Young Earth, which Randy has obviously not bothered to read:

quote:

---

Horner and Schweitzer in any publication, email, statement or conversation that I am aware of, have correctly stated Marshall's (and his colleagues') results that a very few amino acids in side chains attached to a heme produced the immunological response observed, intact hemoglobin is not present or necessary {emphasis added - JonF}. How do we know this? Because 1) prior research has independently established that small peptides complexed to heme, are immunogenic, 2) an immune response to the bone extracts in rats was observed, 3) the laboratory results which would have detected hemoglobin did not do so, but did produce results consistent with heme. In these articles, Schweitzer et al. (1997A and 1997B) are quite properly circumspect about the degree of preservation of the molecules in question and their identity, as there are no sequence data which could verify them beyond heme.

---

I don't have any such reference, but this is really cool. Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1952-1955, 25 March 2005: Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex:

quote:

---

Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.

---

But, alas, it doesn't overthrow the geological time scale. Just changes our understanding of fossilization some, and reveals a highly unusual specimin.

Jon with regard to Collagen in Dinosaur bones: "That has not been confirmed."Randy: I am just going by the news stories and what the scientists have themselves reported.Jon: But, even if it's there, the conditions under which the bone was preserved are so unusual that fragments of collagen could have survived for millions of years.Randy: 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" -- unless of course, they are NOT mythions of years old, but rather only a few thousand.Jon: So, the first item of overwhelming evidence is your opinion.Randy: 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.That's all I have time for at the moment.Randy