Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 138 (194653)
03-26-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by simple
03-26-2005 2:45 AM


Soft Tissue Preservation
Simple, you seem to think that the preservation of almost microscopic amounts of soft tissue in rare cases trumps the vast amount of dating evidence obtained throught other means. Even though the degree of preservation is clearly not a very good "clock" since it can vary enormously depending on the environmental circumstances. This suggests you want to toss out radiometric dating which is tested to be very constant and immune to reasonable conditions for one which is known to be variable. This after creationists have spent a lot of time trying to argue the radioactive dicay is variable and therefore can't be used as a clock. Could you perhaps comment on your significant inconsistency here?
However, let's consider you idea that the degree of preservation of soft tissue could be some kind of marker for age. Do you agree with the following predictions?
In spite of the obvious variability of the preservation state of soft tissues it would be at least statistically true that animals that died within the last century would show more examples of preservation than those that died 1,000 years ago. Correct or not?
If all extinct animal forms died 4500 years ago in a flood they should, on average, exhibit about the same likely hood of haveing soft tissue preservation. Correct or not?
This prediction derived from you idea is in contrast to the current scientific consensus and therefore offers a way to distinguish the probably validity of each.
Would you comment on these predictions please?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-26-2005 10:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 2:45 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 1:04 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 47 of 138 (194757)
03-26-2005 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by simple
03-26-2005 1:04 PM


End of Discussion
Simple writes:
Actually my trump card for the radioactive decay is that pre split there was no such process! It was a different process altogether, which resulted in more of a regeneration than a decay. But this again involves a merge of the spirit world, which the science today, cannot detect. The physical only science that is so limited, and only choses to operate in the little 'box' of physical evidences. Science of the box!
I have forgotten are you for or against having "equal time" for creationism in schools? If you are for then thank you for invalidating the very idea. Also if this is your argument then you are invited to stop posting in the science threads.
When science is being discussed you have to have some evidence for you r suggestions. It seems all you have is some period of time from 6,000 years ago to 4500 years ago when things where "different". You have no reasons for this that are in any way supported by evidence.
What that tells us is that you have no way of arguing with the dating methods without just making up magic pixies of somewhat undefined capabilities. You, of course, won't agree nor will you even understand what you have done. You have admitted scientific defeat.
See the answer below, and add to that that the conditions of the last few thousand years are no indication of flood conditions, or an ancient world.
This is NOT an answer to the specific question. Please try again the question was not that hard. Do you agree or not agree that for the last 4500 years there will tend to be (only on a statistcal basis) less softtissue preservation for things which died longer ago (up to 4500 yrs) than those which died more recently. If not, why not?
How do you know some things did not go extinct before the flood? Say, maybe even most dinosaurs? Then, remember also that some of each type of animal was on the ark, so that is not extint by a long shot either. Otherwise, everyone who goes on a cruise is extinct? And no doubt we could raise other variables.
Perhaps you could try for some consistency here. Did everything go on the ark and some go extinct after or did some go extinct before the flood? Which is it? If some went extinct before which were they?
I don't know this, but what does anyone know about some pre flood tropical world anyhow?) -
Exactly! Thank you for another admission of defeat. You know nothing whatsoever about your pre-flood world. It seems it is just magic enough to solve your problems.
However whatever the conditions were preflood. All living things were subject to them. Do you wish to speculate what the effect would have been on the preservation of softtissues? That will be necessary before we can continue.
Actually my trump card for the radioactive decay is that pre split there was no such process! It was a different process altogether, which resulted in more of a regeneration than a decay.
Please describe in detail the nature of this process that produced the correlations between many different methods of dating. Until you do you might as well have posted: "POIjhldkf;aiuavp;oiyauetoa99aoieurytip" as that is just as meaningful in the context of this discussion as the gibberish you are posting now.
So the new findings (much more to come I think we can safely say, as they start cracking em like easter eggs) may not be a real good 'clock' as you say, but they make the long assumed age look questionable.
Could you describe for me in your own words just what the new findings are and what they mean again? It is my impression that you think that the level of "soft tissue" preservation in the dino bones being discussed is equivalent to the 10,000 year old Mammoth material. Is this what you actually think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 1:04 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by simple, posted 03-27-2005 3:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 48 of 138 (194758)
03-26-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
03-26-2005 6:10 PM


Description of radioactive decay
wonderful!
Now that you have copied that from somewhere could you, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain what it means?
So far any of your own words suggest that you don't know what it is and conflate the idea of "decay" here with the "decay" of meat (for example).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 6:10 PM simple has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 138 (194855)
03-27-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Adminnemooseus
03-27-2005 3:18 PM


Re: Topic drift alert!
Thank you. Both you and simple have been better at remembering the topic than I have. Especially in that last post of mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-27-2005 3:18 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 68 of 138 (195890)
03-31-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by simple
03-31-2005 8:21 PM


Skewing of results
Well, how much heat in the labs for the tests?
Could you explain what you mean here? What tests are you refering to?
Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?
You misunderstand the point utterly. Why don't you go back, read what was posted and see if you can figure out where you are wrong in your thinking before Mark gets back and gets a bit snarky about it?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2005 09:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 8:21 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 3:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024