Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[oxmixmudd]

.
.
... or is it?

Nah, of course not! When any such evidence is found the Evo-Faithful merely re-interpret it to support their faith-based conclusions. That way, "Heads, Evos win; tails, biblical Creationists lose."

In the latest round, here's their re-interpretation:

"Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years..." [emphasis mine]

Source: Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil
https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/


You see boys and girls, before these things were discovered any scientist even suggesting that blood vessels and soft tissue could last for tens of millions of years would have been laughed out of his/her position, probably had their tenure and/or their degree revoked and probably have been tar-and-feathered in public for even suggesting such outright imbecility that opposes not just common sense but basic physics and chemistry.

But, (drum roll please) ... after the evidence is found, and given that Evolution MUST be upheld at ALL costs, they simply move the goalposts back into the next county and continue with their mantra as if nothing had happened.

HEAVEN FORBID that any of them should entertain - let alone suggest - the notion that, "Hey, perhaps these finding are NOT tens of millions of years old ... maybe there's truth to the biblical time frame."

Never happen! Paychecks, job security and professional recognition are far too important to step out on a limb like that. They'll propose anything, even advanced alien civilizations or blood vessels lasting for 80 million years, before accepting the biblical time history.

Oh well ... dumbos will be dumbos will be dumbos!

Jorge

The questions are these:

(1) Does the hypothesis that he kinds of tissue and even molecules Schweitzer discovered in these fossils can't be preserved for the amount of time indicated by their age have greater or lesser support than the hypothesis that the radiometric 'clocks' used to (directly or indirectly) date the layers in which the fossils were found are accurate and reliable?

(2a) Is it possible the fossil itself is of a different age than the sedimentary layers in which it was found?
(2b) Is the preserved 'soft tissue' NOT what it appears to be

Almost no one would claim that the fossils are of a different age than the sediment in which they were deposited (2a).

As to (2b), there have been several postulates as to what these preserved elements that look like preserved soft tissue might be. But in the end, all of those competing hypothesis have been shown not to be the case. Further, additional work has shown that organics preserved in these bones match most closely those found in the Ostrich, consilient with the hypothesis (theory at this point) that the birds evolved from the dinosaurs.

Without a plausible means for questions (2) to present an alternative, question (1) forces us to decide between two hypothesis. Either the dating mechanisms are in some way flawed, or this kind of tissue can be preserved as found for much, much longer than originally thought.


The objective scientist considers both options, not just one or the other. Jorge can only consider one possible option. He is not an objective scientist. His accusation is that neither are the majority of the scientists that come to a conclusion different from his own. He says they have not even looked at the possibility the bones are not as old as thought.

But that is not true. The problem, however, is that to those that understand the dating methods and the research that has gone into them, and the sheer number of differing data points that all point to the same basic conclusion in terms of the ages of the layers where the bones were found, there is a clear win relative to the two alternatives. It is well known that given a proper environment, there is no reason these materials can't survive virtually indefinately. The problem is that it was thought (re assumed) conditions which would allow this kind preservation would not occur naturally.

And so it boils down to one hypothesis based on reams of direct data of disparate origin and type* which point to 65 million or more years (depending on the fossil being investigated), and another hypothesis based on what is in essence known to be a 'best guess'.

And for most without an axe to grind or point to prove, that means the most likely situation is that these kinds of small tissue fragments can be preserved naturally in some environments for many millions of years.


Jorge believes that huge amounts of time not spent reevaluating this conclusion implies that the mainstream scientists are horribly biased against his conclusion. But the reality is that his conclusion is rejected quickly in large part simply because of the overwhelming disparity between the solidity of the support for each possibility. There just isn't any realistic way these dates could be wrong enough to allow the tissues to be only as old as was previously believed to be their survival time. Hence the focus on validating the tissues are what they seem to be and searching for ways to explain the preservation.


Jim

*: radiometric decay rates have never been demonstrated to change any significant amount in any environment consistent with the history of the Earth. Sedimentary layers themselves take time to deposit and the longevity of the physical processes required to deposit them are in solid agreement with the radiometric dates given. multiple types of radiometric clocks(different isotopes and decay rates), when available, tend to give similar if not identical ages. These results are planet and solar system wide. The constancy of decay rates has been shown even across astronomical distance as observed in the spectra from supernova 1987a. An ancillary observation that helps explain the observed constancy of decay rates is that the decay rates themselves are tied to fundamental constants of the universe itself such as the speed of light and fine structure constant. Properties that if changed would have many observable consequences, consequences that have been and are routinely investigated. To date, no changes in these related constants have been observed to any significant degree over the observable age of the universe.

[Mikeenders]

(emphasis mine, for Jorge's benefit)

The upshot of this research is simple and straightforward. Paleontologists were wrong in assuming that these structures could not survive for millions of years. The evidence says that they can survive for this long. This new realization violates no known laws of science.

Sorry but total and I do mean TOTAL distortion. First off your emphasis for Jorge's benefit is just quote mining and ignoring the context of what happened to and with Schweitzer and even she is playing a game. Schweitzer got hammered and HARD not by creationists but by Darwinists who lets be honest here couldn't conceive of such a thing because to this day nothing suggests this kind of organic matter can survive so long. Of course creationists jumped on it. Why? because it is and was a big deal and not easily explained

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

Frankly I am agnostic on the age of the earth. My reading of Genesis doesn't require a young earth but if we are going to be Christians we need to be intellectually honest regardless of what side of the issue on age we come down on. Until someone can give an explanation for these structures surviving so long then like it or not the Creationists have a point. Simply saying - "oh well that just shows they were wrong in assuming structures could not survive for millions of years. the evidence says" is just circular reasoning at its finest. There is no evidence apart from the assumed age of the fossils that says that this material can last that long. Schweitzer herself has only been able to point to the presence of iron in some of these cases as having led to preservation but even her research does not demonstrate that length of time and its dubious with the multiple more finds since her first that sufficient iron is present in all the finds.

Lets not forget why this was controversial to begin with. It wasn't creationists running around creating an issue - as you can see from the linked to story above - it was the scientific community that considered it implausible on SCIENTIFIC grounds. No breakthrough chemical study has changed how organic material decays and breaks down with time. It is merely being assumed based on the age assumed for the fossils.

No one but Creationists say that radiometric decay can happen fast enough in the past to give the ages they do and the earth still be young. Creationists have not been given a pass to say "well since we know these animals were recently created then it is evidence that radiometric decay can happen fast" - that has been hotly disputed - so if we are going to be intellectually honest then saying "organic decay can be slowed down for tens of millions of years and the fossils we believe are that old prove it" has to be equally scrutinized as a circular argument.

[Carrikature]

Simply saying - "oh well that just shows they were wrong in assuming structures could not survive for millions of years. the evidence says" is just circular reasoning at its finest.

It's fun to see people call out logical fallacies when they clearly don't understand how the fallacy works. For this to be circular reasoning, we would have to be using the age of the soft tissue as evidence for the dating methods and the dating methods as evidence for the age of the tissue. The first part is not happening.

[Mikeenders]

Without a plausible means for questions (2) to present an alternative, question (1) forces us to decide between two hypothesis. Either the dating mechanisms are in some way flawed, or this kind of tissue can be preserved as found for much, much longer than originally thought.

Though that sounds rational its in fact unscientific. Science is not forcing us to decide between two hypothesis. Science in fact always does the opposite - refuses to decide until the evidence is in. Science doesn't say okay I am going to choose this fact over that fact. it accepts both and tries to consolidate the two. Everything we knew before these discoveries pointed to organic material not being able to last that long. Nothing in chemistry has changed. Whats needed now is more research into how organic material actually decays under a variety of circumstances - that IS a perfectly acceptable clock even as radiometric dating is. So we have two clocks to look at. Basically saying because we presently think we know more about one clock than we do the other so that overrules the one we don't know as well is not a sound basis for a scientific conclusion.

This is what I so love about cosmology over biology as a science. Cosmologists are willing to throw everything out if it does not align with all the facts and start over. Too often in biology new facts are discounted entirely in favor of the consensus. Chemistry is just as as valid as physics. IF we can explain how organic material can last so long based on chemistry then fine but we cannot simply come to conclusions about chemistry simply because they would interfere with our understanding of radiometric dating. Thats not how science works and specifically not how it self corrects. Its the incongruity - the fact that sticks out and defies all the other things we thought we knew that causes science to self correct. Over and over thats what has caught a bad hypothesis that had wide acceptance. Throw out considering the one fact that sticks out and defies all the other "facts" and you won't have science anymore.

This is just basic common sense when you come down to it. if you see a man falling and he gets up and walks away it doesn't matter that every other piece of evidence you have says he fell from 70 stories up straight down uninterrupted. you better examine him. You don't say "oh well I guess people can survive falling 70 stories" - and if he really is still intact with not even a scratch - yes its perfectly acceptable to begin questioning all the other things you thought you knew about how long he had been falling.

Soft tissue either can or cannot survive tens of millions of years but radiometric dating will have nothing to do with whether it can or cannot. If its just as impossible as the guy falling 70 stories and walking away unharmed then it will be time to throw out what we thought we knew - thats how science works.

[Mikeenders]

It's fun to see people call out logical fallacies when they clearly don't understand how the fallacy works. For this to be circular reasoning, we would have to be using the age of the soft tissue as evidence for the dating methods and the dating methods as evidence for the age of the tissue. The first part is not happening.

Its even funnier to see someone trying to correct calling out logical fallacies and still not getting how the fallacy works. For circular reasoning to apply we only need to start out with a premise that we conclude (regardless of what that premise is) with. If you start out with the premise that radiometric dating must be accurate (the whole point of contention) and conclude the dates as evidence that organic material does in fact last that long its circular - go do some reading on the subject of fallacies and come back

`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


Since the point flew way over your head the point being raised by those pointing to the soft tissue issue is that it disputes the dating system. Using the dating system to affirm itself is anyone's intelligent definition of circularity when the issue is whether the challenge against the dating system is valid or not.

[Carrikature]

Its even funnier to see someone trying to correct calling out logical fallacies and still not getting how the fallacy works. For circular reasoning to apply we only need to start out with a premise that we conclude (regardless of what that premise is) with. If you start out with the premise that radiometric dating must be accurate (the whole point of contention) and conclude the dates as evidence that organic material does in fact last that long its circular - go do some reading on the subject of fallacies and come back

`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Wikipedia is great for lots of things, but philosophy isn't one of them. This is completely wrong.

Your issue here isn't with the conclusion but with the premise. The argument is: Radiometric dating is correct -> radiometric dating places this material at this age -> this material is that age. You are claiming that the premise is invalid. That's fine, but this chain is not an example of circular reasoning. For it to be circular, the chain would have to be: Radiometric dating is correct -> radiometric dating places this material at this age -> this material is that age -> therefore radiometric dating is correct. No one is claiming that.

Since the point flew way over your head the point being raised by those pointing to the soft tissue issue is that it disputes the dating system. Using the dating system to affirm itself is anyone's intelligent definition of circularity when the issue is whether the challenge against the dating system is valid or not.

Except we're not using the dating system to affirm itself. That's silly. You're trying to claim that the soft tissue issue potentially invalidates radiometric dating, but the reality is that dating is on much firmer ground than that. There might be some sort of anomaly here, but radiometric dating isn't actually in question.

In order to use this soft tissue to show how radiometric dating doesn't work, you need to propose an alternative dating method that is consistent both with the organic decay concepts and which also works for things we know the age of. Until then, you don't actually have anything.

[Mikeenders]

Wikipedia is great for lots of things, but philosophy isn't one of them. This is completely wrong.

Wikipedia is fine for basic definitions of fallacies. Try google and stop being ridiculous..you are the one completely wrong

For it to be circular, the chain would have to be: Radiometric dating is correct -> radiometric dating places this material at this age -> this material is that age -> therefore radiometric dating is correct. No one is claiming that.

No sorry but you are clueless - circularity depends on the premise. the premise of the OP is that soft tissue cannot last that long so it is a challenge to radiometric dating. citing radiometric data as evidence that it can last that long ignores the premise and merely assumes your start position. in essence you're rebutting the position on the basis of your premise. that radiometric dating cannot be challenged.


Hence - circularity. What needs to be done to solve the issue is actually research the decay rates of soft tissue under various circumstances not assume that radiometric dating is beyond being challenged. Again saying we have evidence that soft tissue can last that long because it did is nothing more than an affirmation not an evidence. In science one should never get to the point where certainty is assumed that all other real data must bend to and be manipulated by.

You're trying to claim that the soft tissue issue potentially invalidates radiometric dating, but the reality is that dating is on much firmer ground than that

This is nonsense. In science EVERYTHING has to be open to POTENTIALLY being invalidated. its what makes science what it is - falsifiable. So you have one thing right - Yes I am saying it POTENTIALLY invalidates the radiometric dating system not that is already does. Just as Polonium has a decay rate so does everything particularly organic material. We need to find out what that is (again under various circumstances) not do the utter silliness of claiming one clock determines what the other must say. We might find they agree or that they disagree but thats how we do science

The facts are undeniable. Creationists didn't invent the issue. there was widespread doubt and controversy over soft tissue in the scientific community (Google is your friend) precisely because on plainly scientific grounds it was considered impossible for it to last that long. No new science has emerged to explain chemically how this process is slowed by 60+ million years. You are taking it on faith in what we think we know as fact.

There might be some sort of anomaly here, but radiometric dating isn't actually in question. In order to use this soft tissue to show how radiometric dating doesn't work, you need to propose an alternative dating method that is consistent both with the organic decay concepts and which also works for things we know the age of.

The only thing I need to do is perhaps encourage you to learn how to read. I don't have to propose anything since i am the open minded one. I say do more research because the creationist have a point not that they have the definitive proof. You are the one that make the ridiculous non scientific argument that there are things in science that can never ever be questioned.

[HMS_Beagle]

Its even funnier to see someone trying to correct calling out logical fallacies and still not getting how the fallacy works. For circular reasoning to apply we only need to start out with a premise that we conclude (regardless of what that premise is) with. If you start out with the premise that radiometric dating must be accurate (the whole point of contention) and conclude the dates as evidence that organic material does in fact last that long its circular - go do some reading on the subject of fallacies and come back

`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Since the point flew way over your head the point being raised by those pointing to the soft tissue issue is that it disputes the dating system. Using the dating system to affirm itself is anyone's intelligent definition of circularity when the issue is whether the challenge against the dating system is valid or not.

(facepalm) The dating system is not used to affirm itself. The values determine for this sample have no bearing on the accuracy or validity of the radiometric dating used itself. That radiometric dating is accurate has been confirmed 100x over in thousands of tests.

Suppose you found a piece of string you thought was 5" long. You get a 12" rule from the hardware store and measure the string. It turns out to be 6.5" long. That measurement casts zero doubt on the accuracy of the 12" rule because you're not using the string to calibrate the rule.

[HMS_Beagle]

We need to find out what that is (again under various circumstances) not do the utter silliness of claiming one clock determines what the other must say. We might find they agree or that they disagree but thats how we do science

You apparently are completely clueless on what radiometric dating is, how it has been tested over the last 75 years, and how it works. What's utterly silly, strike that, flat out dumb is claiming in this case one clock is being used to determine what the other must say.

[Mikeenders]

(facepalm) The dating system is not used to affirm itself.

Lol I take it school is still out? Leave the sophomoric expressions for the schoolyard HMS. Among adults they make no point

The values determine for this sample have no bearing on the accuracy or validity of the radiometric dating used itself. That radiometric dating is accurate has been confirmed 100x over in thousands of tests.

If a piece of paper can only last a million years then yes dating a piece of paper to two million years would invalidate the dating system. Sorry go and learn some science. Every consensus theory that has been invalidated after time had been confirmed over and over again until it wasn't. Thats why almost everything in science is provisional. Its what makes it falsifiable a key component for science. claiming that something in fact anything cannot be questioned is nonsense.

Suppose you found a piece of string you thought was 5" long. You get a 12" rule from the hardware store and measure the string. It turns out to be 6.5" long. That measurement casts zero doubt on the accuracy of the 12" rule because you're not using the string to calibrate the rule.

oh dear. I think you need to sit down and learn to think things through. If I had a 6.5" long thread that had been 10" long and was expected to shrink each year by an inch and I had it for ten years then yes it would very much cast doubt and be reason to study and question how accurate the ruler was. did a light bulb come on?

its one potential dating apparatus against the other

[Mikeenders]

You apparently are completely clueless on what radiometric dating is, how it has been tested over the last 75 years, and how it works. What's utterly silly, strike that, flat out dumb is claiming in this case one clock is being used to determine what the other must say.

Yep Thankgiving holiday and school is still out for you I guess. If you say that radiometric dating ( a clock in this reference) gives you indication that organic material can last 65 million years (deterioration of organic material being another potential clock) then you are using one rate to measure another.

Simple and elementary so don't bother using the word dumb. It will tend to highlight your own obvious deficiencies. Ask whenever you get lost is a better strategy.

[HMS_Beagle]

Lol I take it school is still out? Leave the sophomoric expressions for the schoolyard HMS. Among adults they make no point

When you want to start making adult points let us know.

If a piece of paper can only last a million years then yes dating a piece of paper to two million years would invalidate the dating system.

No, it wouldn't. All it would show is that the assumption the paper could only last a million years was wrong. Darn but you're a dense one. Were you home schooled by any chance? Never been within 1000 yards of a science classroom?

Sorry go and learn some science. Every consensus theory that has been invalidated after time had been confirmed over and over again until it wasn't. Thats why almost everything in science is provisional. Its what makes it falsifiable a key component for science. claiming that something in fact anything cannot be questioned is nonsense

No one said that science isn't provisional. But one outlier measurement that has a reasonable explanation doesn't invalidate the *millions* of other test and measurement results that have been confirmed.

oh dear. I think you need to sit down and learn to think things through. If I had a 6.5" long thread that had been 10" long and was expected to shrink each year by an inch and I had it for ten years then yes it would very much cast doubt and be reason to study and question how accurate the ruler was.

LOL! No, it wouldn't either. It would mean your assumption about the shrinkage was wrong. There are not just two data points, the previously hypothesized protein maximum date and the radiometric reading. There are millions of data points for radiometric dating being correct. You just can't seem to grasp that simple concept.

did a light bulb come on?

Your knowledge of how science works hasn't yet made it to the age of electricity.

[HMS_Beagle]

Yep Thankgiving holiday and school is still out for you I guess. If you say that radiometric dating ( a clock in this reference) gives you indication that organic material can last 65 million years (deterioration of organic material being another potential clock) then you are using one rate to measure another.

Simple and elementary so don't bother using the word dumb. It will tend to highlight your own obvious deficiencies. Ask whenever you get lost is a better strategy.

Sorry but radiometric dating isn't just a clock. It's an entire system of well tested and verified scientific measurement capability that been in use for over 75 years. The assumption that biologic material couldn't last into the millions of year was an unverified hypothesis that has now been disproven.

Gotta love mouthy Creationist teenagers whose arrogance is only exceeded by their ignorance.

[Mikeenders]

No, it wouldn't. All it would show is that the assumption the paper could only last a million years was wrong.

ROFL...what are they teaching in Junior high these days? If you find paper two million years old when paper cannot last that long it would be a dead giveaway that you were being duped. how about some milk from 2,000 years ago. Looks like it still good. that would prove that milk can last 2,000 years? or umm that the date is wrong?.....lol....hilarious stuff.

But one outlier measurement that has a reasonable explanation

and what would that be? I have popcorn so please tell us the science of how the soft tissue doesn't decay after 65 million years.

in fact let me see if i have any of that 2,000 year old milk for you to drink. darn thing hasn't even curdled...

LOL! No, it wouldn't either. It would mean your assumption about the shrinkage was wrong.

Poor wet behind the ears one.....That would be ONE option but not a necessary one. Stay in school and learn some more about science. In real science you would not look at one hypothesis but multiple and one of them would be that that the ruler was off. You would not just assume it was correct or you would be a bad scientist.

Same thing here. Not saying that the decay rate of proteins and soft issue etc would in fact not be found to be consistent with 60+ million years (although its getting very common place to be explained easily) but you do that by actually researching the deterioration rates using test not assumptions even from radiometric dating. Thats how new discoveries are made and how real science is done. keep learning. You just might understand what makes science science one day.

[Mikeenders]

Sorry but radiometric dating isn't just a clock. It's an entire system of well tested and verified scientific measurement capability that been in use for over 75 years

HAHAHAHA...radiometric dating isn't just a clock.

yes poor soul a dating system is a clock. A dating system's sole purpose is to measure time in one sense or the other. Google is your friend. Gotta love clueless teenage atheists on christian boards. The entertainment is off the charts!

The assumption that biologic material couldn't last into the millions of year was an unverified hypothesis that has now been disproven.

nice try but scientists didn't have doubts based on assumptions with nothing behind them. No one dreamed that they could last that long because the SCIENCE of how cells break down was and are well known. nothing has been disproven. No science of cells have changed. What we have now is the ASSUMPTION that they last that long with no real science that shows how they last that long. You can say that one day that will be discovered and the YEC (i am actually more OEC leaning) can say that one day something about variability of radiometric dating will be discovered. stale mate.

meanwhile researching rather than just assuming is what science is all about. Nothing changes that. The YEC have a point here (not a proof). 60+ Million years is a long time. We know how quickly organic material decays even in a thousand years. Multiplying that 60,000+ times and soft tissue becoming prevalent all over the world is a valid issue to research not just assume and brush off.