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

[Mikeenders]

LOL! Same muddle-headed "logic". Sorry but finding mineralized soft tissue in fossils does nothing to challenge any of the known physical mechanisms of radioactive decay which radiometric dating is based on.

doesn't have to change any of the known physical mechanisms. the reason why we do science and research is to discover new things not stick to the known. try and think for a change.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

You are missing the forest for the trees. One of the basic principles of science set forth by Newton early on is that we do not pursue and outlier hypothesis for philosophical reasons when a much simpler and much more probable (as implied by the data itself) hypothesis will do. In this case, that means that given the data I outlined it is far more likely there are mechanisms that allow for preservation of the tissue than that the fossil is itself only a few thousands of years old. New data may change that result, but the existing data do not.

Jim

[Mikeenders]

MINERALIZED soft tissue. Not hunks of red raw meat just laying there.

Strawman and bared face lying on your part again. No one in this thread has ever said anything about red raw meat. You might try that nonsense juvenile lying on one of your atheist teen boards but however we disagree this is a christian forum and lying is not looked on kindly by anyone here

But it does establish that the layers were deposited sequentially over great millions of years and not in a 4500 year ago FLUD.

and why would I care since I don't think the stratigraphy layers are solely attributable to a flood like some (even most) YECs. Lol its quite obvious you only no how to handle 6,000 year old the flood did it creationists and fire blanks when that is not the case.

[HMS_Beagle]

doesn't have to change any of the known physical mechanisms. the reason why we do science and research is to discover new things not stick to the known. try and think for a change.

Then you admit there's no reason to doubt radiometric dating just because we found an older preserved biological sample. Try and think for the very first time.

[HMS_Beagle]

Strawman and bared face lying on your part again. No one in this thread has ever said anything about red raw meat. You might try that nonsense juvenile lying on one of your atheist teen boards but however we disagree this is a christian forum and lying is not looked on kindly by anyone here

I'll let the readers judge for themselves who's the lying blowhard.

and why would I care since I don't think the stratigraphy layers are solely attributable to a flood like some (even most) YECs. Lol its quite obvious you only no how to handle 6,000 year old the flood did it creationists and fire blanks when that is not the case.

You forgot to give us your explanation for angular unconformities. I suppose that's because you're ignorant of geology and don't know.

[Mikeenders]

You are missing the forest for the trees. One of the basic principles of science set forth by Newton early on is that we do not pursue and outlier hypothesis for philosophical reasons when a much simpler and much more probable (as implied by the data itself) hypothesis will do.
Jim

Total gibberish Jim. the claim that biological material does not last that long was not an outlier hypothesis made up by creationists. When the find was discovered it was widely attacked by the world's scientist because the outlier was that organic material could survive that long. One of the basic principles of logic is that you actually know what you are talking about and you obviously don't. The world's scientists did not object at first for "philosophical reasons" as you made up to suit your own bias but based on what was known of the science of decay. since then nothing has changed in that science. It is simply assumed that it must be the case because it disagrees with radiometric dating.

Learn where the forest is before you claim anyone is ignoring the trees or the forest you are talking about.

[Mikeenders]

Then you admit there's no reason to doubt radiometric dating just because we found an older preserved biological sample.

Why would I admit to that simply because you are incapable of understanding what the word "known" means? Your point is silly to say the least. You never stop doing research or questioning based upon what is known. You continue to research so can learn what is not known.

[HMS_Beagle]

Total gibberish Jim. the claim that biological material does not last that long was not an outlier hypothesis made up by creationists. When the find was discovered it was widely attacked by the world's scientist because the outlier was that organic material could survive that long.

It was at first greeted critically until Schweitzer and her colleagues provided sufficient scientific evidence to make the case. That's how all new scientific discoveries proceed.

One of the basic principles of logic is that you actually know what you are talking about and you obviously don't. The world's scientists did not object at first for "philosophical reasons" as you made up to suit your own bias but based on what was known of the science of decay. since then nothing has changed in that science. It is simply assumed that it must be the case because it disagrees with radiometric dating.

You seem to be one of the more scientifically ignorant Creationists to come through here. Do you do anything besides pass gas and bluster?

[Mikeenders]

I'll let the readers judge for themselves who's the lying blowhard.

I suspect the Christian ones here already have (because they have a commitment to honesty where you have no moral compass) and know you are a bared faced liar to claim anyone said anything about red meat as you alleged.

[HMS_Beagle]

Why would I admit to that simply because you are incapable of understanding what the word "known" means? Your point is silly to say the least. You never stop doing research or questioning based upon what is known. You continue to research so can learn what is not known.

Well then, go ahead and do the research that shows everything science knows about the physics of radioactive decay is wrong. Publish your results in a professional scientific journal and be famous. What's stopping you?

[HMS_Beagle]

I suspect the Christian ones here already have (because they have a commitment to honesty where you have no moral compass) and know you are a bared faced liar to claim anyone said anything about red meat as you alleged.

I agree the Christians here already know who the liar is.

[Mikeenders]

It was at first greeted critically until Schweitzer and her colleagues provided sufficient scientific evidence to make the case. That's how all new scientific discoveries proceed.

Schwietzer made the case that what she found was what she claimed she found. the scientist of the world were in denial of that. She has however made no case for how long that material can possibly last. Her only explanation has been that the presence of iron can preserve some materials a few years not 80 million years. Besides that she has made no scientific discovery about organic decay. Sorry. I know you want what you claim to be true but it flops again.

[oxmixmudd]

Total gibberish Jim. the claim that biological material does not last that long was not an outlier hypothesis made up by creationists. When the find was discovered it was widely attacked by the world's scientist because the outlier was that organic material could survive that long. One of the basic principles of logic is that you actually know what you are talking about and you obviously don't. The world's scientists did not object at first for "philosophical reasons" as you made up to suit your own bias but based on what was known of the science of decay. since then nothing has changed in that science. It is simply assumed that it must be the case because it disagrees with radiometric dating.

Learn where the forest is before you claim anyone is ignoring the trees or the forest you are talking about.

My post responded to your rebuke over me presenting the situation as a bijection. That we must chose between the hypothesis fossil being old or that the kinds of organic tissue found in the fossil have a significantly shorter maximum survival time than the hypothesised date.

But in fact the two are mutually exclusive hypothesis. The fossil can't be old AND the tissue have a survival time orders of magnitude shorter than that same age. What forces the decision is not 'science', it is the simple logic that when the fact the fossil can't have been inserted into the sedimentary rock it is found in after that same rock has formed, the two hypothesis simply can not both be true. They can both be false of course, but they can not both be true.

So if you wish to add the possibility BOTH are wrong, then we can indeed add a third choice. But THAT choice is no more palatable to the YEC than that the fossil is actually old and the tissue can survive that long, hence I saw no need to include it into my original post on the subject.

And to be more to the point, my argument was addressing the implication irrational bias drive the rejection of the conclusion the preserved tissue casts doubt on the radiometric dates. This simply is not the case. Based on the data we have, the more likely correct conclusion is that tissue of the sorts found can survive longer than previously assumed*.

Jim

*after having pursued the possibility the tissue is not preserved tissue at all, which is effectively the current state of this particular line of research

[HMS_Beagle]

Schwietzer made the case that what she found was what she claimed she found. the scientist of the world were in denial of that.

Eventually she and others did, but not at first. There were legitimate concerns over contamination producing false positives. I and many other science professionals have followed the case in the published scientific literature from the beginning. You apparently got your "knowledge" by reading YEC websites. That explains why you're both so clueless and so arrogant in your ignorance.

[rogue06]

Paul called some heretics and compromisers.

Because they were heretics and compromisers not because they disagreed over what is essentially a minor issue that does not effect whether one is saved or not. And again, while you're squawking and squeaking and whining about non YECS you really ought to be looking at your own house. It is among YECs that you will most likely find the "hate brimming over" for anyone who is not like them (a YEC). That does not mean that OECs and TEs are beyond reproach but rather that you are looking in the wrong direction if you really want to see what you are complaining about. It is rampant in the YEC camp.

Matthew 7:3-5; cf. Luke 6:41-42 springs to mind.