Radiometric Dating: Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods

[FallenLord]

(Readers will excuse the humorously intended title.)

Researching the discussion on the work of Schweitzer et al concerning "Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex" has proved entertaining on the whole. One item which particularly caught my attention was this paragraph by Dr. Hurd, over at yonder Talk Origins.

Center stage is the YEC fallacy that organic remains recovered from ancient bone forces the conclusion that these bones must be recent. As Wieland phrased the issue,

"The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in "millions of years". The long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) "70 million years".
Wieland concluded,

"I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.*7

*7. Some dinosaur fossils could have formed in post-Flood local catastrophes."
It is hard to imagine for anyone trained in the rigor of science that Wieland could offer as an apparent concession the notion that "Some dinosaur fossils could have formed in post-Flood local catastrophes." It is hard to imagine Wieland is serious when considering that by "post-Flood," he means that there are dinosur remains floating about that are less than 4000 years old. What is inconceivable is that Wieland is honestly ignorant that the dates associated with the age of these remains are not related to their condition. The age of the specific T. rex bone which was the principle database for Schweitzer et al is not based on either its macro- or microscopic appearance but of the age of the rock that it was found in, "... the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8 m above the Fox Hills Sandstone, as an association of disarticulated elements." The appearance of soft tissue, hard tissue or no tissue has no bearing in the age of this material- organic or inorganic. What is the basis for these age determinations is the independent existence of geochemical "clocks" known as radiometric dating. Professional creationists and their prey simply reject radiometric dates, which has always seemed to me to be an odd logical contradiction, or in an anthropological term: cognitive dissonance. If these people are able to ignore geology, chemistry and physics, why do they even bother to lie about biology? Why does Wieland, having left the universe of chemists, physicists, and geologists (the rest of the sciences one also assumes), feel compelled to lie about paleontology, and evolutionary biology?

...

So, the MOR 1125 femur reported by Schweitzer et al happens to be one of the better dated dinosaur bones known to exist. The independently established age of this bone is based on 86 separate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series. It doesn't get much better than that.

It does not matter what the bones look like, or what is in them. If Wieland and his deluded followers want to dispute the age of this fossil, or the Earth, or the Universe, they cannot use the presence or absence of organic tissues among their "evidences."Emphasis added.

Inasmuch as radiometric dating techniques are fine and dandy, I find that Hurd's assertion of 'radiometric alone, damnit!' closely mirrors the religiously narrow-minded views of the...religious. Sixty-five million year old tissue is unexpected for a reason. (Radiocarbon analysis of the tissue could have interesting results.)

What do you think of Hurd's view that 'it doesn't matter what's in the bones'?

References:
Hurd: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
Wieland: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
Moore: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/dinosaur_blood_revisited.shtml
Schweitzer et al: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1952

[Neo]

I don't understand what the point of this was?

What are you trying to say? Didnt really understand.

Its not surprising to me at least that creationist wouldn't like anything logical -_-

-Neo

[Cyberspirit]

Fallenlord, you miss the point.

The scientists were just trying to explain the simple fact that, " you cannot judge the age of a fossil by its condition without confirming it with radiometric dating."

Yes, most people do not expect 65 million year old tissue.

That is all the more reason for scientists to remind us that not all fossils from the same time are preserved in the same conditions, etc.

Think of the Egyptian mummies, and the trilobite fossils.

They are very well preserved, but they are older than similarly well preserved corpses or fossils.

Since dating by fossil conditions is so unreliable, what is wrong with asserting, " Radiometric alone, damnit ! " ?
though in the passage you quoted, I cannot find a sentence that can be interpreted so. You have missed the point.

Look at the definition of radiometric dating: independent existence of geochemical "clocks".
Does this look like a "narrow-minded" definition to you ?

Look at the following :


Professional creationists and their prey simply reject radiometric dates, which has always seemed to me to be an odd logical contradiction, or in an anthropological term: cognitive dissonance. If these people are able to ignore geology, chemistry and physics, why do they even bother to lie about biology?


How would you explain the importance of radiometric dating to such people ? Are you going to say, " I respect what you believe, so go ahead and use the presence or absence of organic tissues among your evidences." ?
...

Anyways, thanks for showing us this article and the links. Very informative.

[FallenLord]

The scientists were just trying to explain the simple fact that, " you cannot judge the age of a fossil by its condition without confirming it with radiometric dating."Wrong. Hurd actually spends the entire selection raving that the fossil's "condition" is absolutely irrelevant. Concordantly, my question is whether people find him to be in exaggeration.

Since dating by fossil conditions is so unreliable, what is wrong with asserting, " Radiometric alone, damnit ! " ?The entire point, which Wieland makes violently clear, is that fossil conditions (such as said tissue) may severely contradict radiometric techniques. Without further ado or explanation, Hurd argues that "conditions" should be categorically ignored.

though in the passage you quoted, I cannot find a sentence that can be interpreted so.I summed up the entire selection.

Fallenlord, you miss the point.Okay.

[GenocideAlive]

I think I miss the point too. Why is "Flood" being captalized?

[Cyberspirit]

I think Flood refers to the Great Deluge talked about in most mythologies.

And as to Fallenlord's question,

Hurd actually spends the entire selection raving that the fossil's "condition" is absolutely irrelevant. Concordantly, my question is whether people find him to be in exaggeration.


Condition is irrelevant when it comes to dating. Fossils do not decay in the same way as organic corpses. Sure, there was organic material in the T.Rex fossil described, but that was preserved in fossilised bone. Scientists are giving it attention because it allows us deeper understanding of T.Rex physiology, not because it tells us anything about the time it was fossilised.

If you disagree, give evidence that a certain fossil was actually dated by its "condition".

The passage you provided was talking about the age of fossils, so I assume it does not say that fossil conditions are always irrelevant.

Or perhaps I am confused. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

[FallenLord]

GenocideAlive:

Schweitzer finds soft tissue inside a T-rex bone.
Wieland points out that it is "inconceivable" for soft tissue to survive 70 million years.
Hurd blasts Wieland for blaspheming radiometric techniques.
FallenLord wonders whether anyone thinks Hurd is a narrow-minded dogmatic.
Why is "Flood" being captalized?Noah's Flood.

...

Cyberspirit:

Condition is irrelevant when it comes to dating.Finding soft tissue in a 70 million y/o fossil is like finding a soda can in a 70 million y/o fossil. It's contradictory. Or so Wieland claims.

The passage you provided was talking about the age of fossils, so I assume it does not say that fossil conditions are always irrelevant.Why assume when you could simply read it and be correct.

[Cyberspirit]

Or so Wieland claims.

Exactly.
The "soft tissue" can be shown to be part of the fossilised animal.
The "soda can" cannot.
Who decides what is "contradictory" about dinosaur fossils ? Wieland ?

For all we know, certain intelligent dinosaurs could be making soft drinks 70 million years ago.
If the fossils show that, then there is nothing "contradictory" about it.

Why assume when you could simply read it and be correct.

You wonder "whether anyone thinks Hurd is a narrow-minded dogmatic."
I do not think so, because in my interpretation, the passage only talks about "condition" being useless in determining the fossil's age, which is true.

However, you may have a slightly different interpretation of the passage, which causes you to think that Hurd is being a bit narrow-minded.

Which of us can say that he/she is "correct" ?

I agree with the main argument of the passage, but my English is not good enough for me to scrutinize every phrase in the passage and infer if the author himself is being biased, narrow-minded, rude or whatever. To me he does not seem so.

[FallenLord]

Who decides what is "contradictory" about dinosaur fossils ? Wieland ?Weiland didn't decide that soft tissue doesn't last 70 million years, he's simply pointing it out. Everyone knows it doesn't. We have passed well beyond the range of tolerances and landed smack in common sense. (You may recognize that Wieland is forced to point this out because proponents of long ages would, in excellent scientific fashion, otherwise ignore it.)

I do not think so, because in my interpretation, the passage only talks about "condition" being useless in determining the fossil's age, which is true.While you naturally have the right to agree with Hurd, I expect you to admit that you have no idea why you do. Why should radiometric dates be blindly accepted in the face of obviously contradictory physical evidence? Hurd offers no explanation (this is why I call him narrow-minded and dogmatic). Will you?

[GenocideAlive]

1. Schweitzer finds soft tissue inside a T-rex bone.
2. Wieland points out that it is "inconceivable" for soft tissue to survive 70 million years.
3. Hurd blasts Wieland for blaspheming radiometric techniques.
4. FallenLord wonders whether anyone thinks Hurd is a narrow-minded dogmatic.
Yeah, that was pretty much sarcasm. Any time I see people refer to "flood" in a scientific article and capitalize it, my bullshit alarm goes 4 alarm fire. No scientist would directly source Biblical events as an explanation for natural phenomena; no need to continue reading.

Edit: By the way, your sig is great. And by "great" I mean competing with Link's in terms of gobbling space and bordering on criminally boring.

[Cyberspirit]

Ah, now I see the main point of your argument.


Weiland didn't decide that soft tissue doesn't last 70 million years, he's simply pointing it out. Everyone knows it doesn't.

The burden of proof is on you. What makes it impossible for isolated soft tissue to last 70 million years ?
Entire corpses are near impossible to preserve,
but the scientists were only talking about little pieces of soft tissue.
That is still at ( or lower than ) the level of prehistoric spores or insects preserved in amber.


Why should radiometric dates be blindly accepted in the face of obviously contradictory physical evidence? Hurd offers no explanation (this is why I call him narrow-minded and dogmatic). Will you?


The organic material was found in thefossilised T.Rex bones. There was nothing to break it down or eat it up.
It does not contradict anything.
Decomposition means " decay ", NOT " total destruction ".

Fossilisation does not specifically eliminate organic remains.
Usually we do not find organic material in fossils because they were eaten up or worn off even before the organism became fossilised.
The soft T.Rex tissue was protected from all this, so it was preserved. Nothing to get shocked about.
I have read of perfectly preserved leaves found in prehistoric tar pits, complete with their original colours. They slowly turned brown and gradually crumbled the moment they were exposed to air.

And unless you prove that there was a gross error in the radiometric dates, how can you say that they were " blindly accepted " ?

[FallenLord]

That is still at ( or lower than ) the level of prehistoric spores or insects preserved in amber.

The organic material was found in thefossilised T.Rex bones.

Decomposition means " decay ", NOT " total destruction ".

Fossilisation does not specifically eliminate organic remains.

Usually we do not find organic material in fossils because they were eaten up or worn off even before the organism became fossilised.

The soft T.Rex tissue was protected from all this, so it was preserved. Nothing to get shocked about.It is perfectly obvious that you do not even understand what fossilization is, stop pretending you do. And I am certainly not going to educate you - go read a book.

The burden of proof is on you. What makes it impossible for isolated soft tissue to last 70 million years ?Entropy and the fact that it would all be fossilized eons earlier. Don't babble about "burden of proof," please.

[Cyberspirit]

Usually we do not find organic material in fossils because they were eaten up or worn off even before the organism became fossilised.

Correction:" soft tissue ", not " organic material "

Sorry about that. :D

Entropy and the fact that it would all be fossilized eons earlier.

By entropy, you mean that the tissue would break down sooner or later.

Even broken down, where would the residue go ?

In most times they are lost and replaced by minerals,
but noone said that it always happens that way.

As I said: soft tissue is still at ( or lower than ) the level of prehistoric spores or insects preserved in amber.

By your argument then, due to entropy :
the prehistoric Mesozoic ants preserved in amber should all have broken down into insignificant dust by now.
the layer of ketone found in the fossilised exoskeleton of prehistoric scorpions should not still glow under ultraviolet light.
...

Yes, I babbled about " burden of proof " and "pretend" to know things, but I also give my own examples to prove my point.

Show me an example of a fossil that was successfully dated by its condition.

BTW, It seems you have already made up your mind on the topic.

Yes, it is "hard" to believe that soft tissue can last 70 million years.
But I find it even harder to see how an isolated T.Rex fossil should be dated to recent times by its condition ( which is more affected by preservation than time ), while more reliable methods tell us that it is 70 million years old.

Narrow minded or not, I have every reason to agree with the author.
Sorry again.
...

GenocideAlive:
Yeah, that was pretty much sarcasm. Any time I see people refer to "flood" in a scientific article and capitalize it, my bullshit alarm goes 4 alarm fire

Whether the Flood happened or not, the author was not citing it as a fact, but to talk about something that Wieland believed in:

" It is hard to imagine Wieland is serious when considering that by ' post Flood ', he means that there are dinosaur remains floating about that are less than 4000 years old. "

Maybe I am confused, but I think your bullshit alarm is overly sensitive. ;)

[GenocideAlive]

It is hard to imagine Wieland is serious when considering that by ' post Flood ', he means that there are dinosaur remains floating about that are less than 4000 years old.

Maybe I am confused, but I think your bullshit alarm is overly sensitive. ;)
I repeat: anyone that capitalizes the word "flood" is referring to a Biblical source. Anybody referring to Biblical source while attempting to make a scientific point isn't worth hearing out.

[FallenLord]

Correction:" soft tissue ", not " organic material "Tissue is organic.

Even broken down, where would the residue go ?Amazingly, the residual would break down too. The soft tissues they found are the residuals that hadn't fossilized or "broken down" yet.

In most times they are lost and replaced by minerals,
but noone said that it always happens that way.

As I said: soft tissue is still at ( or lower than ) the level of prehistoric spores or insects preserved in amber.What, exactly, is preventing our already largely fossilized bone from fossilizing all the way?

By your argument then, due to entropy :
the prehistoric Mesozoic ants preserved in amber should all have broken down into insignificant dust by now.
the layer of ketone found in the fossilised exoskeleton of prehistoric scorpions should not still glow under ultraviolet light.Are we talking about soft dino tissue or amber ants and ketone layers? Not the same thing, strawman.

Show me an example of a fossil that was successfully dated by its condition.Radiometric dating techniques do not produce truth. They produce data which is interpreted to be correct. Fossils are not "successfully" dated as this implies the date is "true."

BTW, It seems you have already made up your mind on the topic.If you didn't lack the capacity to see both sides of the issue, I wouldn't need to give that appearance. You obviously haven't the foggiest clue as to what Wieland is saying or why he is saying it, and you need to be corrected.

Yes, it is "hard" to believe that soft tissue can last 70 million years.
But I find it even harder to see how an isolated T.Rex fossil should be dated to recent times by its condition ( which is more affected by preservation than time ), while more reliable methods tell us that it is 70 million years old.There is obviously nothing which would have preserved the tissue. It should have fossilized, like the rest of the bone.

Narrow minded or not, I have every reason to agree with the author.You have not and will not give any explanation as to why inexplicable soft-tissue should be ignored. (The T-rex was not contained in amber, as you may recognize.)

...

GenocideAlive:

Mindless sheep, take your closed mind and shove it. You have nothing to add anyway. (You probably think "scientific evidence for the Flood" is a contradiction in terms.)

[TheBB]

(The T-rex was not contained in amber, as you may recognize.)

But the soft tissue, which is the whole basis of your shaky argument, while not contained in amber was contained in bones. (They were, weren't they? I haven't read the whole thing). There it can survive much longer.

[GenocideAlive]

Mindless sheep, take your closed mind and shove it. You have nothing to add anyway. (You probably think "scientific evidence for the Flood" is a contradiction in terms.)
Waitasec. Aren't you a proud, Bible-thumping member of the community that gladly terms itself "the flock", calls their religious figures "shepherds", and openly admits that you won't contradict what the Bible nor your god has decreed?

And yes, "scientific evidence for the Flood" is a fucking joke. The only people that believe it are people that don't understand what they're looking at or take their "sources" at face value. Seriously, I'm laughing right now. You seriously think that jesus made the dinosaurs or somesuch stupid shit. Some dude with a degree in ID learned some science doublespeak and sold you and a ton of other blind retards a bunch of snakeoil, pal.

And considering the content of the thread thus far, even skippy's spam could add to this bullshit smoke-and-mirrors thread.

[FallenLord]

I hardly expected people to demonstrate a total misunderstanding of various basic concepts, ranging from the definitions of "fossilization" and "narrow minded" to the fact that scientists everywhere where naturally surprised by the find. (Concordantly, I did not expect anyone to argue out of this ignorance.)

I am not advocating or opposing the issue, as may be obviously seen from my objective original post.

Sadly, no one bothered to read the links I posted. Our resident flamer would have found plenty of partisan ammunition, but in his raving dogmatism he failed to realize I would provide information relevant to both sides of the issue. (Since I, unlike him, am interested in learning.)

...

TheBB
But the soft tissue, which is the whole basis of your shaky argument, while not contained in amber was contained in bones. (They were, weren't they? I haven't read the whole thing). There it can survive much longer.The processes which caused most of it to fossilize should have caused all of it to fossilize. Please avoid throwing around phrases like "shaky argument" in the same paragraph where you admit you didn't read everything.

...

Geno:

Flamers are so easy to troll. Get out my thread, pathetic tool. Or should I string you along some more?

[GenocideAlive]

Sadly, no one bothered to read the links I posted.
Gee, I wonder why--is it because you've already come out on this issue, uhm, 200+ times in favor of one side every time? I'm thinking so, Timmy. All of a sudden you're interested in an "unbiased" debate in regard to proving or disproving Biblical contentions based on a few scientists squabbling? You can't have any ulterior motives, can you...:rolleyes:

There goes my bullshit alarm again!

Quik-E-Mart:

*Ding*

"Come again..."

[TheBB]

The processes which caused most of it to fossilize should have caused all of it to fossilize. Please avoid throwing around phrases like "shaky argument" in the same paragraph where you admit you didn't read everything.

I meant I didn't read everything that Hurd / Hard / Hord whatever guy wrote. Everything you have coughed up I am completely familiar with.

Now, however, I did read it and it didn't offer much new. Anyway... nowhere in your quote does it say the bones in question were fossilized. In any case, fossilization can occur in many different ways, and it is not obvious that in all those different ways, all of the organism should be mineralized in the process.

The answer to your original question, from me, would then be:

I agree with Hurd.

Organic decay has been demonstrated to proceed in surprisingly many different rates depending on the environment.

Radioactive decay has not.

If "86 separate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series" agree on the dating, we have three different ways to act:

1. Accept that soft tissue may in rare cases actually survive for so long, however surprising, and move along with our business.
2. Assume that the tissue somehow got stuck in the bone at a later date.
3. Assume that "86 separate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series" not only simultaneously failed to produce the right dating, but also gave the same wrong answer, despite tantamount odds and not ever having happened before.

In the spirit of science, #1 is clearly the best choice. The others require us to adopt complicated detours and strange theories to avoid a result we don't want. #1 implies a result we may not want, but which may still be right. Right?

After all, this is how we found out the Earth went around the Sun and not the other way around. This is how science has been done for centuries, with great success, and there's no reason to stop here, because of a bagatelle like this.

[Cyberspirit]

GenocideAlive:
Anybody referring to Biblical source while attempting to make a scientific point isn't worth hearing out.

You were referring to Wieland ?

Fallenlord:
If you didn't lack the capacity to see both sides of the issue, I wouldn't need to give that appearance. You obviously haven't the foggiest clue as to what Wieland is saying or why he is saying it, and you need to be corrected.

You held that view all along ?
Do not take my courtesy for granted.
I refrain from personal attacks because I do not assume anything about your personality.
And I am sure you are not proud of making destructive comments.

You have not and will not give any explanation as to why inexplicable soft-tissue should be ignored.

Why does it always appear inexplicable to you ? :confused:

Well, it appears to me inexplicable that you should dismiss all my examples and attempts at logical explanation, and say that I have not explained anything,
even though you have provided little evidence to support your own argument.

I am not angry. Just tired.

I thank you for raising an interesting topic for us to discuss,
but if you intend to prove a point,
you cannot just sit there and dismiss whatever everyone else says,
and then claim that you are the most "clear headed" without elaboration.
show us something to stun us, dumbfound us, freak us out, anything ...

Oh, BTW, do not get distracted by GenocideAlive. She/he always has a reason to "criticise" someone else's posts anyway. ;)

[FallenLord]

TheBB:
In any case, fossilization can occur in many different ways, and it is not obvious that in all those different ways, all of the organism should be mineralized in the process.Acknowledged; there are different fossilization processes (obviously), but that's a highly ambiguous statement nevertheless. Discussion as to what you mean by "not obvious" would be edifying. Do you have a particularly non-obvious instance in mind?

Organic decay has been demonstrated to proceed in surprisingly many different rates depending on the environment.Naturally. But this is also an ambiguous statement, circumventing the proposition that the rates are 'not slow enough.' Would you like to discuss limiting cases for these rates?

...

I agree with latter section of your post, particularly your set of logical outcomes. Furthermore, I agree that radiometric techniques have been generally accepted and established as standards. Hopefully having covered my bases, I will now say that I was hoping to skip through all of that and go directly into the two real subjects for discussion (which you have already hinted at):

The limits of known chemical breakdown rates (as opposed to theoretical or postulated rates), which may contradict radiometric techniques. (But be anomalous exceptions.) A convergence of the reliability of radiometric techniques and the reliability of chemical breakdown rates, given that the two contradict "severely."
Concerning #1, in one of his articles (not linked), Wieland states:But in any case, the main 'evidence' that biomolecules can last that long is that they have allegedly lasted that long. However, known rates of chemical breakdown show that this is allowing the presupposition to rule the data. ... Complex biomolecules are thermodynamically destined to fall apart eventually...even were they to be protected from all outside influences.I checked on his references, but the online journals require subscription for anything other than the abstract. Have you anything particularly relevant to interest me?

For #2, however accepted and justified radiometric techniques are, there may come a point where contradictory tissue evidence is equally scholarly and justified. Wieland clearly believes this point is several light-years behind us; clearly others do not. (On this note, evidently scientists are considering checking previously discovered fossils for overlooked soft tissues; they may not necessarily be as rare as believed.)
I think it is fair to say that such a point may come - particularly if more soft tissues are discovered (now that they are being looked for).

With respect to Hurd, he does not allow any wiggle room on the subject; this is what gave me pause when I read his article and the entire reason I made the thread. He professes that under no circumstances should anything other than radiometric techniques be considered and goes so far as to flame Wieland for disagreeing. (This is known as dogmatism.) Yet it seems reasonable to assume that other scholarly evidences may arise. (Such as, perhaps, the very evidence he derides.)

not only simultaneously failed to produce the right dating, but also gave the same wrong answer, despite tantamount odds and not ever having happened before.You may recognize that YEC creationists (Wieland) disagree with certain assumptions used in radiometric dating techniques, not the techniques themselves. From that perspective, this outcome is not necessarily contradictory; different assumptions are simply required.

...

Cyberspirit:
You were referring to Wieland ?And me.

You held that view all along ?
Do not take my courtesy for granted.
I refrain from personal attacks because I do not assume anything about your personality.
And I am sure you are not proud of making destructive comments.I am not proud of destructive comments directed at you, at least. It is nevertheless frustrating to wade through what seriously appears to be a lack of comprehension on your part.

Well, it appears to me inexplicable that you should dismiss all my examples and attempts at logical explanation, and say that I have not explained anything, even though you have provided little evidence to support your own argument.Firstly, "my own argument" (as you call it) was completely unrelated to all of my earlier posts - at that point I was attempting to show you Wieland's view, which you did not appear to understand.
Secondly, I "dismiss" your examples (which I didn't actually do) because you have presented them in a way which severely questions both your understanding of them and their relevance to the topic at hand.

Oh, BTW, do not get distracted by GenocideAlive. She/he always has a reason to "criticise" someone else's posts anywayThat is altogether too much to ask...

...

Geno:

Explaining a position is agreeing with it? It wasn't necessary to prove that you only listen to your choir-preacher; leave my thread for those who at least pretend to have open minds.

proving or disproving Biblical contentions based on a few scientists squabbling?And yet the only person babbling on about the Bible is you, Sir Closet Christian. (Sir 'Burn the Witches' Southern Baptist Bible Basher Closet Christian, for that matter.)

[GenocideAlive]

And yet the only person babbling on about the Bible is you, Sir Closet Christian.
My mistake. I thought someone was referring to "the Flood", as cited in the Bible. :)

[Cyberspirit]

given that the two contradict "severely."
however accepted and justified radiometric techniques are, there may come a point where contradictory tissue evidence is equally scholarly and justified.
I think it is fair to say that such a point may come - particularly if more soft tissues are discovered (now that they are being looked for).
All fossil and related evidence is scholarly and justified. The soft tissue is significant. It offers an opportunity to study T.Rex physiology in greater detail.
So yes, when more soft tissues are discovered, the paleontologists will be very excited.
Why ? because they will have the opportunity to study prehistoric animals' physiologies in greater detail.

Hmmm ... oh, yes, according to some Wieland supporters, the new findings will "revolutionize" our ideas about the age of fossils, 'cause according to the theory of entropy from the laws of thermodynamics, which "proves" that complex macromolecules will break down sooner or later, fossils with organic remains cannot be more than 70 million years old, even though everything else shows that they are ...
And Wieland himself will not comment on this because, if some Wieland supporters are right, his main point was just that we should not be " narrow-minded" and should realise that other "reliable" evidence contradict radiometric data ...

Yet it seems reasonable to assume that other scholarly evidences may arise. (Such as, perhaps, the very evidence he derides.)
Of course.
Every scientist assumes that.
Problem is: you can't dismiss the current most reliable method in favor of an unreliable method just because you assume that the latter will somehow become more reliable in the future.
And the condition of a fossil is already proven to be an unreliable indicator of a fossil's age.
You can cross that off the " possibly more-reliable-than-radiometrics age indicator " list.

From that perspective, this outcome is not necessarily contradictory; different assumptions are simply required.

And it is the radiometric scientists who have to change their assumptions right ?
Whatever Wieland assumed, he assumed right, right ?

you have presented them in a way which severely questions both your understanding of them and their relevance to the topic at hand.

Then show me examples that you understand and are more relevant.

If, after reading your examples, I still show an obvious lack of comprehension, then tell me to go kill myself.

For now, just show us your examples OK ? Or at least tell us where we can find them ( outside of Wieland's or Hurd's reports ).
Or maybe you have already given the examples but as you know the rest of us keep misunderstanding your points so please make the e.g.s clearer.
...

*panting and gasping for breath ...*

[TheBB]

What are Wielands assumptions on radiometric dating? Does anyone know?

[Cyberspirit]

Actually, I don't think Wieland ever found evidence to question the radiometric data.

All he did in his report was to emphasize that we should not be "blinded" by the " old-Earth paradigm", and insists that the " shocking " discovery of the soft tissue has disproved the old-Earth theory.

Yet, isn't the idea of " soft tissue can never survive that long " an even more ridiculous paradigm ? Ridiculous because noone actually calculated how long soft tissue can last in the worse conditions.

And Fallenlord, you keep insisting that the soft tissue evidence contradicts the current conclusions from radiometric data, but look here:


This is a very exciting and surprising discovery but not an inexplicable one. Under the right conditions, biomolecules can survive for millions of years. Therefore, in no way does this discovery demand a young-earth interpretation or prove dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago. Wieland suggests the reason that this sort of thing has not been found before is that the long-age paradigm has blinded researchers to that possibility. However, the truth of the matter is only now do we have the technology to do this type of research.

First paragraph of the Conclusion of "Dinosaur Blood Revisited" By Greg Moore (updated April 21, 2005)
(I did the bolding.)

Come to think of it, the T.Rex soft tissue was really not a surprising discovery at all.


The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation, including feathers, hair, color or color patterns, embryonic soft tissues, muscle tissue and/or internal organs, and cellular structure.12

From the report of the person who discovered the T.Rex soft tissue.


The dinosaur soft tissue was of the same complexity as all the above, so what's the big deal ?

The only thing new about it is that it is neither body covering, nor muscle, nor fat, nor innards ... , but blood vessels and blood cells, which we have not seen preserved for so long before.
And we are not even sure if it was preserved at the molecular level or just morphologically.

Before the discovery of feathered dinosaurs, nobody thought dinosaurs could have feathers.

[FallenLord]

TheBB:

Cynically, one might expect Weiland to accept assumptions with agree with his paradigm. In reality, YECs generally seem to claim that any/most/some of the necessary assumptions are not rigorously scientific because there are too many alleged unknowns factors. If you are interested in reading yourself, try answersingenesis.org. (Let the name be warning enough.)

...

Cyberspirit:

From now on, I ask that you only respond to the comments I direct at you. I don't believe my posts (or references, for that matter) are difficult to understand, so it's very tiresome to see you continually misinterpret them or take a line out of context and pick at it. I am trying to move this discussion into productive areas, not pointlessly rehash the same thing over and over. And for the love of pete, go look up what fossilization means.

...

Geno:

Cute.

[Neo]

Its really annoying when you refer to GA as Geno, considering that Geno is another mod -.-

Fallen I don't want to come across as wierd or anything, but what the hell? You post a thread, and then proceed to shoot down, or outright flame those that disagree with you (or even partially disagree?).

Yes you can term what you are doing as discussion or debating, but it can just as easily be termed as outright trolling and flaming.

Most people post topics to discuss them, not to bait and then insult others.

At any rate, I find it extremely hard to believe anything that comes from a true-hardcore Christian Scientest, I mean, do you really expect them to report things that run contrary to thier beliefs?

Then again thats not much different then mainstream science.

Meh I am rambling.

I find it fascinating that organic tissue may have survived for so long, do I find it hard to believe? Perhaps, is it impossible? No. I very rarely dismiss things out of hand, becuase personally, I feel that the universe, even our little bit of it, is so vast and "unknowable" that anything could happen. Now do I believe that neon pink and green pigs are going to sprout from the ground and fly around? No. But I do try to keep an open mind >_> (which is probably why me and religon didnt really mix well).

-Neo

[Cyberspirit]

Fallenlord:
From now on, I ask that you only respond to the comments I direct at you. I don't believe my posts (or references, for that matter) are difficult to understand, so it's very tiresome to see you continually misinterpret them or take a line out of context and pick at it. I am trying to move this discussion into productive areas, not pointlessly rehash the same thing over and over. And for the love of pete, go look up what fossilization means.

That was a comment directed at me, so I shall respond.

Yes, I continually misunderstand you.
but besides taking a line out of context and picking at it now and then. I was also asking you to convince us of your case. ( Examples, Fallenlord, examples ... )
Since we cannot convince you, you must have evidence that is more convincing than ours.

Alright, you said that your point was not to argue but to explain Wieland's points. And you were just asking if Hurd was being narrow-minded.
We said he was not. And that was where the argument started.
...

I think that NeoX's post was in way a reminder that we are getting too passionate about our arguments. This showed in our tone of speech.

So leaving all the fire and spears behind, let us consider how we shall make this discussion productive and objective. shall we, thread-starter ?
...

Fossilisation: The process of being preserved in rock, according to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.

[FallenLord]

Cyberspirit:
Alright, you said that your point was not to argue but to explain Wieland's points.I would like to argue/discuss my view. But if you don't understand Wieland, there's no way you could understand me. That is why I attempted to explain Wieland.

I was also asking you to convince us of your case. ( Examples, Fallenlord, examples ... )My position doesn't involve examples, it involves logic.

And you were just asking if Hurd was being narrow-minded.When I 'asked' that, I was responding to GenocideAlive. I was being sarcastic because Genocide's only involvement in the thread has been to bait and flame. The wording which Hurd uses in the quote is narrow-minded and dogmatic; those terms were invented to describe attitudes such as his.

We said he was not.Only you said that.

...

Loosely termed, fossilization is the process of converting 'something' into rock. In this case, a T-rex bone.

Please note that you unintentionally eviscerated the quote from Schweitzer, et al: The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation, including feathers, hair, color or color patterns, embryonic soft tissues, muscle tissue and/or internal organs, and cellular structure. These soft tissues are preserved as carbon films or as permineralized three-dimensional replications, but in none of these cases are they described as still-soft, pliable tissues.Her meaning was exactly the opposite of what you thought.

[Cyberspirit]

Wow, you are still into the " You could not understand so I could not get to the point " frustration ?

My position doesn't involve examples, it involves logic.
We disagreed on the logic part. That was why I asked for examples.

Her meaning was exactly the opposite of what you thought.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap...revisited.shtml (http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap...revisited.shtml)
Read the section "Misconception 1" written by Greg Moore.

Schweitzer et al: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1952
Schweitzer suggested at the end of the report a reason why the tissue was preserved so well.

OK so we are finally done with the arguing.
...


The thread-starter said that we should move on to something more productive, so if he does not mind, I will take the first step:

New materials to discuss about:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html
http://se02.xif.com/articles/20021019/fob2.asp
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1010_021010_dinomummy.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/scipionyx.html
http://www.discovercreation.org/newlet/May%20-%20June%202005.htm
... ( note that every argumentative author is pressumptious to a certain degree... ) ...
... ( Google " dinosaur soft tissue preserved " or something to that effect ) ...

Here's the question: which do you think that the discovery of dinosaur "soft tissue" imply more significantly ?
1. We should change our views about the process of fossilisation.
2. We should change our views about the age of the fossils.

I think it is neither. People already have explanations for both 1 and 2.
These discoveries are interesting mostly because they allow more in-depth study of dinosaur physiology.

What do you think ?