Oh look, more dinosaur tissues

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The evidence for this is that the blood vessel material was closely related to chicken protein.

Why would chickens be related to dinosaurs? Do you believe that chickens descended from dinosaurs as your source concluded?
Nice deflection. :up:
 

Jose Fly

New member
It's always funny how creationists make it sound like the scientists cracked open a fossil and "soft tissue" came oozing out, like the dinosaur had died just a few years ago.

Never mind the actual reality of the situation. Oh, and let's make sure we ignore the primary finding of the paper...

Here, we test the hypothesis that these structures are endogenous, and thus retain proteins in common with extant archosaur blood vessels that can be detected with high-resolution mass spectrometry and confirmed by immunofluorescence. Two lines of evidence support this hypothesis. First, peptide sequencing of B. canadensis blood vessel extracts is consistent with peptides comprising extant archosaurian blood vessels and is not consistent with a bacterial, cellular slime mold, or fungal origin. Second, proteins identified by mass spectrometry can be localized to the tissues using antibodies specific to these proteins, validating their identity.

IOW, we can throw one more piece of evidence on the pile that shows birds and dinosaurs share an evolutionary common ancestry.
 

gcthomas

New member
Nice deflection. :up:

C'mon, Knight, pay attention to the points made. This is what the paper was about - the only reason the researchers were convinced that the peptide sequences they found were indeed dinosaur was that they matched chickens, not other sources.

Why chickens? Because they descended from the dinosaurs.

If you reject that assumption then you will have to reject the conclusions that were based on it. There is nothing else in the paper to give succour to YECs.
 

Elia

Well-known member
No...it clearly 4,146 year old blood vessel structure material, what's to deny?

Bs"d

You got to have a hole in your head to think that flexible tendons and blood vessels with haemoglobin in it stay fresh for 80 million years.
 

gcthomas

New member
Bs"d

You got to have a hole in your head to think that flexible tendons and blood vessels with haemoglobin in it stay fresh for 80 million years.

Does the paper say 'fresh'? The researchers found fragments of protein particles, not functioning proteins, let alone preserved cells or tissues.
 

alwight

New member
No...it clearly 4,146 year old blood vessel structure material, what's to deny?
The Christian leader of the palaeontology team thinks it's 80 million years old, while the T-Rex she found earlier was a bit younger iirc at 65 million years old. But then again she doesn't find it necessary to adhere literally to Genesis. She tends to be guided by evidence rather than a mindless dogmatic belief.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Bs"d

You got to have a hole in your head to think that flexible tendons and blood vessels with haemoglobin in it stay fresh for 80 million years.
This comment must be based on your extensive scientific background in the area, correct?
When does your paper come out?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's 80 million years old blood vessel structure material, what's to deny?

Lets have someone from AiG or Liberty University do the research that definitively shows the age of these "soft tissues". Nobel will be waiting.

Let me know when one of your creation scientists show us why "soft tissue" means the earth is about 6000 years old. In the meantime enjoy your lack of understanding and your fear of the real world.

Difficult to say without an extensive overhaul of the way these sorts of things are tested.

However, it seems impossible for them to have died more than about 10,000 years ago, let alone millions of years ago.
Carbon 12/14 dating would settle the debate of old ages.

How far back can C14 dating accurately measure?

About 50,000 years. Which is why JD's scales analogy is such a failure.

Would you like to help encourage him to retract it, or are you only here to oppose the Biblical account?

How can C14 dating accurately measure back 50,000 years if the earth/universe is only 6,000 years old?

I like how he is going to try and pretend these conversations and arguments were not made.

I just found this quote by Colton Rodoski in the comments section of this video:

With regards to Schweitzer's work, I've emailed her asking her to clarify on C14 dating her fossils. Found out something interesting. Her team used a buffer containing carbon to demineralize the bone, so even if they C14 dated the soft tissue, it wouldn't give an accurate date anyways because demineralization would have contaminated it. BUT she DID have a colleague grind up a bone extract from the fossil before they demineralized it and C14 date that. No surprise, it had no detectable carbon in it. So if you ever see the videos of a creationist asking Jack Homer to C14 date the tissue samples, remember:

1. The soft tissue had been treated in carbon based compounds, so no accurate date will be given.

2. The bone itself had no detectable carbon anyways, so it's at least older than the limits of the method.​

Ergo, the young earth model is still wrong. So the real question is how come the first scientist to make such a discovery finds no 14C, but the creationists who are out to prove the earth is young, are finding tons of it?​
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This was still in denial mode that it is dino tissue because they know it can't be dino tissue and 80 million years old.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The Christian leader of the palaeontology team thinks it's 80 million years old, while the T-Rex she found earlier was a bit younger iirc at 65 million years old. But then again she doesn't find it necessary to adhere literally to Genesis. She tends to be guided by evidence rather than a mindless dogmatic belief.



There's piles of evidence about Genesis and it is not mindless as we know it. If you want to chew on just one example, take the Naszca collection of dinosaur rock-carved images, about 11K of them, I think. They show humans fighting some dinos and humans riding others. The humans are giant by comparison today. The sketches are so accurate and clear in detail about the dinos that they could be used in modern textbooks. If the beasts were gone 65K ago, how could the Naszca do these drawings which are dated to be just a few thousand ago because of the type and dating of patination that occurred when they were carved (performed by the U of Bonn)? It is also my recollection when I last studied this, that the fossils are not there in the Naszca area because of how abruptly it uplifted in the Genesis deluge with all its tectonic and vulcanistic and hydrological action. Ie, they weren't 'fossil-based' reconstructions. They were eye-witness drawings. As for scale in the drawings, the humans are giantized, which is also true to Genesis' account.

Mountain men in early modern America found tissue they described as 'overdone jerky' on the huge bones they found. Do things like that last 65M?
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
There's piles of evidence about Genesis and it is not mindless as we know it. If you want to chew on just one example, take the Naszca collection of dinosaur rock-carved images, about 11K of them, I think. They show humans fighting some dinos and humans riding others. The humans are giant by comparison today. The sketches are so accurate and clear in detail about the dinos that they could be used in modern textbooks. If the beasts were gone 65K ago, how could the Naszca do these drawings which are dated to be just a few thousand ago because of the type and dating of patination that occurred when they were carved (performed by the U of Bonn)? It is also my recollection when I last studied this, that the fossils are not there in the Naszca area because of how abruptly it uplifted in the Genesis deluge with all its tectonic and vulcanistic and hydrological action. Ie, they weren't 'fossil-based' reconstructions. They were eye-witness drawings. As for scale in the drawings, the humans are giantized, which is also true to Genesis' account.

Mountain men in early modern America found tissue they described as 'overdone jerky' on the huge bones they found. Do things like that last 65M?
Is this what you are referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Recent patination because they are fakes?
 
Top