RSR's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Not really. The industry taught that fossilization was a complete process;

From the beginning, partially-fossilized remains were obvious. You just make it up as you go, don't you?

For a very long time, graptolites and fossils in amber have been known, and are not rock.

Viewing the wreckage of your "soft tissue" story, I'm thinking the best thing for you to do is go learn a bit about it, and chalk it up to experience.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's what Schweitzer found out. The fossils weren't completely rock.

Yip. Which took the scientific community a decade to come to terms with, if indeed they have even yet. This is simply because biological material should not be there after maybe 10 thousand, let along millions of years.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Yip. Which took the scientific community a decade to come to terms with, if indeed they have even yet.

Stipe, people have always known that fossils weren't necessarily rock. Amber, for example.

And graptolites with soft material have been known for decades. You just made up a story, and you're sulking because the evidence shows otherwise.

This is simply because biological material should not be there after maybe 10 thousand, let along millions of years.

Interesting idea. Let's see your numbers. This is just another story you made up, isn't it?
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
Stripe said:
This is simply because biological material should not be there after maybe 10 thousand, let along millions of years.

Interesting idea. Let's see your numbers. This is just another story you made up, isn't it?
"After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."
...
"The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
So now, you just need to show us some textbooks that say soft material can't persist for millions of years. You're on.

(Don't hold your breath, folks, he's quotemining from a popular magazine)
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Collagen in the pterobranch coenecium and the problem of graptolite affinities
Paleontology, Paleobiology & Geobiology > Lethaia
Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 145–152, April 1984
Amino-acid analysis of the extracellular skeleton (coenecium) of two pterobranchs (Hemichordata) Rhabdopleura normani and Cephalodiscus (C.) hodgsoni shows that both contain considerable quantities of collagenous material with relatively high hydroxyproline and low hydroxylysine levels. The appearance of the fibrous material in the skeleton of pterobranchs, although collagenous, differs from standard EM characteristics of collagen. The identification of the collagenous nature of the pterobranch skeleton with the presumed presence of collagen-like material in the periderm of fossil graptolites, taken in conjunction with other data, supports the hypothesis that both groups may be closely related phylogenetically.


Um, 30 years ago, we knew about this stuff. Probably earlier. A quick search turned this up.
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
6days said:
You in particular are often called dishonest

By creationists, after I've posted evidence.

Nope... its you personally who are dishonest. Other evolutionists such as DavisBJ are seldom if ever called dishonest.

Barbarian said:
6days said:
Barbarian said:
And yet, creationists claim "kind" has a scientific definition.
More dishonesty from you...
Well, let's take a look...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
You are consistent!
Consistently dishonest...*
Even your wiki article shows your claim was dishonest.*

Barbarian said:
6days said:
We accept (scripture / virgin birth of Jesus)as absolute truth even though the vast majority of scientists say the evidence doesn't support virgin births.
Of course the immaculate conception was miraculous, not natural. But your claim is false, and you knew it when you made it.
You are being dishonest. Virtually all scientists will say evidence does not support virgin birth of humans...as that is what was referred to (scripture / virgin birth of Jesus)

Barbarian said:
*But if you believe that, why not just believe everything He tells you?
I do.... :)
*Earth was created covered in water...not a hot molten blob.

*Earth was created before the stars..... not billions of years later.

*Light was created for before the sun and stars existed.

*Days with evening and morning existed before the sun.

*Man was created from the dust of the ground...not a descendant of any previous creature.

*Woman was created from the rib of a man....created as an equal partner, and not a less highly evolved creature.

*Birds created before land animals...not a descendant of them.

*Animals were given every green plant for food.....not to rip other creatures apart while still alive.

*The great sea creatures were created on day 5.....they did not evolve from land creatures which where created the following day.

*Our universe was spoken into existence by a deliberate act.... not a quantum fluctuation.

*Our moon was placed at the appropriate distance from Earth....not the result of a giant astrroid colliding with earth.

*Death entered our world after man sinned.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You are being dishonest.

We're about to check who is being dishonest, in just a moment. But first let's hear your new story:

Virtually all scientists will say evidence does not support virgin birth of humans...as that is what was referred to (scripture / virgin birth of Jesus)

Let's see what you can show us from the literature. I figure you're just making up stories again, but we'll give you a chance. Show us. From the literature.

And I see you carefully avoided the issue of scientists who accept that it's a miracle.

You're not a very honest person, are you?

And let's take another look at your earlier attempt at deception:

Barbarian observes:
And yet, creationists claim "kind" has a scientific definition.

6days writes:
More dishonesty from you...

Well, let's take a look...

Baraminology is a creationist system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Creation science has been criticized for its pseudoscientific characteristics by the US National Academy of Science and numerous other scientific and scholarly organizations.[2][3][4][5]

The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The combination is not meaningful in Hebrew. It is intended to represent the different kinds described in the Bible, and especially in the Genesis descriptions of the Creation and Noah's Ark, and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between clean and unclean.

Baraminology borrowed its key terminology, and much of its methodology from the field of Discontinuity Systematics founded by Walter ReMine in 1990.

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

Whenever you're called on it, you just change your position and deny it.
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
now, you just need to show us some textbooks that say soft material can't persist for millions of years.
You might want to ask the author of that Smithsonian article. ... but it shows Stripe claim was correct.

Stripe: "Which took the scientific community a decade to come to terms with, if indeed they have even yet. This is simply because biological material should not be there after maybe 10 thousand, let along millions of years."

"The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr.
Read more:*http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...osaur-shocker-
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian suggests:
now, you just need to show us some textbooks that say soft material can't persist for millions of years.

(Don't hold your breath folks; he's quotemining from a popular magazine)

You might want to ask the author of that Smithsonian article.

You made the claim. I'm asking you to support it. Be honest, now; you've never seen that in a textbook, have you?

Stripe: "Which took the scientific community a decade to come to terms with, if indeed they have even yet. This is simply because biological material should not be there after maybe 10 thousand, let along millions of years."

(Barbarian shows decades-old articles from the scientific literature, showing that Stipe's claim is false)

Here, I'll show you again:
Collagen in the pterobranch coenecium and the problem of graptolite affinities
Paleontology, Paleobiology & Geobiology > Lethaia
Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 145–152, April 1984
Amino-acid analysis of the extracellular skeleton (coenecium) of two pterobranchs (Hemichordata) Rhabdopleura normani and Cephalodiscus (C.) hodgsoni shows that both contain considerable quantities of collagenous material with relatively high hydroxyproline and low hydroxylysine levels. The appearance of the fibrous material in the skeleton of pterobranchs, although collagenous, differs from standard EM characteristics of collagen. The identification of the collagenous nature of the pterobranch skeleton with the presumed presence of collagen-like material in the periderm of fossil graptolites, taken in conjunction with other data, supports the hypothesis that both groups may be closely related phylogenetically.


Now, one more time. Let's see some evidence from those textbooks. Or admit you made it up.

(prediction: we'll see neither of those from 6days)
 

GuySmiley

New member
Barbarian suggests:
now, you just need to show us some textbooks that say soft material can't persist for millions of years.

(Don't hold your breath folks; he's quotemining from a popular magazine)



You made the claim. I'm asking you to support it. Be honest, now; you've never seen that in a textbook, have you?



(Barbarian shows decades-old articles from the scientific literature, showing that Stipe's claim is false)

Here, I'll show you again:
Collagen in the pterobranch coenecium and the problem of graptolite affinities
Paleontology, Paleobiology & Geobiology > Lethaia
Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 145–152, April 1984
Amino-acid analysis of the extracellular skeleton (coenecium) of two pterobranchs (Hemichordata) Rhabdopleura normani and Cephalodiscus (C.) hodgsoni shows that both contain considerable quantities of collagenous material with relatively high hydroxyproline and low hydroxylysine levels. The appearance of the fibrous material in the skeleton of pterobranchs, although collagenous, differs from standard EM characteristics of collagen. The identification of the collagenous nature of the pterobranch skeleton with the presumed presence of collagen-like material in the periderm of fossil graptolites, taken in conjunction with other data, supports the hypothesis that both groups may be closely related phylogenetically.

Now, one more time. Let's see some evidence from those textbooks. Or admit you made it up.

(prediction: we'll see neither of those from 6days)
Why was Mary Sweitzer's paper met with such surprise? Seems like it should've been just another boring paper.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Why was Mary Sweitzer's paper met with such surprise?

I think that it was the fact that she said the soft organic material (which was old news, as you see from the cited literature) might be "tissue." That would have been something.

Unfortunately, that still has yet to be demonstrated, although it would be fairly easy to do so. I remember when cold fusion caused a much bigger stir, but it died down after no one could actually show it was happening.

Seems like it should've been just another boring paper.

Probably so, but then the quote-miners found it.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
"After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."
...
"The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-

Therefore the god of the Bible
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why was Mary Sweitzer's paper met with such surprise? Seems like it should've been just another boring paper.

Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.​
-source.​
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.

Feather fibers aren't tissue at all. Blood cells would be, if they were still phospholipid bags of hemoglobin. The key here is "apparent." There were apparent nucleii in cells trapped in amber. But the tissue had been replaced by resin.

The fact that soft organic material can survive for millions of years has been known for decades. Tissue remains to be demonstrated.

And we're still waiting for the names and publishers of those textbooks that say any of it is impossible. I think I know why that's not forthcoming.
 

6days

New member
The fact that soft organic material can survive for millions of years has been known for decades.
It is a belief of evolutionists.
(Evolutionists have "known" many things that science has proved wrong)

And we're still waiting for the names and publishers of those textbooks that say any of it is impossible. I think I know why that's not forthcoming.
I would suggest you ask Mary Sweitzer or the Smithsonian author...
"What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization

The journal, 'The Biochemist' published an article in 2002 saying that collagen stored at 0 degrees (Lab conditions) would not likely last even 3 million years. (Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, by Nielsen-Marsh).
No wonder some evolutionists are deniers. :) Collagen, and or soft tissue would fit nicely in the Biblical time frame.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
The fact that soft organic material can survive for millions of years has been known for decades.

It is a belief of evolutionists.

Demonstrated fact. And it was known for decades ago. I see you again declined to support your false claim that biology textbooks said it was impossible. We all know why.

Barbarian earlier:
And we're still waiting for the names and publishers of those textbooks that say any of it is impossible. I think I know why that's not forthcoming.

I would suggest...

No one cares what you suggest. Show us those textbooks you claim say that it's impossible. Or admit you made it up. Or let people draw their conclusions about your lack of honesty. Up to you.

The journal, 'The Biochemist' published an article in 2002 saying that collagen stored at 0 degrees (Lab conditions) would not likely last even 3 million years. (Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, by Nielsen-Marsh).

Guess how I know you never read that paper. Answer, I have, and your quote-mined claim doesn't agree with the conclusions of the author. In fact, she shows that the protein osteocalcin should be able to survive millions of years at 50 degrees F, and that without iron present.

I suggest you not borrow quote-mined results unless you've actually read the paper. And be sure to link us to all those textbooks you claim to exist.

Or let people draw their conclusions. Up to you.
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
Demonstrated fact.
Millions of years is a belief... not a demonstrated fact.
Here is another belief... Augustine:"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the*sacred*writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed"
Barbarian said:
Show us those textbooks you claim say that it's impossible.
You are being dishonest. You know the 'claim' was from Smithsonian mag.*
"After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."

Barbarian said:
6days said:
The journal, 'The Biochemist' published an article in 2002 saying that collagen stored at 0 degrees (Lab conditions) would not likely last even 3 million years. (Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, by Nielsen-Marsh).
Guess how I know you never read that paper. Answer, I have, and your quote-mined claim doesn't agree with the conclusions of the author. In fact, she shows that the protein osteocalcin should be able to survive millions of years at 50 degrees F, and that without iron present.
Correct... I did not read it myself. However I'm wondering if you are being honest. Osteocalcin is*noncollagenous.*

It seems other people are under a smartphone impression as to what I said above...showing Stripe was correct.
Ex.
June 2015 Smithsonian
" While bones and teeth can be preserved for hundreds of millions of years, protein molecules decay in a mere 4 million years, leaving behind only traces of those building blocks of life."
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Millions of years is a belief... not a demonstrated fact.

Nope. Overwhelming scientific evidence for it. Want to see some of it again?

Here is another belief... Augustine:"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the*sacred*writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed"

Augustine was going with the evidence he had at the time. Which is sensible. As I showed you, he also argued that if evidence appears that shows we have misunderstood scripture, we should be humble enough to acknowledge that we could be wrong. Would you like to see that again?

Barbarian suggests:
Show us those textbooks you claim say that it's impossible.

You are being dishonest.

You presented the claim. Let's see it.

You know the 'claim' was from Smithsonian mag.*

Well, let's take a look...

6days writes:
After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.

I don't care from where you cut and pasted it. You presented it here, and now you'll support it, admit it's false, or let people draw conclusions about your lack of integrity. Up to you.

The journal, 'The Biochemist' published an article in 2002 saying that collagen stored at 0 degrees (Lab conditions) would not likely last even 3 million years. (Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, by Nielsen-Marsh).

Guess how I know you never read that paper. Answer, I have, and your quote-mined claim doesn't agree with the conclusions of the author. In fact, she shows that the protein osteocalcin should be able to survive millions of years at 50 degrees F, and that without iron present.

Correct... I did not read it myself.

Of course not. So you didn't know that the point of the article was that soft biological material could survive millions of years in fossils. You were gulled into believing otherwise. Does it make you angry that they fooled you? Angry enough to start thinking for yourself?

However I'm wondering if you are being honest.

Read it for yourself. It's not at all what they told you.

Osteocalcin is*noncollagenous.*

Collagen and osteocalcin are biological proteins. And as you just learned, they can persist for millions of years. One investigation showed, even in the absence of iron as a preservative, it can last over 7 million years. Collagen, at least a derived form of collagen, survived much longer than that, in fossils of graptolites.

Which completely blows Stipe's argument out of the water. There is no foundation for the claim that soft material can only last a few thousand years.

If you want to admit that you were taken in by the textbook claim, and you really didn't know one way or the other, now would be the time to do it.
 
Top