Nice deflection. :up: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?
It's 80 million years old blood vessel structure material, what's to deny?
Nice deflection. :up:
I have a problem with it being 80 million years old.
No...it clearly 4,146 year old blood vessel structure material, what's to deny?It's 80 million years old blood vessel structure material, what's to deny?
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.
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.No...it clearly 4,146 year old blood vessel structure material, what's to deny?
This comment must be based on your extensive scientific background in the area, correct?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.
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 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?
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.
Is this what you are referring to?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?