Renewable Revolution

Seriously, T-rex soft tissue?

WHD

Thank you for confirming that your world view of the age of T-Rex is based on beliefs, not science. Don't bother to Google Mary Schweitzer who, by the way, is a scientist that DEFENDS SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory). She was just following the evidence from the hard data, as all true scientists are supposed to do.  :emthup:

Don't bother to study mineralization of bones into fossils. Ignore the empirical evidence that mineralization (where carbon dating becomes impossible because all the organic carbon has been replaced) can take place in less than a century. 

I don't know how old those dino bones are. But what you cannot get through your head is that there is ZERO proof that they are millions of years old. What part of "ZERO PROOF" do you not understand?

Here's what science (not those that claim erroneously, in my view, that the earth was created 6,000 years ago - I agree the ROCKS are billions of years old - the LIFE FORMS are another matter) says about dating technique time measurements:



That's what they use, PERIOD. That's what they have, PERIOD. That's the science, PERIOD.

Now then, what happens when they find a mosquito "fossil" in 20 to 40 million year old rock strata and that mosquito has some amazingly preserved blood from a meal just before it was killed? Yes, that actually happened less than two years ago in some grand canyon rock strata. I reported on it here.

Hemoglobin is a quaternary structured protein that denatures quickly unless, according to scientists, it is preserved in amber. This is the one way that it can last a long, long time without become mineralized. The heme group in the hemoglobin molecule has iron AND CARBON in it.

All organic carbon has a proportion of C-14 to C-12 (the more common isotope of carbon). The older the dead life form is, the less C-14 it has in it. By computing the ratio of C-12 to C-14, they get a date. If that mosquito has ANY C-14 left in that blood, it CANNOT be more than 100,000 years or so old. If it has ZERO C-14, then it can be a lot older. So then they try some other dating technique.

The (near to) Grand Canyon mosquito is not preserved in amber but it has intact blood with intact hemoglobin molecules in it. They haven't figured that one out yet.     

So, a scientist MUST set up two competing hypotheses to explain the data:

1. The strata is improperly dated and the mosquito is not 20 to 40 million years old.
OR
2. The strata is properly dated and science is wrong about how long blood can be preserved in rock strata.

Both of the above lead unavoidably to a shake up of the consensus view about dating methods. Bot are a pain in ARSE to established scientific consensus.  One questions our knowledge of hematology and the denaturing processes in quaternary structured proteins which is used extensively in forensic analysis of dead humans and animals to determine approximate dates of death.  The other brings into question rock strata dating methodology.

But the Darwinists don't want to go where the science leads them, so they question the data. Mary Shweitzer, a scientist that KNOWS which way the "wind" is blowing for her career  :icon_mrgreen:, has gone on record to state that this is the only recorded evidence of the soft tissue preservation by an, as yet, unexplained process, of a life form that died 65 million years ago.   

Well, at least she didn't reject the data. 

But you did. Thank you for confirming that when the data does not fit your belief system, you reject the data.

Have a nice day.