Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
2 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2015 - 3:27PM #1
57
Posts: 28,191

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_Ub-QW9IMc&feat...

Presents quite a problem for the old agers.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2015 - 4:06PM #2
MMarcoe
Posts: 20,907

You're right.


I'm hereby converting to YEC.


1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2015 - 5:49PM #3
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Lesson learned: Never underestimate the gullibility and naiveté of a YECer. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2015 - 10:02PM #4
57
Posts: 28,191

Oct 8, 2015 -- 5:49PM, rsielin wrote:


Lesson learned: Never underestimate the gullibility and naiveté of a YECer. 




You would be more gullible to believe dino tissue could survive for 65+ MY's. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2015 - 1:00AM #5
Hmmm
Posts: 5,020

Oct 8, 2015 -- 10:02PM, 57 wrote:


Oct 8, 2015 -- 5:49PM, rsielin wrote:


Lesson learned: Never underestimate the gullibility and naiveté of a YECer.



You would be more gullible to believe dino tissue could survive for 65+ MY's.



I always kind of wondered what the issue was with dinosaurs and 'soft tissue,' therefore I looked it up and found this:


T. rextissue?


The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.


Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.


The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.


"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.


The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.


Iron lady


Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.


After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.


"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."


Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.


Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. [Paleo-Art: Illustrations Bring Dinosaurs to Life]


Searching for soft tissue


Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.


www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tis...


Also, 57, I only watched 3:48 of your video, therefore, I don't know if your video addressed this or not. But if it did, let me know and also let me know what point in the video I should skip to to hear the explanation.

The truth, the whole truth...and nothing but the truth?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2015 - 6:55AM #6
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Oct 9, 2015 -- 1:00AM, Hmmm wrote:

Also, 57, I only watched 3:48 of your video, therefore, I don't know if your video addressed this or not. But if it did, let me know and also let me know what point in the video I should skip to to hear the explanation.


Sorry to bust your bubble Hmmm but Ian Juby and this video does not have or even recognizes any credible science; it's a fake science mission to promote “just so” stories for the gullible and naive. 


So typical, Hmmm has empirical evidence and credible science. On the other hand, there’s the gullible and naïve YECers so desperate to cling to their fantasies they swallow hook line and sinker any made up story that gives them an excuse to believe a misrepresentation and fabrication of science.


But we’ve been over this a thousand times. It’s a broken record. Facts and reality are irrelevant, 57 thinks he’s saving his everlasting life by promoting lies.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2015 - 9:02AM #7
57
Posts: 28,191

Oct 9, 2015 -- 6:55AM, rsielin wrote:


Oct 9, 2015 -- 1:00AM, Hmmm wrote:

Also, 57, I only watched 3:48 of your video, therefore, I don't know if your video addressed this or not. But if it did, let me know and also let me know what point in the video I should skip to to hear the explanation.


Sorry to bust your bubble Hmmm but Ian Juby and this video does not have or even recognizes any credible science; it's a fake science mission to promote “just so” stories for the gullible and naive. 


So typical, Hmmm has empirical evidence and credible science. On the other hand, there’s the gullible and naïve YECers so desperate to cling to their fantasies they swallow hook line and sinker any made up story that gives them an excuse to believe a misrepresentation and fabrication of science.


But we’ve been over this a thousand times. It’s a broken record. Facts and reality are irrelevant, 57 thinks he’s saving his everlasting life by promoting lies.





"fake science".....all you do is spout off nonsense.  Unsupported evo-babble.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2015 - 9:12AM #8
57
Posts: 28,191

Oct 9, 2015 -- 1:00AM, Hmmm wrote:



Also, 57, I only watched 3:48 of your video, therefore, I don't know if your video addressed this or not. But if it did, let me know and also let me know what point in the video I should skip to to hear the explanation.




Yes, you should have kept watching. 10:00 min mark and then the  11:50 touch on it. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2015 - 11:18AM #9
Hmmm
Posts: 5,020

Oct 9, 2015 -- 9:12AM, 57 wrote:


Oct 9, 2015 -- 1:00AM, Hmmm wrote:


Also, 57, I only watched 3:48 of your video, therefore, I don't know if your video addressed this or not. But if it did, let me know and also let me know what point in the video I should skip to to hear the explanation.



Yes, you should have kept watching. 10:00 min mark and then the  11:50 touch on it.



Sorry, 57, but I looked at both of those marks and I didn't hear anything said about iron nanoparticles.

The truth, the whole truth...and nothing but the truth?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2015 - 11:24AM #10
Hmmm
Posts: 5,020

Oct 9, 2015 -- 6:55AM, rsielin wrote:


Oct 9, 2015 -- 1:00AM, Hmmm wrote:

Also, 57, I only watched 3:48 of your video, therefore, I don't know if your video addressed this or not. But if it did, let me know and also let me know what point in the video I should skip to to hear the explanation.


Sorry to bust your bubble Hmmm but Ian Juby and this video does not have or even recognizes any credible science; it's a fake science mission to promote “just so” stories for the gullible and naive. 


So typical, Hmmm has empirical evidence and credible science. On the other hand, there’s the gullible and naïve YECers so desperate to cling to their fantasies they swallow hook line and sinker any made up story that gives them an excuse to believe a misrepresentation and fabrication of science.


But we’ve been over this a thousand times. It’s a broken record. Facts and reality are irrelevant, 57 thinks he’s saving his everlasting life by promoting lies.



Yes, I have experienced that at the DJW forum:


community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/4...(post #168)

The truth, the whole truth...and nothing but the truth?
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook