Author Topic: The specific issue of soft tissue and blood cells in "100+ million year" fossils  (Read 427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
I know there's another general thread on this, but I hope one to discuss the specific issue of soft tissue in fossils won't be out of place. We can't ignore that evolution is one of the most powerful de-Christianizing tactics that non-Christians have invented, and that conversely, a proof that the earth is even 100 thousand years old falsifies evolution. Darwin estimated that even the 30 million years given to him by Kelvin's estimation of the earth"s age would not have been enough!

Dear brothers, sisters and friends, the alleged age of "4.5 billion years" is generally arrived at by a series of unverifiable assumptions about the original quantity present, constant decay rates and a closed environment to eradicate the likelihood of outside contamination, which would throw off the "ages" by millions or even billions of years. For e.g. uranium to lead decay has a half life close to 4.5 billion years and this is what they use to arrive at the claimed age, dating some of the earliest rocks - though they ignore that these rocks still have helium, all of which would have diffused out in 100 K years (see . https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) in general, it escapes them in doing so that there are more probable and more forceful demonstrations that the earth cannot be that old - in particular, elements and even substances like tissue that almost certainly cannot survive millions of years still being found to be present. A reasonable person will conclude these give a maximum upper limit of the age of the earth and of the earliest animals to about 100 thousand years at very most.

3 simple questions for the evolutionists.

1. Can soft tissue survive millions of years? You know as well as we do that the discovery of the same seriously calls into question the presumed millions of years arrived at by other methods. So, can it?

2. Do give us at least 3 distinct lines of evidence demonstrating to at least moral certainty that a stated fossil (take any mentioned in the excerpt below) or even rock is hundreds of millions of years old . Please prove that different methods of dating all give the same date, kindly mention the assumptions of (1) decay rate and (2) presumed original quantity etc made for radiometric dating, tell us (3) the steps taken to avoid contamination or outside influence and give a brief estimate of the the confidence level and range (e.g. 100 million plus or minus 10 million evolutionary years etc)

3. What to do when dating methods seem to give contradictory results? Can the extreme likelihood that c14 and soft tissue etc cannot in fact survive millions of years be used to infer that these fossils are not millions of years old? Why or why not? Are we just to discount that a priori as a plausible way to arrive at the true age? Which method has precedence and for what reason?

Some documentation below from the Kolbe centre for creation. http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

Quote
Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]

Additionally, the surprising discovery of soft tissue in fossils presumed to be millions of years old brings radiometric dating into direct contradiction with currently observed decay rates of organic materials.  In 2005 and 2007, evolutionary scientist Mary Schweitzer reported on the discovery of what appeared to be blood cells in 65 million years old tyrannosaur bones.[13],[14] This presented a quandary for scientists, because organic material is not supposed to last that long based upon present decay rates.[15] When her work was called into question, Dr. Schweitzer obtained similar tissue in 80 million year old hadrosaur bones, went to extraordinary lengths to prevent contamination and perform rigorous tests on her samples, and defended her discovery in an article in Science that appears to have satisfied her detractors.[16] But nobody, including Dr Schweitzer, has called into question the high improbability of blood surviving 65-80 million years.

More ancient organic matter has been unearthed since Schweitzer’s original discovery.  Examples include:

Exoskeleton remnants discovered in 417 million year old eurypterid and 310 million year old scorpion (February 2011)[17]
Dark colored, soft tissue melanocytes found in 120 million year old dinosaurs[18] (May 2010)
Preserved ink sac from 150 million year old squid[19] (August 2009)
Original shell preserved from 189-199 million year old lobster[20] (September 2010)
Organic molecules preserved in 66 million year old hadrosaur[21] (July 2009)
Preservation of scaly soft tissue in 36 million year old penguin[22] (September 2010)
Remains of 50 million year old insects found preserved in amber[23] (November 2010)
Blood and eye tissues, skin and cartilage preserved in two 80 million year old mosasaurs[24],[25] (March, October 2010) and one 70 million year-old mosasaur[26](May 2011)
Bone marrow found in 10 million year old frog[27] (July 2006)
Muscle tissue found in 18 million year old salamander[28] (November 2009)
Original feather material found in 150 million year old archaeopteryx[29] (May 2010)
In a study published in April 2011, researchers in Sweden subjected soft tissue from a presumed 70 million year old mosasaur to a battery of tests to determine if the material was original to the organism.[30] Not only did they confirm that the tissue was indeed original, but the fibrous tissue absorbed dye just like connective tissue from a modern bone.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Ainnir

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,522
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
There's just not enough information there.  How much tissue was found?  How prevalent was it (e.g. of all the frog fossils, was it just one or most that contained soft tissue?).  Did the tissue start (or continue) to decay once it was discovered?  Did testing destroy it?  On and on.  They're interesting questions, just for the sake of curiosity.

However, I'm concerned by your use of "de-Christianizing tactics," "moral certainty," and the assertion that evolution was invented (i.e. fabricated).  I don't agree with any of that.  But I also think people (on all sides) tend to incorrectly take scientific theory and discovery and attempt to carve it in stone.  However I'm not inclined to say science is bad or even wrong because of that.  Incomplete?  Yes; that's sort of an inherent characteristic of the whole endeavor.  But even if evolution were proven wrong or in need of adjustment, it wouldn't prove the earth is young.  Maybe it's middle-aged.   ;D
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 08:51:08 AM by Ainnir »
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Modern science as we know it developed in large measure in Christian Europe; natural science is very good, provided it does not transgress its limits. To assume absolute naturalism to the total exclusion of the supernatural, to deny the fact of special creation attested to by Moses and the Prophets, to unlawfully teach that the father of man is a monkey, to deny and practically exclude God altogether - all this is wrong.

All Tradition, Ainnir, teaches us the earth is young. Do you know the traditional date of creation according to the Latin Christmas liturgy? Byzantine Tradition is very much in agreement; just a few hundred years difference. For 7000 years, almost everybody knew it; hardly a 150 years ago, they started inventing theories of millions of years of evolutionary fallacies. While it's true, Ainnir, evolution could be false even if the world is old - it is certainly false if the world is young! Remember, our naturalistic and atheistic friends don't believe special and direct creation is possible, that's why they reduce to man's origin to purely naturalistic processes.

For a long time, I admit, I thought like many Christians do here - and frankly, as many Catholics, even traditional Catholics do - but reading on Christmas day, in the sacred liturgy, that Jesus, our Creator and an eyewitness to creation wants us to know that He was made man less than 10000 years after He first made man struck me like lightning. That was personally an eyeopener for me. I know many Christians will disagree with me and that's ok. But I wish we would not be ready to surrender creation so easily to atheists and agnostics.

To answer your questions - even 1 discovery of 1 element that definitely cannot survive millions of years is strong evidence that millions of years have not passed, isn't it? Soft tissue has now been found in several fossils, Ainnir, even those 500 million evolutionary years old, very recently. The mainstream press reported on it, will find the article if you ask. Also earlier, they never used to test for c14 in fossils or very old rocks, precisely because they know it cannot survive millions of years; but they've repeatedly found it in very many samples and now they routinely do.

More telling, and in my opinion absolutely demonstrative to scientific certainty, is dna being found in earth's earliest creatures. Dna 99.99% certainly at least cannot survive millions of years. https://creation.com/bugs-in-brine

Quote
Another ‘ancient’ DNA find, much harder to refute, should logically be death-knell of ‘millions of years’.

Many scientists have reported finding DNA in fossils that are said to be millions of years old. We have commented on some of these reports and their implications for the widespread erroneous belief in an old Earth.1

Some scientists have also reported reviving bacteria from the gut of a bee, supposedly 15–40 million years old.2 And more recently, researchers have claimed to have revived bacteria from rocks said to be 250 million years old.3...

The obvious way to resolve these conflicting views is by realizing that the ages attributed to the layers containing the salt crystals are in error; the crystals are only thousands of years old!

In short, the presence of DNA in this ‘ancient’ salt is about as close as one can get to scientific proof that the ‘millions of years’ scenario is fiction.

"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Ainnir

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,522
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
To answer your questions - even 1 discovery of 1 element that definitely cannot survive millions of years is strong evidence that millions of years have not passed, isn't it? Soft tissue has now been found in several fossils, Ainnir, even those 500 million evolutionary years old, very recently. The mainstream press reported on it, will find the article if you ask. Also earlier, they never used to test for c14 in fossils or very old rocks, precisely because they know it cannot survive millions of years; but they've repeatedly found it in very many samples and now they routinely do.

More telling, and in my opinion absolutely demonstrative to scientific certainty, is dna being found in earth's earliest creatures. Dna 99.99% certainly at least cannot survive millions of years. https://creation.com/bugs-in-brine
How do we know it definitely can't?  Is this common knowledge?  Sincere questions there.  I see it as evidence that something requires further study and consideration.  That does include examining and questioning frameworks that are currently taken for granted, yes.  But no, it doesn't make them all come crashing down in an instant in my mind.  Not that I'm clinging particularly hard to any particular model.  I think it's an interesting springboard to both question the current model and see how the outlying data fits within it.  Which scientists may already be doing; I have no clue.

To everything above that, it's not that we disagree in principle, but in perspective and emphasis.  Either God created or He didn't.  The age of the earth and how people interpret scientific data isn't going to change that.  And since people are both free and stubborn, presenting the "right" set of facts is not going to force anyone into faith.  That's assuming we even know what the right set of facts is.  There is no "proving evolution is fabricated and the earth is young" --> "everyone believes in God and becomes a Christian" chain of events.  Even if the former were accomplished, the latter wouldn't be guaranteed if for no other reasons than the existence of free will and how faith works in general.  Souls need to be won some other way.  And if we're fighting against science because our faith depends on it, then we need to seriously examine what we believe and why.  That's all.  I hereby give the earth permission to be however old it chooses.  If I were the earth, I'd be old with the appearance of youth.   ;D
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,130
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Maybe the Earth (and universe) only looks old because of my (and everyone else's) sins?
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline Rubricnigel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 314
  • Vini vidi vici
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Midwest
I know there's another general thread on this, but I hope one to discuss the specific issue of soft tissue in fossils won't be out of place. We can't ignore that evolution is one of the most powerful de-Christianizing tactics that non-Christians have invented, and that conversely, a proof that the earth is even 100 thousand years old falsifies evolution. Darwin estimated that even the 30 million years given to him by Kelvin's estimation of the earth"s age would not have been enough!

Dear brothers, sisters and friends, the alleged age of "4.5 billion years" is generally arrived at by a series of unverifiable assumptions about the original quantity present, constant decay rates and a closed environment to eradicate the likelihood of outside contamination, which would throw off the "ages" by millions or even billions of years. For e.g. uranium to lead decay has a half life close to 4.5 billion years and this is what they use to arrive at the claimed age, dating some of the earliest rocks - though they ignore that these rocks still have helium, all of which would have diffused out in 100 K years (see . https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) in general, it escapes them in doing so that there are more probable and more forceful demonstrations that the earth cannot be that old - in particular, elements and even substances like tissue that almost certainly cannot survive millions of years still being found to be present. A reasonable person will conclude these give a maximum upper limit of the age of the earth and of the earliest animals to about 100 thousand years at very most.

3 simple questions for the evolutionists.

1. Can soft tissue survive millions of years? You know as well as we do that the discovery of the same seriously calls into question the presumed millions of years arrived at by other methods. So, can it?

2. Do give us at least 3 distinct lines of evidence demonstrating to at least moral certainty that a stated fossil (take any mentioned in the excerpt below) or even rock is hundreds of millions of years old . Please prove that different methods of dating all give the same date, kindly mention the assumptions of (1) decay rate and (2) presumed original quantity etc made for radiometric dating, tell us (3) the steps taken to avoid contamination or outside influence and give a brief estimate of the the confidence level and range (e.g. 100 million plus or minus 10 million evolutionary years etc)

3. What to do when dating methods seem to give contradictory results? Can the extreme likelihood that c14 and soft tissue etc cannot in fact survive millions of years be used to infer that these fossils are not millions of years old? Why or why not? Are we just to discount that a priori as a plausible way to arrive at the true age? Which method has precedence and for what reason?

Some documentation below from the Kolbe centre for creation. http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

Quote
Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]

Additionally, the surprising discovery of soft tissue in fossils presumed to be millions of years old brings radiometric dating into direct contradiction with currently observed decay rates of organic materials.  In 2005 and 2007, evolutionary scientist Mary Schweitzer reported on the discovery of what appeared to be blood cells in 65 million years old tyrannosaur bones.[13],[14] This presented a quandary for scientists, because organic material is not supposed to last that long based upon present decay rates.[15] When her work was called into question, Dr. Schweitzer obtained similar tissue in 80 million year old hadrosaur bones, went to extraordinary lengths to prevent contamination and perform rigorous tests on her samples, and defended her discovery in an article in Science that appears to have satisfied her detractors.[16] But nobody, including Dr Schweitzer, has called into question the high improbability of blood surviving 65-80 million years.

More ancient organic matter has been unearthed since Schweitzer’s original discovery.  Examples include:

Exoskeleton remnants discovered in 417 million year old eurypterid and 310 million year old scorpion (February 2011)[17]
Dark colored, soft tissue melanocytes found in 120 million year old dinosaurs[18] (May 2010)
Preserved ink sac from 150 million year old squid[19] (August 2009)
Original shell preserved from 189-199 million year old lobster[20] (September 2010)
Organic molecules preserved in 66 million year old hadrosaur[21] (July 2009)
Preservation of scaly soft tissue in 36 million year old penguin[22] (September 2010)
Remains of 50 million year old insects found preserved in amber[23] (November 2010)
Blood and eye tissues, skin and cartilage preserved in two 80 million year old mosasaurs[24],[25] (March, October 2010) and one 70 million year-old mosasaur[26](May 2011)
Bone marrow found in 10 million year old frog[27] (July 2006)
Muscle tissue found in 18 million year old salamander[28] (November 2009)
Original feather material found in 150 million year old archaeopteryx[29] (May 2010)
In a study published in April 2011, researchers in Sweden subjected soft tissue from a presumed 70 million year old mosasaur to a battery of tests to determine if the material was original to the organism.[30] Not only did they confirm that the tissue was indeed original, but the fibrous tissue absorbed dye just like connective tissue from a modern bone.

Science has been politicized for decades if not a century.
Therefore the beliefs of the individual scientist must be accounted for when reviewing their work.

Also we must look at who is funding these "scientists" to attack our values and nature itself.
You've probably read articles about gender being a spectrum, and how we should all be under water from global warming (or is it cooling now?).
Like most things nowadays, science is political and is used as a weapon to attack us, and GOD.