Soft Tissue in Fossils Supports a Young Earth


(Chris) #21

Relevance?

Relevance?


(George Brooks) #22

I stand corrected… I do mean about 4,000 years ago.

I think I’ve had hamburgers that old…


(George Brooks) #23

@aarceng

Unless you want to suggest that Arctic Canada was not cold 4000 years ago …
we should have some good eating there !

And with Eskimo carcasses as well!


(Chris) #24

Are we all accepting that soft tissue of various sorts has been found in dinosaur fossils in a number of cases by different researchers?
Including material that was flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape.


(George Brooks) #25

@aarceng

Are you accepting that these “so-called” soft tissues are in fact completely embedded and incorporated into uniformly solid ROCK?

These soft tissues are only obtained after delicately dissolving away solid rock (permeating thousands of layers of cells that comprise these formerly living tissues) … leaving only those “soft” matrices of connective tissue that react with the iron radicals released by blood at the time of death.

At no time has anyone found “soft tissue” embedded in rock like, for example, a chicken leg or thigh, as a pocket of meat within a solid layer of rock.

It’s rock, through and through, with microscopic remains that are solid rock with gossamer threads of connective tissue lacing throughout what is now rock! Until the rock in and around these tissues are dissolved, there is nothing soft or flexible about the remnants.

Does that help you?


(Matthew Pevarnik) #26

This was and enjoyable read for me the first time and I dug it up again:

I will add a few comments to it when I have more time (it’s finals week for us), but it does demonstrate the process of science very well and the difficulty in changing other scientists minds- hence why the scientific ‘consensus’ isn’t a bunch of snobbish people who just accept what they’re told but such ideas are rigorously tested and challenged and the best ideas win out at the end of the day.


#27

Yes but that is rock that was rapidly laid down over the course of the flood. Of course that leads to the question if the burial was completely and quickly covered in rock why is there only such tiny amounts of the dinosaurs left?

Since they are not buried in rock mammoths must have died after the flood. Which means their ancestors came off the ark, quickly evolved into mammoths and were buried in an ice age. Which then leads to yet another question, the only ice age allowed in the YEC model is the North American (if my memory is correct) and frozen mammoths were initially found in Siberia which didn’t experience an ice age.

Edit to correct myself: YEC allows only one ice age which would have been global. There is only one period of glaciation allowed which was in North America. I confused the two. So the mammoths would have to evolve and then spread to North America and Siberia, the distribution of remains is remarkably large, and then die in the global ice age less than 100 years later. Those mammoths must have really been footing it to get that wide spread.


(James McKay) #28

I’m still waiting for YECs to answer one key question about dinosaur soft tissue.

If soft tissue in dinosaur fossils supports a young earth, why has nobody yet managed to extract enough DNA from it to be able to sequence the entire T-Rex genome?


(Phil) #29

Not only that, but why has it been so difficult to replicate Schweitzer’s findings and isolate a specimen large enough to confirm its origin?


(Chris Falter) #30

Since you do not have a Ph.D. in biochemistry, Chris, I suspect that this statement of yours must rely on some other source you consider authoritative. Schweitzer’s research was subjected to rigorous peer review by skeptical peers. Do you have any peer-reviewed sources to share with us?

Thanks,
Chris Falter


(Chris) #31

Here’s an example of how remains in permafrost can be “freeze dried” or mummified; in this case a pony rather than a mammoth. Note that conditions of preservation can vary so not every specimen will be like this one.
Horse Found Frozen in Tundra
The astonishingly intact body of a young foal that died between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago was recently unearthed from melting permafrost in Siberia. Its mummified remains were so well-preserved by icy conditions that the skin, the hooves, the tail, and even the tiny hairs in the animal’s nostrils and around its hooves are still visible.

Recent discoveries include a 9,000-year-old bison; a 10,000-year-old woolly rhino baby; a mummified ice age kitten that could be a cave lion or lynx; and a baby mammoth nicknamed Lyuba who died after choking on mud 40,000 years ago.


(George Brooks) #32

@aarceng,

And yet while we have had dozens of aquatic reptile species thriving in ice cold waters, we have never once found one frozen in ice-age permafrost. It could be because the ice ages that have entombed the large mammals came more than 60 million years after the last giant reptiles were long dead.


(James McKay) #33

Yes, well that is the kind of soft tissue that we should find for dinosaur carcasses in a young earth.

The soft tissue remnants that we see in actual T-Rex fossils don’t come even remotely close.


#34

How does referencing remains from 40,000 years ago go with you YEC position? Since the 40,000 years can’t be correct, in your view, why not just go with a date about 4,000 years ago during the last ice age. In which case soft tissue remains would not be a big deal.

Can you explain, using your timeline for the earth’s history, how wooly mammoths came to be present in North America and Siberia?


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #35

I “liked” this just because it’s cool information, not really because I agree with the conclusions you’re drawing from it. I just think it’s amazing that things can last that long in ice! Thanks for sharing!

(Of course, it would be better if we got around to reversing anthropogenic climate change so we don’t have to keep making these sorts of discovery… but I digress)


(George Brooks) #36

Did we overwhelm @aarceng?


(Randy) #37

@aarceng, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue. Brother Chris, you are to be commended for putting Christ first, even though we disagree in which way this is best. Maybe you can sometime tell us more about yourself. I feel that we should introduce our backgrounds more after discussing this long!

I wonder–are you Old Earth? These dates are older than the usual young earth dates.

But the reference is really neat. Thanks.


(Chris) #38

Sorry, I’ve been busy. I’ll get back to the conversation soon.


(Lynn Munter) #39

If you investigate a little further, I think you will find that even the most rotten have far more soft tissue remnants than the most well-preserved dinosaur remains. Even the most dried-out bones that have been sitting under a desert sun for years are made entirely of soft tissue by dinosaur ‘soft tissue’ standards.

Yes and no. The likeliest thing to happen to real dead animals is for them to be consumed without leaving recognizable traces. The ones that we can look at as fossils are therefore the ones that already rolled snake eyes. We know something unlikely happened, and marinating the body in its own blood while sealed off from air (as though it were buried rapidly in a mudslide, etc) is not too bad a guess. Especially when only the best-preserved bones have the ‘soft tissues’ Schweitzer is concerned with.


(James McKay) #40

If I understand it correctly, the soft tissue remnants were only found in large, unbroken bones such as thigh bones. These would effectively have behaved like a sealed canister.