Refute this!

ZappasGuitar said:
You are wrong.

EOS.
Click to expand...

Nice to see your faith placed in unseen Gurus.

Where is the Scientific Method in Mary Schweitzer's research?

[Scientific Method = "consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."]

With out the Scientific Method proceedure it's called "hypotheses"
 
Grugore said:
Here it is. More proof that dinosaur fossils are not nearly as old as scientists claim.
Click to expand...


So they arrived at this using the standard carbon dating?

As per the Vedas of India ---dinosaurs existed approx 4 million years ago at the end of the last "cycle of four Yugas" ---and they will appear again at the end of the present 4th Yuga "Kali-yuga".

AND mankind will concurrently be reduced to pygmy like size and intelligence.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
New research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

You are wrong.

EOS.
Click to expand...

Pure conjecture. Yes. It does preserve proteins. But they have no way of knowing for how long. Also, the half life of DNA would not allow it to last millions of years, no matter how it was preserved. That's a scientific fact. Nice try. Care to try again?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How is this proof? What evidence do you have that no organic matter can survive geological time scales?

Looks to me like you're the one who needs to do some refuting.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. You simply ignore it because it doesn't fit your Godless narrative.
 
Grugore said:
So, how about it. Can any of you atheists explain a 65 million year old bone that hasn't been fossilized? Let's hear your arguments...if you've got any. I won't hold my breath. El oh el!
Click to expand...
It has been. You've limited your information from a creationist web site in which infers that there is little to no mineralization where in fact most of the material was mineralized (e.g. fossilized.).

What is known is small cross sections of the fossil contained protected voids in which organic matter in the form of the proteins collagen, tubulin and actin were found. It is known that these forms of proteins have extraordinary long degradation rates. Particularly when preserved by iron free radicals and when highly cross linked, which any schmuck with a two bit graduate biochemistry course knows that these proteins are. Now when you considered that these minute quantities of proteins were encapsulated in hematite you have strong evidence that under these conditions that organic matter can last far longer than has been predicted.

Thanks for playing. Please come again when you're up to speed.
 
Grugore said:
There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. You simply ignore it because it doesn't fit your Godless narrative.
Click to expand...
Who's ignoring evidence other than you? I've seen the evidence and it profoundly demonstrates through the data that certain organic molecules can survive geological time scales under certain conditions. You're making an assumption that you can't back up with data. That highly crosslinked proteins cannot survive geological time spans. You've just been presented with profound evidence of the fact that they can. What evidence do you have to refute it?

Thanks for playing.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It has been. You've limited your information from a creationist web site in which infers that there is little to no mineralization where in fact most of the material was mineralized (e.g. fossilized.).

What is known is small cross sections of the fossil contained protected voids in which organic matter in the form of the proteins collagen, tubulin and actin were found. It is known that these forms of proteins have extraordinary long degradation rates. Particularly when preserved by iron free radicals and when highly cross linked, which any schmuck with a two bit graduate biochemistry course knows that these proteins are. Now when you considered that these minute quantities of proteins were encapsulated in hematite you have strong evidence that under these conditions that organic matter can last far longer than has been predicted.

Thanks for playing. Please come again when you're up to speed.
Click to expand...

Whats the half life of DNA? No matter how it's preserved, it cannot last 65 million years. It's a scientific impossibility. Do you not comprehend how long a million years is, let alone 65 million?
 
Grugore said:
There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. You simply ignore it because it doesn't fit your Godless narrative.
Click to expand...
You've once again conveniently ignored the question asked, here’s another opportunity. What he asked was "What evidence do you have that no organic matter can survive geological time scales?".
 
Grugore said:
Whats the half life of DNA? No matter how it's preserved, it cannot last 65 million years. It's a scientific impossibility. Do you not comprehend how long a million years is, let alone 65 million?
Click to expand...
Stay on topic. We're not talking about DNA. We're talking about highly cross-linked proteins with exceptionally low degradation rates. Which is what was discovered. DNA was not discovered in these samples.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Stay on topic. We're not talking about DNA. We're talking about highly cross-linked proteins with exceptionally low degradation rates. Which is what was discovered. DNA was not discovered in these samples.
Click to expand...

Proteins are made from RNA, which is made from the same nucleotides as DNA. The half-life of DNA is 521 years.
 
bhaktajan said:
Nice to see your faith placed in unseen Gurus.

Where is the Scientific Method in Mary Schweitzer's research?

[Scientific Method = "consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."]

With out the Scientific Method proceedure it's called "hypotheses"
Click to expand...

Where is the Scientific Method backing the claims made in the OP?

There is none...therefore the OP is just another HYPOTHESIS.
 
Grugore said:
Pure conjecture. Yes. It does preserve proteins. But they have no way of knowing for how long. Also, the half life of DNA would not allow it to last millions of years, no matter how it was preserved. That's a scientific fact. Nice try. Care to try again?
Click to expand...

It's NOT Scientific FACT until you show your work and prove it to us.

You want to claim that the half life of DNA would not allow it to last millions of years then SHOW YOUR WORK or admit it's just more creationist ignorance.
 
Grugore said:
Proteins are made from RNA, which is made from the same nucleotides as DNA. The half-life of DNA is 521 years.
Click to expand...

Again, what does this have to do with the price of fish? DNA is DNA and Proteins are proteins. Proteins are not made from RNA, proteins are assembled by RNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. They do not contain nucleic acids. They contain amino acids.

I mean dude....this is basic freshman chemistry and biology....thanks for playing but you really need to step up your game.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It's NOT Scientific FACT until you show your work and prove it to us.

You want to claim that the half life of DNA would not allow it to last millions of years then SHOW YOUR WORK or admit it's just more creationist ignorance.
Click to expand...
or better yet....explain what the hell DNA even has to do with the topic at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top