tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post116513172759292149..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Re: Lengthy evolution vs. sudden creation of life and a new take on the Genesis creation accountStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165298427036156412006-12-05T15:00:00.000+09:002006-12-05T15:00:00.000+09:00I guess I lied.My real last word is to identify my...I guess I lied.<BR/>My real last word is to identify my previous last word (thanks) as mine.<BR/><BR/>CharlieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165273512325361912006-12-05T08:05:00.000+09:002006-12-05T08:05:00.000+09:00The point is that if the YEC/GFG theory was true, ...<I>The point is that if the YEC/GFG theory was true, then since *all* land animals died *at the same time* ~8,000 years ago, then *all* fossils that YECs claim died in that global flood should *all* have about the *same* proportion of soft tissue to mineral replacement. </I> <BR/><BR/>Of course that misrepresents the YEC position. The YEC position is that a majority of dinosaurs died in the flood and the surviving species went extinct over an unknown period of time as a result of the following enviromental changes. Note the references to the laviathon and behemoth in Job.<BR/><BR/><I>On the other hand, if the fossil record goes back billions of years (the oldest fossil traces are thought to be ~3.8 billion years old) then, there should be a *general pattern* of proportionately less soft tissue to mineral replacement found in fossils the older the fossil is. *Which in fact is the case*. </I> <BR/><BR/>What? That is contradiction of your original point that 99.999% of fossils don't have soft tissue. Now fossils progressively have more soft tissue depending on the age? Do you have a reference for either of these statements?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165256872308233362006-12-05T03:27:00.000+09:002006-12-05T03:27:00.000+09:00My last word: Thanks, Stephen, for your response.My last word: <BR/>Thanks, Stephen, for your response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165248597193806112006-12-05T01:09:00.000+09:002006-12-05T01:09:00.000+09:00Dinosaur collagen is only going to extend and defl...Dinosaur collagen is only going to extend and deflect away from THE real argument. Of course anyone with a little knowledge would realize that the animal must have died rather recently. <BR/><BR/>However THE problem facing evolution is how life got started in the first place. <BR/><BR/>Some propose that just the right chemicals came together and eventually formed a living cell. <BR/><BR/>ANY honest person who has studied first year college biology will confirm that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for chance to have formed even the simplist form of life imaginable. It is simply MUCH too complex. <BR/><BR/>Step one is how to get the little critters to use only the lift handed molucules to build their first cell. <BR/><BR/>It is beyond NORMAL reason to think that ANY random process could pull off such a feat.<BR/><BR/>And if by some miracle they could have gotten together all the left handed chemicals,the remaining multitudinous steps are increasingly impossible to have happened by chance.<BR/><BR/>Evolution theory will some day be considered dark age ignorance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165225392129068302006-12-04T18:43:00.000+09:002006-12-04T18:43:00.000+09:00AnonymousMost (if not all) of your points I have a...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>Most (if not all) of your points I have answered in my response to Charlie.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, I have stated my policy in responding to comments in a comment on a previous post (see http://tinyurl.com/yblbsg) that I simply don't have the time (or inclination) to debate, so after responding to each comment once, I will usually let each commenter have the last word.<BR/><BR/>Which you have now had.<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165217884097955942006-12-04T16:38:00.000+09:002006-12-04T16:38:00.000+09:00"You are ignoring my main point about ~99.9999% of...<I>"You are ignoring my main point about ~99.9999% of fossils don't have soft tissue and only ~0.0001% do, but YECs and OEC/YL think that the ~0.0001% supports their young life argument and the ~99.9999% does not support the opposite old life argument! "</I> <BR/><BR/>How do you know 99.9999% of dinosaur fossils don't have soft tissue? Nobody has ever looked. They didn't even look for this soft tissue. It was discovered inadvertantly when they cracked open a bone to get it inside a helicopert. So who has checked the other fossils to see if collagen survived inside the other bones? Nobody.<BR/><BR/>Also, it is unlikely that any soft tissue would even survive a thousand years. So even if most dinosaurs died four thousand years ago soft tissue would be exceedingly rare. However, the odds of finding soft tissue after four thousand years is exponentially larger than finding soft tissue after 65 million years. What do you think the half-life of the amino acids in the collagen is? Do think those amino acids could survive 65 million years? I don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165215059767861522006-12-04T15:50:00.000+09:002006-12-04T15:50:00.000+09:00Charlie>Hi Stephen,I love your site and read it re...Charlie<BR/><BR/>>Hi Stephen,<BR/>I love your site and read it regularly.<BR/>It is an excellent reference on many issues in the evolution/creation debate.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>>I don't engage much in YEC/OEC debates but would like to point out one thing on this issue of the possible discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.<BR/>You keep saying that most fossils a few thousand years old should have soft tissue.<BR/>Is this something you would support scientifically?<BR/><BR/>I could spend time researching this to "support [it] scientifically" but I don't have the time.<BR/><BR/>But it is *self-evident* (and indeed inherent in the YEC argument) that, since soft tissue in a dead organism that is buried in mud away from predators, is over time replaced by minerals (which is what fossilisation is), then the more fossils have soft tissue not replaced, the more it is evidence of recent fossilisation; and conversely the less fossils have soft tissue, the more it is evidence of ancient fossilisation. <BR/><BR/>It is always possible, due to a unique set of circumstances, that a very old fossil can have some soft tissue preserved. A retired geologist who used to work in a coal mine told me that he occasionally saw a green leaf brought up in coal that was hundreds of millions of years old (*far* older than any dinosaurs), but it immediately began to disintegrate in the air. The point is that this was so extremely rare, that it was noteworthy.<BR/><BR/>>Isn't it far more likely that most fossils would not have soft tissue, even if they are only thousands of years old, as opposed to tens of millions?<BR/><BR/>Agreed but this is not an alternative position. It is the *standard* position that, the longer the time that dead organisms have been subject to fossiliation processes of minerals replacing their soft tissues, the less likely it is that soft tissue will be found in their fossils(see above). <BR/><BR/>Therefore "fossils ... thousands of years old" would, on average, have proportionately more "soft tissue" than fossils "tens of millions" of years old.<BR/><BR/>Presumably one could graph this and it would be an exponentially decreasing percentage of soft tissue until at some point, many hundreds of millions of years ago, there would be zero percentage of soft tissue found. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if Young-Earth/Global Flood Geology (YEC/GFG) was true, the graph would show a fairly horizontal line `signal in the noise' because all the animals that YEC/GFG claims formed the fossil record (e.g. not pre-flood, post-flood or on the Ark), would have *all died the same time* ~8,000 years ago and their soft tissues would have all started being replaced by minerals together (see below). <BR/><BR/>>Also, how many fossils have been broken open and analyzed in such a manner (Mary Schweitzer's method is only a year or so old) as to discover if they do or do not have material which appears to be soft tissue?<BR/><BR/>It no doubt will now be the case that scientists will now look more closely at fossils to see if there are any traces of soft tissue, and no doubt they will some. <BR/><BR/>>Now that it has been found once do you think it may become an object of investigation and might be found more often?<BR/><BR/>Of course (see above).<BR/><BR/>>And if it is, what will be the accepted percentage that would tell you that these fossils are not 65 million years old?<BR/><BR/>Let's backtrack a bit. Dinosaurs may be a special case in that they were generally large animals with therefore a lot of soft tissue and large bones within which soft tissue may be more likely to be preserved. They also may have been more likely to live in swamps where, when they died, they were more likely to sink into thick anoxic mud which would be more likely to preserve soft tissue.<BR/><BR/>The point is that if the YEC/GFG theory was true, then since *all* land animals died *at the same time* ~8,000 years ago, then *all* fossils that YECs claim died in that global flood should *all* have about the *same* proportion of soft tissue to mineral replacement.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if the fossil record goes back billions of years (the oldest fossil traces are thought to be ~3.8 billion years old) then, there should be a *general pattern* of proportionately less soft tissue to mineral replacement found in fossils the older the fossil is. *Which in fact is the case*.<BR/><BR/>>If it were actually impossible for soft tissue to survive 65 millions years, and this is indeed soft tissue, wouldn't one example, 0.0001%, be enough to refute that age?<BR/><BR/>No scientist would claim it is "actually impossible for soft tissue to survive 65 millions years," just that it would be extremely rare. As far as I know no one is saying it to Dr. Schweitzer. And see above my example of a rare leaf found in coal far older than any dinosaur.<BR/><BR/>As I have said before, one of the problems with how YEC argues is that it tends to attack the evidence for an old Earth while keeping its young Earth alternative out of the ring. Then if there are any problems (real or imaginary) with the old Earth evidence, then YEC jumps into the ring and declares itself the winner, even though its own evidence has not been equally challenged! <BR/><BR/>The *right* way for YEC to argue (if it was actually interested in getting at the truth) would be for it to attack the evidence for an old Earth and *in tandem* present its young Earth alternative for it to be attacked. Then the theory which has the least problems overall should be the preferred one. <BR/><BR/>However, I have found that YECs don't like that reasonable method, presumably because in their heart of hearts they *know* that their theory is false!<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165192425864109822006-12-04T09:33:00.000+09:002006-12-04T09:33:00.000+09:00Hi Stephen,I love your site and read it regularly....Hi Stephen,<BR/>I love your site and read it regularly.<BR/>It is an excellent reference on many issues in the evolution/creation debate.<BR/>I don't engage much in YEC/OEC debates but would like to point out one thing on this issue of the possible discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.<BR/>You keep saying that most fossils a few thousand years old should have soft tissue.<BR/>Is this something you would support scientifically?<BR/>Isn't it far more likely that most fossils would not have soft tissue, even if they are only thousands of years old, as opposed to tens of millions?<BR/>Also, how many fossils have been broken open and analyzed in such a manner (Mary Schweitzer's method is only a year or so old) as to discover if they do or do not have material which appears to be soft tissue?<BR/>Now that it has been found once do you think it may become an object of investigation and might be found more often?<BR/>And if it is, what will be the accepted percentage that would tell you that these fossils are not 65 million years old?<BR/>If it were actually impossible for soft tissue to survive 65 millions years, and this is indeed soft tissue, wouldn't one example, 0.0001%, be enough to refute that age?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165183062481556982006-12-04T06:57:00.000+09:002006-12-04T06:57:00.000+09:00Anonymous>Wow, I never realized how powerful the d...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>>Wow, I never realized how powerful the dinosaur soft tissue argument was until I read you need to rebut it. You might want to check out the November 10, 2006 issue of science. The soft tissue appears to be dinosaur collagen which is very similar to collagen found inside ostrich legs.<BR/><BR/>Thanks. I will check that out. But there is nothing much online about it, and Wikipedia is still saying that, "Interpretation of the artifact is ongoing, and the relative importance of Dr. Schweitzer's discovery is not yet clear" [http://tinyurl.com/v99pe] so I presume it is not as clear-cut as you claim.<BR/><BR/>>The idea that this protein is the result of some unheard of molecular evolution is a violation of Occam'a Razor.<BR/><BR/>That's what scientific progress can be: the discovery of "some unheard of" process.<BR/><BR/>>The simplest answer is that it is not millions of years old. <BR/><BR/>You are ignoring my main point about ~99.9999% of fossils don't have soft tissue and only ~0.0001% do, but YECs and OEC/YL think that the ~0.0001% supports their young life argument and the ~99.9999% does not support the opposite old life argument!<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1165166011401181932006-12-04T02:13:00.000+09:002006-12-04T02:13:00.000+09:00Wow, I never realized how powerful the dinosaur so...Wow, I never realized how powerful the dinosaur soft tissue argument was until I read you need to rebut it. You might want to check out the November 10, 2006 issue of science. The soft tissue appears to be dinosaur collagen which is very similar to collagen found inside ostrich legs. The idea that this protein is the result of some unheard of molecular evolution is a violation of Occam'a Razor. The simplest answer is that it is not millions of years old.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com