Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Pastafarianism; The atheist religion
Topic Started: 23 Jul 2009, 08:03 PM (3,244 Views)
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@conradw: Thanx, I only read some of her older works.

Yes this is cool, and could open up a whole new branch within the field of paleontology as well as lead to lot's of interdisciplinary collaborations with biologists (which I like).
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dragonshardz
Member Avatar
Troll
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
As it has been said, most scientific discoveries have been less like "Eureka!" and more like "Hmm...that's funny..."
Posted Image
Posted Image

I lurk a lot on this forum, and am very busy in real life, so don't be surprised if I take a couple days, or even weeks, to reply to your post or PM.

GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any other forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Touché :D
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
conradw
Goliath
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Amen!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've heard it put two ways.
For one, It doesn't matter about the fossilation of the bone or not, we know that soft tissue doesn't live or survive that long.
Am I the only one seeing this?
Sure, it means that we can try and see blood structures and whatnot in the bone, but really, it just doesn't match up for me.
Take a look at leaves for instance, theres a biological difference in animal cells, but they decompose in a matter of months.
Why should it be any different for this soft tissue?
I want an explanation.
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Luemas
 
we know that soft tissue doesn't live or survive that long.
No we thought that soft tissue didn't stay intact for so long. These findings just proved us otherwise :)

One hypothesis is preservation (one of the article mentioned that they have found old plant material as well). Things don't rot on their own, there are normally millions of bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms to take care of that. If the organic tissue is emerged in something that is inhospitable to these life forms (like a tar pit), there are no one there to decompose the organic tissue.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
conradw
Goliath
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
soft tissue surrounding the bones are more exposed to decomposing organisms, and so decompose faster.

The tissue embedded into the bone isn't as exposed, and so is buried with the bone. and is included in the fossil

Edited by conradw, 11 Nov 2009, 10:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What about all the bacteria in the body? We have billions of bacteria in our body. And, wouldn't the bacteria be able to get the soft tissue before the bone fossilized?
And as for the creationists twisting words, I prefer the term lawyer, because we find errors in arguments and testimonies. So there.
And did anybody think to check the blood cells for carbon dating?
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Have you seen Lenin lately? He's being preserved in formaldehyde [EDIT: no wait! Maybe it was acetone?]. It's like a mummification process, where the bacterias in the body are killed before they get a chance to degrade all tissue. Some eastern monks have actually managed to mummify themselves and are preserved to this day.

I didn't check for dating results when reading the articles (personally I would choose another element than carbon, as carbon dating is only useful for ages up to 50 000 years or so, perhaps U-235:Pb-207 would be a more useful ratio). Did you find any details about the dating in any of the articles?
Edited by Concolor, 11 Nov 2009, 06:51 PM.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The closest thing I could find to relatings it's age was to Hell Creek, where they found it, to be 68 million years old, without any explanation.
Also, this is just a guess, but I'm pretty sure most living things don't have uranium in them. This is due to the fact that it being a radioactive element, not good for us and our cells.
However, a discrepensy against radioisotope dating.
For 1, they assume that the rock sample had so and so Lead in it to begin with. And we all know what happens when you assume.

So, that is why radioisometric dating isn't reliable.
And if I wished to further explain Hell Creek or whatever it was called by using the flood, but then, we would get sidetracked.
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

U-245:Pb-209 would be more likely with potassium-argon dating however the equizmloads dissagree by about .105589%
which sounds unreliable to me unless you look at uranium-lead dating which obviously cant be used for anything living by the definition of once alive and then dead for obvious reasons
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I love it how you guys jump from accepting gut-feelings and anecdotes to suddenly demanding higher accuracy than 0.1% unless you are to dismiss the entire concept :D (No wait, I don't. It's actually slightly irritating :P )

@ARAZEC: 0.1% margin of error equals being able do determine your birthday to within the nearest week. That means one would quite certainly know your year of birth, season and possibly even month. I don't think that's bad at all. And of course we're not trying to date anything living because living things are still alive, which means that their date is today!

@Luemas: I briefly checked up Hell Creek, seems they not only did radiometric dating, but also paleomagnetic dating (where you're sampling the magnetic polarity of the rocks). Looks like they did their homework to me.

Also, let's pretend that these techniques were horribly unreliable, that they missed target by 10 MILLION YEARS! (more than 10% error). The site would still be more than 50 million years old, what is your point here? And also I don't think the flood is sidetracking any more than we already are. I must admit that if you are thinking of the same argument that I've heard before then your devaluation of radiometric dating would be (as we say in Norway) like throwing rocks at others when you're sitting in a glass house.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

errrmm ummmm :ermm: :ermm: :ermm: my post was ummmm all made up -i thought you would know that what i was talking about was untrue......seems as if you use authentic sounding big words......ppl just assume some scientist somewhere actually is right.....

wow cant beleive that just happened :blink:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
conradw
Goliath
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
see, I was thinking that what you were saying was nonsense, but then I've accepted that some people see grammar as an extravagance.

However, in spite of what you said, there was some insight: Uranium Lead dating can be used to find the age of the fossil, but the organic tissue would have to be dated another way. C14 would not be used due to the short (in a geological scale) half-life which limits the effective range to 60,000 years. Amino acid dating is limited to about 2 million years ago, I think. I'm not sure how we would absolutely date the soft tissue.

any ideas?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAZEC: I fail to see how your previous post looks any different from your other posts. Are you saying that some of your posts are intentionally gibberish? I feel that we've touched upon this trust-issue before.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply