soft tissue in dino & other fossils(notes)-nothing in science justifies millions of years ages

(See notes part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynXwAo9V_pY)
Dr. Kaye labeled Dr. Schweitzer's findings as biofilm. But,Kaye's paper refers to pores in the cells that are NOT consistent with mineral origins as well as admitting that there was soft tissue(osteocytes) in it.

Here's the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm: "as Kaye examined more fossils,he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone.Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years,he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz." http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/

He's basically saying that since so much soft tissue would contradict evolution,it couldn't possibly be real soft tissue no matter what the evidence. That's pretty severe bias.

Kaye admits,"We are not experts in the field. We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein."
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/355642

Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye's dissent:
"There really isn't a lot new here,although I really welcome that someone is attempting to look at & repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording(& spelling & grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work,our data & our interpretations.

"Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation,forms a testable hypothesis about the observation,gathers data,& the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined & retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times,it is strengthened,& eventually moves to become a theory,one of the strongest statements in science.

"If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis & the data put forth by another researcher to support it,one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original,&
3. produce new data that,in addition to the original,more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original.
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

"While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed,& find their own explanations for these,they do not address the considerable chemical & molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see,but we determined that based upon the data we had,microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data(see Schweitzer et al.,2007,Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies,a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data,& controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al.,2008...Nor did they explain the internal,or 'intracellular' structure we report for observed osteocytes...&finally,they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm...the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids...We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone... While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues,we hope that the reviewers & readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/01/slime-versus-dinosaur/
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

Schweitzer also states. "The idea that biofilms are completely & solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana.Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens,for example,& the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells,she says.

Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis & have created a critical bridge between biology & paleontology," he says. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-07-29-fossils_N.htm

There are also quite a few evidences that dinos lived with man. See my creation-soft tissue playlist.
100+ DATING METHODS POINT TO A YOUNG EARTH
1)(for laymen) http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

2)(more technical)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences24.html#wp3303729
&
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences33.html#wp2534183

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating

On the fossil order,see:
http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/Section%20PDFs...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dino
• tissue
• T
• rex
• bone
• blood
• not
• 70mil
• years
• old
• dinosaurs
• Schweitzer

[TruthIsLife7]

@Tapiola2007 This seminar is very good. Dr. Silvestru, Ph.D in geology from ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania (where he was associate professor),is a world authority on the geology of caves,published 41 scientific papers & 3 books. He was for years the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute. His seminar summarizes the vast evidence for a global flood

watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (Start at 36:00. ~54:00 deals with how catastrophic plate tectonics supports the global flood).

[TruthIsLife7]

@Tapiola2007 Good. Then you should know that 40 methods (with many debunked) do not beat 100 methods. Creation has been science of the hardest sort for centuries (btw, Behe isn't an IDer, not a creationist). But, ID has plenty of testable evidences. See the links in the notes here:

watch?v=SgGTsSwje4Y

~scientific method...ROFL. It was creationists that INVENTED that, starting with Daniel in the Bible in ~600 B.C. Peer reviewed journals agree with that.

[TruthIsLife7]

@Tapiola2007 Bible science and creation science have literally 100s of not 1000s of fully confirmed. more than ID has. I'll just list 4 major ones because of space constraints.

1) The Bible predicted an expanding universe for 1000s of years while steady state was the accepted view. Science finally caught up and confirmed that./

2) The Bible pioneered the biogenesis hypothesis while spontaneous generation was reigning. Biogenesis is now a law of science.

[TruthIsLife7]

3) Creationists like John Wilkins, Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth, etc. published on natural selection, speciation, etc. based on Genesis LONG before Darwin.

4) Creation science taught a combination of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. Geology has moved far towards this model.

5) Creation science predicted most so-called vestigial organs&junk-DNA would have function. Creation has been powerfully vindicated&papers showing function for “junk DNA” are being published almost daily.

[TruthIsLife7]

@Tapiola2007 6) We know many biological features that keep evolution limited to specific levels. See Dr. Gauger’s interview and peer reviewed paper in the notes in this link for just 1 of them.

watch?v=SgGTsSwje4Y

See also this link on how diamonds refute billions of years.

creationDOTcom/diamonds-a-crea­tionists-best-friend

There are many more detailed proofs beyond this. But, creation has for a LONG TIME been FAR more scientific than universal common descent ever has.

[TruthIsLife7]

@Tapiola2007 With all due respect, how much do you know about how science works? Science is supposed to follow the weight of evidence. And the weight of evidence is decisively on the side of creation science. Scientists on ALL sides agree 100% that creation science has beaten most of its major rivals in terms of verifiable scientific evidence. In this area also, we have 100+ methods showing a young age for life on earth. ~40 show an old age,&dino soft tissue debunks many of those.

[TruthIsLife7]

@gregrutz No Greg, you are 100% DEAD wrong in every particle. So many versions and concepts of universal common descent have been falsified and abandoned even by evolutionists and most who are educated know that UCD has very little to do with Darwin's ideas. 85% of the fossil record doesn't have ANY match to UCD, esp. not the Cambrian (note, NOBODY claims it's 230 million years old) which has fossils of nearly all phyla confirming creation science predictions and debunking UCD.

[TruthIsLife7]

Note...that there are some cases where a few anomalies can be so strong to falsify an idea...but in the case of the Bible in history, regular science and creation science, in literally 1000s of cases, the more time goes by and the more evidence is uncovered, the more the Bible's statements are confirmed. The fossil record is overwhelmingly in favor of creation..but there are still some issues to figure out. For UCD though,nearly all phyla suddenly appearing in 1% of history almost destroys UCD.

[Tapiola2007]

@TruthIsLife7 I work in biochemistry. Good enough? Even if I didn't, a basic education is enough to grapple with the issues here. The fact that you even use the expression "creation science" means you have a false understanding of the scientific method. Please give me a single instance of "verifiable scientific evidence" produced by so-called Creationist scientists. Even your poster boy Michael Behe couldn't when under oath and asked to do so by a judge. When you're ready, join the real world.

[Tapiola2007]

What has Genesis and Bible believers' claims got to do with discovery? It's a fascinating and most unexpected possibility that has to be completely understood before any hard and fast conclusions can be drawn from it. It certainly contradicts current understanding of the fossilization process and the breakdown of soft organic matter. At no point has it upturned the paradigm of an ancient Earth or dinosaur history, which depend on a wealth of separate and incontrovertible evidence. Just pathetic!

[xchris1800]

These called scientists are retarded, How can an organic stuff be preserved millions of years witouth any protection? Obviously, the bible gives the right explanation, dinos and man lived together, and it is not millioms, but thousand, evidence in our favor, as usual.

[TruthIsLife7]

@RespectMyHate If you like this one, check out my "creation-evidence for the flood" playlist, esp. Dr. Silvestru's video and Dr. Wise's videos here:

wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/playlist?l­ist=PL14FDE276E5C97E24

Yes, there is much suppression of scientific evidence that goes against evolution traditions and much else as well (such as Bible economics)