tas8831
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm... So you're fine with running off to start new threads when other threads you've started don't turn out the way you had hoped?Hmmm... So you're fine with soft tissue that managed to survive 0.2 billion years?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hmmmm... So you're fine with running off to start new threads when other threads you've started don't turn out the way you had hoped?Hmmm... So you're fine with soft tissue that managed to survive 0.2 billion years?
tiny red dots in vascular canals sounds a bit more like soft tissue to me
Some - rather, the educated, honest, and intelligent - would say that continuing to call it "soft tissue" when the truth of the matter has been presented to you more than once is.... hmmmm... what is the word I am thinking of....Some might say trying to claim soft tissue is 0.2 billion years old is grasping at straws.
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-toast-proteins-dinosaur-bones.html
...
The researchers discovered that soft tissues are preserved in samples from oxidative environments such as sandstones and shallow, marine limestones. The soft tissues were transformed into Advanced Glycoxidation and Lipoxidation end products (AGEs and ALEs), which are resistant to decay and degradation. They're also structurally comparable to chemical compounds that stain the dark crust on toast.....
Ockham. It's a village in Surrey.View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101
Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?
or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN
But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?
View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101
Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?
or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN
But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?
View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101
Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?
or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN
But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?
View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101
Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?
or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN
But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?
Occam's razor eliminates assumptions. So In this case, it eliminates the assumption that the tissues are young, 0.2 billion years seems a bit too old for dinosaur tissue to last, or that if it's much younger.View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101
Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?
or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN
But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?
The science explaining how that happens is freely available, and fairly simple to understand. This "argument from incredulousness" especially when you refuse to familiarise yourself with the basic science, is tiresome.View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101
Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?
or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN
But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?
Isn't it odd that the fellow that earlier tried, in essence, to appeal to authority ('I have patents!') is reduced to drive-by creationist essay posts...Which is more likely that you will keep on with your
drive by posting of new topics, or that you will
honestly talk about your earlier ones?
tiny red dots in vascular canals sounds a bit more like soft tissue to me
and 0.2 billion years old?
Sounds mighty old.
View attachment 30102
Some might say trying to claim soft tissue is 0.2 billion years old is grasping at straws.
Nah.... Easier to be thinking about the next 'gotcha!' thread he can start...Do you even read the posts you are responding to?