• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which is more likely? Dead blood cells with squishy tissue are millions of years old or not?

tas8831

Well-Known Member
tiny red dots in vascular canals sounds a bit more like soft tissue to me

And your background is in...?
Hematology? Histology? Cell biology?

No - it is in engineering of some kind. And bible study, apparently.

THAT is why "tiny red dots" 'sounds like' soft tissue to you.

And that is why you ignore actual explanations such as the paper Sooda posted.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Some might say trying to claim soft tissue is 0.2 billion years old is grasping at straws.
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....
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Cool stuff - I would like to emphasize one thing for the sake of this thread:
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.....
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I wonder what would happen to a T-bone steak if you placed it in a perfectly sealed vacuum for a billion years? No oxygen for bacteria to consume to promote metabolism, no airflow to promote evaporation of fluids. I'm not sure much could change. Could it? Am I missing some other process that forces organic material to break-down or lose its properties?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
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?
Ockham. It's a village in Surrey.

The answer is > 65m yrs old, as this marks the end of the Cretaceous, which is when those dinosaurs that were not birds died out.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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?

What blood cells? I suggest you read the papers on the subject rather than the sensationalist religious bias press
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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?

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?

As for the team of enablers, you know you will
get what you are sowing.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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 gooney bird does a flyby dropping the smelly load, and fades away in the dark stormy night.
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
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.
 
Top