C14 Dates of Coal, Oil, and Diamonds

The T. Rex paper is right. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, Skinwalker.
Although, it's not really what you might think. What they did was dissolve the bone and some of the veins inside the bone were soft.

A short thread on it from back when:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45937

And the science paper:
Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, and Jan K. Toporski
Science 25 March 2005; 307: 1952-1955 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1108397] (in Reports)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ex&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Uniformitarians' dirty little secret, like the fleshy T-rex remains which have been discovered in Montana, but have disappeared after a brief mention in the news.
Click to expand...

They probably 'disappeared from the news' because laymen were disappointed that the soft tissue wasn't what they thought it was nor did it mean what they thought it meant.

As a matter of fact, the paper is more about the similarity between T. Rex bones and bird bones, if I recall correctly.

The soft tissue thing was more sensationalism than anything else. Of no great import.
 
Sure, soft animal tissue surviving for "65 million" years is of no great import.
Click to expand...

Read the paper and learn how it is that the soft tissue survived the 65 million years and the process by which it was extracted.
You know. Learn something rather than just making assumptions based on sensationalistic news stories.
 
I don't see anything about them trying to explain how "70 million year old" T-rex soft tissues could have survived for that amount of time, nexo, so please tell us what it supposedly says.
 
Hey Nex, why did you call the find "amazing?"
Click to expand...

Because it was before I read the paper, Ice.
Even after reading the paper I still find it amazing. But nowhere near as amazing as I originally thought from the news article.
And, like I said, the paper wasn't even really about the soft tissue, it was more about the similarity of T. Rex bone formation with bird bone formation as opposed to reptile bone formation.

I don't see anything about them trying to explain how "70 million year old" T-rex soft tissues could have survived for that amount of time, nexo, so please tell us what it supposedly says.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Do you understand how science works?

I wonder why they haven't performed C14 analyses on those soft T-rex tissues?
Click to expand...

What makes you think they haven't?
 
Has there ever been an animal soft tissue sample, tested for C14, which did not come back with a date in the thousands of years? The answer is no, so could this be why no C14 test has been performed, or why, if tested, the results have never been made public? That's how science works, nex.
 
I hate to burst your bubble, but any scientist who comes up with proof of T. Rex surviving up to thousands of years ago would be world famous and inundated with research grants and accolades.

You really don't understand science at all, I'm afraid.

Anyway.
Why are you even bringing up carbon dating? Didn't you say carbon dating was flawed?

Also, if scientists are such liars and manipulators, then what's to stop them from just claiming that they've done the tests and the results are whatever they wish them to be?

Personally, I think you're just bitter. Jealous. Regretful of past choices and intent upon escaping personal responsibility for the course of your own life.

You're a janitor, right? Or a restaurant worker?
 
From the Science news story on the T. Rex find:

Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived.

Schweitzer is seeking funding for sophisticated tests that would use techniques such as mass spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography to check for dino tissue. As for DNA, which is less abundant and more fragile than proteins, Poinar says it's theoretically possible that some may have survived, if conditions stayed just right (preferably dry and subzero) for 68 million years. "Wouldn't it be cool?" he muses, but adds "the likelihood is probably next to none."
Click to expand...

It takes time to do research. Takes time to write up papers. Takes time to publish. Etc.. etc.. etc...
I know that things move awfully quick at McDonalds, but science takes time.
I doubt you've heard the last of this.
 
Since the T-rex soft tissues are obviously much younger than as advertised by the Darwinists, are you really so stupid to not know why they wouldn't want C14 results to be known, and so, why they wouldn't want to even test them for C14, which must be there, because it is soft organic material, how stupid can you be?
 
Heh.
Conspiracy theorists are funny.

Science is a conspiracy!!!!

No wonder you refuse to let any science into your posting and/or thinking habits.
Do you fear being infected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top