Re: It's no joke!

Vernon
It is remarkable that some fragmented soft stuff has survived e.g. broken
bits of DNA. However you must give some good evidence why geological dating
both relative from stratigraphy and the sedimentoloigical evidence for vast
age and the age in years derived from radiometric age-dating. So far all you
have said is "I can't believe that it could have lasts 70 my"
Please note that I have found 1 billion year old mudcracks in a clay band.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: It's no joke!

> Thanks for these thoughts, Wayne. [Yesterday evening, in my eagerness to
> respond, I pressed 'SEND' prematurely - my apologies to you, and to all].
>
> I suppose a rough and ready analogy for the possible destiny of the marrow
> of an intact thigh bone would be that of the meat in an unopened can. In
> respect of this, I note that experts advise one against eating the
> contents if the can's age exceeds 5 years. Whilst chemical reaction
> between meat and metal would, undoubtedly, be an important factor here
> surely an equivalent reaction between marrow and bone must occur in
> respect of T.Rex? And what of the possibility of further degradation by
> cosmic ray and natural radioactivity over such an extended period of time?
> In formulating a reply, it might be wise to remember that there are
> 14,000,000 lots of 5 years in 70 My!
>
> Vernon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
> To: ""Vernon Jenkins"" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 1:38 AM
> Subject: Re: It's no joke!
>
>
>>
>>>Regardless of whether or not there are still traces of blood vessels and
>>>cells in these T.Rex bones, it is certainly remarkable that they are not
>>>completely fossilised after spending ' 70 million years' entombed in
>>>sandstone. All things considered, an impartial skeptic might reasonably
>>>inquire whether this generous estimate of burial time makes any sense.
>>>However, it is now evident that the situation offers a rare opportunity
>>>for 'old earth' proponents to justify this much-quoted feature of the
>>>geologic column. Thus, a simple C14 test on a sample of the material
>>>and/or associated bone - openly conducted and properly monitored - would
>>>certainly shed some much needed light on the matter, and in the interests
>>>of truth would surely be hard to deny.
>>>
>> Vernon,
>>
>> It is true that most things "turn to stone", but it is not
>> the case that things just magically turn to stone because
>> they are old. Think about it, if you ensconce a protein an
>> isolated anaerobic environment, nothing will change (note:
>> anaerobic = an environment where oxidation cannot occur,
>> isolated: = no exchange with the surroundings can occur).
>> Some residual oxygen is left over in the cells, but it is
>> not enough to oxidize the entire cell. It is mentioned in
>> the article that this may not be so unusual for bone marrow:
>> a region of the bone that should be relatively isolated and
>> anaerobic if the bone is not fractured.
>>
>> Actually, if you want to make a real argument against
>> evolution, then you would need to show that there _is_
>> suffient C14 in the sample. A 70 Myr sample probably
>> would not have enough C14 left over to measure even in
>> accelerator mass spectroscopy. If we found proportions
>> equivalent to a decay period of 6000 years, then you
>> would have a real case (assuming no contamination).
>> That test could be done by taking part of a sample
>> not exposed to air. 5000 years is usually the limit
>> for C14 measurements, but if all we need is to detect
>> trace amounts proportional to 6000 yr decay, accelerator
>> mass spectroscopy would be sufficient to do the test.
>>
>> If there is no C14, you have no case. Evidence of "soft
>> material" is no evidence at all against evolution.
>>
>> by Grace alone we proceed,
>> Wayne
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 29 15:46:01 2005