SB I already described the chemical process that preserves organic matter for millions of years.
God and Unicorns
by Sea Breeze 42 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Sea Breeze
Cofty,
You have no idea how iron can preserve soft tissues, blood cells, DNA fragments and other biological stuctures for hundreds of millions of years, because there is no test for "Millions of Years." (MoY). The test only lasted a few weeks that you are referring to.
I'm sure there is something to the iron preservation hypothesis. But this stuff is everywhere it is not supposed to be. 6 out of 8 randomly selected dinosaur bones selected from thousands at the British museum produced original organic material. Are you going to tell me that all of these randomly bones selected had the exact conditions necessary for preservation of MoY? Ridiculous.
This is a nothing more than a rescue device for a failing model.... making a mountain out of a mole hill.Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell notes:
Catastrophic Burial Still Essential
Preservation of soft tissue of course requires more that the presence of iron in a dead animal. Rapid burial is needed, and the global Flood supplied the rapid burial beneath huge masses of mineral-laden water-borne sediment requisite for the large-scale fossilization we see in earth’s sedimentary rocks. Burial in porous sediment through which water can flow, such as the sandstone in which soft-tissue-containing dinosaur bones have been found, is a further help to preserving delicate soft tissue. The bones of the specimens in which Schweitzer has found soft tissue have been articulated rather than scattered, which is additional testimony to their rapid burial. Thus rapid burial plus the release of biologically bound iron may be the twin keys to keeping dinosaur soft tissue around long enough for paleontologists to find it.
Stretching Back Through Deep Time
But can iron chelation preserve soft tissue and even keep it soft for millions of years? While a 200-fold delay in the decay of ostrich blood vessels is certainly impressive, even that level of preservation can’t hold a candle to the 99,800,000-fold10 increase in chemical stability needed in the millions-of-years evolutionary scenario. Schweitzer quite reasonably makes a comparison to the fixation properties of formaldehyde. Many variables influence the degree and duration of the decay-delaying properties of formaldehyde. But specimens preserved in formaldehyde are not preserved perfectly or permanently. While burial conditions likely influence the efficacy of iron as a preservative in any given bone, there is certainly no reason to propose that iron could preserve the molecular structure of soft tissue for millions of years any more than formaldehyde could.
Regardless of what anyone thinks is likely, the fact is it is impossible to scientifically test and observe the answer to this question. No scientist has ever observed the effects of millions of years on anything. The millions-of-years age assigned to the strata containing dinosaur fossils is derived from a number of worldview-based unverifiable assumptions. Therefore, the fact that dinosaur soft tissue is preserved in some fossils does not mean that iron or anything else has preserved it for millions of years. Iron chelation may be the (or a) key to preservation, a conclusion supported by Schweitzer’s work, but nothing in the discovery demonstrates how long such preservation could be effective.
-
Anony Mous
@SB: you once again come with assumptions that do not pass any logic. The only dinosaur bones we have are the ones that were preserved through some process. Obviously you are not going to find anything that either wasn’t preserved or wasn’t preserved sufficiently long. They are not randomly selected, they are the only selection we have. It’s similar to saying you have a string of numbers, someone (time in this case) eliminates all the non-prime numbers and you then conclude non-prime numbers don’t exist despite the fact you can easily deduce the rest of the series from the examples.