Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: Phantom423

Yes, and she found soft tissue.

a reply to: cooperton

It was DEMINERALIZED. And isotopic dating confirmed the age as millions of years old - no different than any other dinosaur.
Read the research paper.

a reply to: cooperton

They were "structures" - not intact soft tissue.

Preservation frequency of tissue-like structures in vertebrate remains from the upper Campanian of Alberta: Dinosaur Park Formation

Abstract
In recent years, several papers have claimed that soft tissue can preserve within bone matrix of extinct vertebrates, some dating back over 100 million years. Work conducted on specimens from Montana suggested sediment type may influence preservation of original tissues and proteins. An alternative hypothesis is that soft tissue preservation may be linked to the time that a specimen is exposed to the environment prior to burial. The time of exposure can be estimated by the degree of disarticulation of a skeleton. A study was conducted to determine if these factors truly contribute to the preservation of soft tissue-like structures in the geological record. This study is not intended to verify the presence of proteins but is simply to determine how common are macrostructures that look like soft tissue preservation. Samples were placed into a 0.5 M solution of (ethylenedinitrilo)tetraacetic acid, disodium salt, dihydrate (EDTA) for two months to dissolve mineral components. All specimens studied were collected from the Dinosaur Park Formation (upper Campanian) to minimize stratigraphic variation that may influence preservation. Dissolution of vertebrate remains sampled indicate an unexpectedly high rate of structural preservation. Fifteen dinosaur, two crocodilian, one fish, and one turtle were sampled for a total of nineteen specimens. Specimens were chosen based on sediment type and degree of articulation. Approximately half of the samples were recovered from sandstones, and the other half originated in mudstones. Additionally, approximately half of the samples were collected from articulated or closely associated skeletons, and the other half were taken from isolated bones or specimens from micro vertebrate sites. Of the nineteen specimens tested, eighteen specimens produced “vessel” structures, eighteen had extracellular organic-like matter, and seven revealed “osteocyte” structures. Although “vessel” and extracellular organic-like structures are not associated to a specific matrix type or degree of association,“osteocyte” structures appear to be associated more often with articulated/associated specimens, especially if they are preserved in sandstones.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

It was DEMINERALIZED. And isotopic dating confirmed the age as millions of years old - no different than any other dinosaur.
Read the research paper.

So what it had mineral components? They're not freshly dead of course there will be some mineralized aspects. But there's enough intact soft tissue to identify the type of tissue. This shows it is not millions of years old

There's also no way they can know the original isotopic ratios. Carbon dating is the exception because they can get estimates of
initial ratios by using current day atmospheric ratios.

a reply to: cooperton

Cite a research paper that agrees with you. You can't.

originally posted by: AlienView

Second problem, except maybe for mental exercise, why would otherwise intelligent beings continue to debate two concepts, neither of which can be proven, ad infinitum, when the two concepts [ID and Evolution] seem to require each other as a YIN/YANG symbiosis. Maybe only a well advanced Taoist could answer that question ???

Religion held back any advancement in thought of anything other than creation. With religion gradually losing its grip on society and critical thinking, we can now explore without the restrictive boundaries of blasphemy and sacrilege.

I don't believe in ID, although I do believe that the components that life requires are widespread throughout our universe. That does not mean I necessarily believe in 'aliens' either.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Cite a research paper that agrees with you. You can't.

You have to learn to think for your self. You are blindly believing the whitecoats without addressing the blatant evidence in your face. The white coats aren't allowed to publish anything that goes against evolution because it would never make it past peer-review, regardless of how objective and empirical the evidence was

The point is, soft tissue does not preserve for millions of years. Therefore these dinosaurs are not millions of years old

a reply to: cooperton

Cite a research paper that agrees with you or show the experiment you conducted to prove your case.

a reply to: cooperton

The point is, soft tissue does not preserve for millions of years. Therefore these dinosaurs are not millions of years old

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it the truth. Cite a paper or a textbook that agrees with you.

a reply to: cooperton

You just crashed all of modern physics including quantum mechanics. Do realize what an idiot you are?

Calculation of Equilibrium Constants for Isotopic Exchange Reactions
Jacob Bigeleisen and Maria Goeppert Mayer
Citation: The Journal of Chemical Physics 15, 261 (1947); doi: 10.1063/1.1746492
View online: dx.doi.org...
View Table of Contents: aip.scitation.org...
Published by the American Institute of Physics

web.gps.caltech.edu...

a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you write these authors a letter? Give them a copy of your own research.

Accurate and precise determination of isotopic ratios by MC‐ICP‐MS: A review
Lu Yang

Abstract
For many decades the accurate and precise determination of isotope ratios has remained a very strong interest to many researchers due to its important applications in earth, environmental, biological, archeological, and medical sciences. Traditionally, thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) has been the technique of choice for achieving the highest accuracy and precision. However, recent developments in multi‐collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC‐ICP‐MS) have brought a new dimension to this field. In addition to its simple and robust sample introduction, high sample throughput, and high mass resolution, the flat‐topped peaks generated by this technique provide for accurate and precise determination of isotope ratios with precision reaching 0.001%, comparable to that achieved with TIMS. These features, in combination with the ability of the ICP source to ionize nearly all elements in the periodic table, have resulted in an increased use of MC‐ICP‐MS for such measurements in various sample matrices. To determine accurate and precise isotope ratios with MC‐ICP‐MS, utmost care must be exercised during sample preparation, optimization of the instrument, and mass bias corrections. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies and errors evident in many MC‐ICP‐MS publications, including errors in mass bias correction models. This review examines “state‐of‐the‐art” methodologies presented in the literature for achievement of precise and accurate determinations of isotope ratios by MC‐ICP‐MS. Some general rules for such accurate and precise measurements are suggested, and calculations of combined uncertainty of the data using a few common mass bias correction models are outlined.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

a reply to: cooperton

A rapid and reliable method for Pb isotopic analysis of peat and lichens by laser ablation-quadrupole-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry for biomonitoring and sample screening
M E Kylander 1, D J Weiss, T E Jeffries, B Kober, A Dolgopolova, R Garcia-Sanchez, B J Coles

Abstract
An analytical protocol for rapid and reliable laser ablation-quadrupole (LA-Q)- and multi-collector (MC-) inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis of Pb isotope ratios ((207)Pb/(206)Pb and (208)Pb/(206)Pb) in peats and lichens is developed. This technique is applicable to source tracing atmospheric Pb deposition in biomonitoring studies and sample screening. Reference materials and environmental samples were dry ashed and pressed into pellets for introduction by laser ablation. No binder was used to reduce contamination. LA-MC-ICP-MS internal and external precisions were

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You just crashed all of modern physics including quantum mechanics. Do realize what an idiot you are?



Calculation of Equilibrium Constants for Isotopic Exchange Reactions
Jacob Bigeleisen and Maria Goeppert Mayer
Citation: The Journal of Chemical Physics 15, 261 (1947); doi: 10.1063/1.1746492
View online: dx.doi.org...
View Table of Contents: aip.scitation.org...
Published by the American Institute of Physics


web.gps.caltech.edu...

This is rich. You have no idea what you just posted. Please try to explain in your own words how this allows researchers to know the initial ratio of a radioactive sample... not letting you off the hook for this one.

a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you report to the Mods that you're being overwhelmed with the facts.

a reply to: cooperton

Read the article. If you can't figure it out, then it's your problem.

a reply to: cooperton

P.S. Write them a letter.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Read the article. If you can't figure it out, then it's your problem.

Hahaha you really do have no clue what you just posted. You poor girl. Seriously just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Your ILK will defend you, but any objective scientist reading this is shaking their head at what you're doing. Nowhere in that article does it even mention the word "initial ratio".

originally posted by: Phantom423

Accurate and precise determination of isotopic ratios by MC‐ICP‐MS: A review

It is clear that most of the time you simply don't know enough to have a scientific conversation. You still don't grasp the difficulty I am expressing regarding the determination of age for the half life equation. You need the initial isotopic ratio. Obviously the current ratio can be found (which is what this paper is discussing), but its the dilemma of knowing the initial ratio that prevents time (t) from being solved in the half life equation

a reply to: cooperton


Write them a letter. In fact, why not give them a call to tell them they don't know an original concentration so their work is bogus. Your crackpot "science" will show through once again.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Write them a letter. In fact, why not give them a call to tell them they don't know an original concentration so their work is bogus. Your crackpot "science" will show through once again.

Because they already know you can't get a definitive answer for the initial ratios. You're acting like a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because you're wrong. You constantly get embarrassed and then have to change the topic to avoid admitting you were wrong. You're doing it again now.

You now realize you just posted an erroneous article that mentions nothing about determining the initial ratio, so you resort to your common appeals to authority to avoid being liable for your lies.

Check your self Phantom. Stop doubling down on your arrogance and just admit you are wrong for once in your life.

a reply to: cooperton

Write them a letter. Tell them that you know more than they do about atomic physics. Maybe they should withdraw their papers.

You have absolutely no sense of science, specifically physics.