Hemo compounds and dinosaurs= problems.

[YEC]

Isn’t it true that Hemoglobin breaks down rather quickly and could not last for millions upon millions of years?

So, just how does traces of the blood protein hemogloben recovered by scientists at Montana State University from a T-Rex’s trabecular tissue exist for over 80+MY’s without being fossilized or completely disintegrating?

Doesn't the evidence indicate that this T-Rex died not to long ago?

[YEC]

So far that's merely a claim. You need to provide hard evidence that heme cannot possibly survive that long. Otherwise this doesn't prove anything.

jwu

80 + MY's is a pretty long time..I mean really long.

But if you NEED to believe it can last that long..go ahead.

[Nyril]

80 + MY's is a pretty long time..I mean really long.

So is 1 billion years. So is 25 million years. So is 100 million years. So is 1 million years. So is 5 billion years.

What's your point?

But if you NEED to believe it can last that long..go ahead.

I don't know, take iron deposits in the Earth. Can you imagine iron ore lasting that long? Can you imagine dirt lasting that long (sans erosion)? Can you imagine the moon lasting that long?

I mean, there are potentially millions of things I could list in which you would have no problem lasting that long. I do not see why this specific molecule, found in one isolated case, should be an exception.

[jwu]

I have no reason to assume otherwise.
It might be remarkable, but unless it's conclusively demonstrated to be impossible this proves exactly nothing.

A question for you in return: Why are about 99.999% of the dino fossils free of heme, if they are no older than 6,000 years?

jwu

[YEC]

I have no reason to assume otherwise.
It might be remarkable, but unless it's conclusively demonstrated to be impossible this proves exactly nothing.

A question for you in return: Why are about 99.999% of the dino fossils free of heme, if they are no older than 6,000 years?

jwu

Because it doesn't even last that long.....now to expect it to lasr 80+MY's is completely ridiculous

[jwu]

Because it doesn't even last that long.....now to expect it to lasr 80+MY's is completely ridiculous

Interesting...it seems that other fossils which many creationists claim to have lived at the same time as the dinosaurs contain it, just not dinosaurs. E.g. they have found intact mammoth DNA, which is even more fragile than heme.

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/2/6/8840/98171

If intact DNA can be retrieved from mammoths, then we surely should be able to find more heme (and DNA!) in dinosaurs, who after all lived at the same time according to the creation model.

jwu

[axeplayer]

[qoute=perfessor]So, a few molecular by-products of hemoglobin "prove" a young earth, but none of the following disprove it:

Carbon dating back 40,000 years
Ice cores back 170,000 years
Radiometric dating back hundreds of millions of years
Light from distant galaxies, 13 billion years back [/qoute]


perfessor, i would like to tell you about a little expirement conducted by a group of science professors at the University of Nevada. they observed an active volcano that was located on an island near Hawaii for some time. after it erupted and the lava had cooled, they took a sample of the rocks formed by the volcano. (in case you didn't know, volcanoes create brand new rocks when they erupt.) the whole experiment was to test the accuracy of carbon dating. once they had finished the experiment, the results showed that the rock was over 155,000 years old. when actually is only a few weeks.

[ENIGMA]

perfessor, i would like to tell you about a little expirement conducted by a group of science professors at the University of Nevada. they observed an active volcano that was located on an island near Hawaii for some time. after it erupted and the lava had cooled, they took a sample of the rocks formed by the volcano. (in case you didn't know, volcanoes create brand new rocks when they erupt.) the whole experiment was to test the accuracy of carbon dating. once they had finished the experiment, the results showed that the rock was over 155,000 years old. when actually is only a few weeks.

The experiment is off for the same reason that Carbon dating is off after 60k years. Basically the margin of error for the experiments would be massive since one is attempting to compare a very small amount of an isotope (Initial isotopes in the case of the volcano, Daughter Isotopes in the case of Carbon) to a relatively massive amount of another isotope (vice versa from above). What are normally negligible errors happen to cover relatively large areas of time. What else were you expecting to happen when you try to measure such a recent event with radiometric decay of an element with an average half-life of billions of years?

[perfessor]

Welcome to the forum, Axeplayer. What kind of axe? Mine's an acoustic 6-string.

the whole experiment was to test the accuracy of carbon dating. once they had finished the experiment, the results showed that the rock was over 155,000 years old. when actually is only a few weeks.

First of all, I doubt it was carbon dating, since that technique has been around the longest, is very well undertood, applies only to organic materials (wood, bone, etc.), and is known to have an upper limit of around 40,000 years.

Radiometrics are newer, and I will confess that I don't know all the ins and outs of it. BUT - it has a consistency that makes it scientifically useful. Rocks from lower layers will test older than rocks in upper layers. Results using one method are cross-referenced with results from other methods. If one experiment, out of thousands, is shown to be inconsistent, do you: a) decide that the whole technique is worthless; or b) wonder if maybe the methodology of that one experiment was flawed?

Here's a question for you: has anyone attempted to duplicate the results of the volcano experiment? Do you have a link to it?

Here's another question for you: do you believe in the Evil Athiest Conspiracy? Because if all these results were flawed, worthless, wild guesses, it would take a massive conspiracy to keep it quiet.

[jwu]

This whole topic is broad enough for an own thread, so i created one:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2890#12890

Perhaps it would be better to take the discussion about the reliability of radiometric dating over there, so this one doesn't get derailed.

(I'm sorry if it appears as if i wanted to meddle with mod business here)

jwu

[mrmufin]

(I'm sorry if it appears as if i wanted to meddle with mod business here)

No apologies needed. It's a worthy topic and deserving of its own thread. Thanks.

Regards,
mrmufin