Proof of God?

[Angry Citizen]

Thank you for conceding that you have no evidence to back up your claim that 'many' -- quote -- possessed remnants of soft tissue.

[Questatement]

There's other elements you can use that go back farther quest. anything radioactive like carbon 14 will work.

The other radiometric dating elements have no 'true' starting point of reference. If elements were quickly and initially converted under extreme pressures during their very formation, as happens in the gradual aging process, we could only look to C-14 (conversion beginning upon death of living tissue) as the sole, reliable dating element,

Coincidentally, the creationist model for the formation of earth incorporates just such initial accelerated pressures.

[Questatement]

Thank you for conceding that you have no evidence to back up your claim that 'many' -- quote -- possessed remnants of soft tissue.

Here's you Google link... knock yourself out.

soft tissue dinosaur fossil

[Angry Citizen]

Thank you for conceding, again, that you have no evidence to back up your claim that 'many' -- quote -- possessed remnants of soft tissue. I will not do your homework for you.

[Questatement]

Let me ask you this before I put more effort into it.

If I were to provide you with say, five such reliable cases, what would your response be?

[Angry Citizen]

Five different cases? I would be curious why the other dinosaur fossils do not exhibit such characteristics. Proof of God does not come from the hitherto unaccounted for existence of dinosaur soft tissue.

[Questatement]

Mainly because the other fossils aren't being accidentally or intentionally broken apart.

[Angry Citizen]

Okay. When you start breaking open fossils and finding soft tissue everywhere, give me a call.

[Kaineg]

Also the same fossils that naturalists refuse to carbon date because there is "no point" since carbon dating only has a range of only 50-60k years, yet creationists have and come up with young dates?

Did creationists date them? What'd they get?

[Questatement]

Okay. When you start breaking open fossils and finding soft tissue everywhere, give me a call.

LIke you, I tend to rely on the experts. However, to be fair... this is from an evolutionist source.

Dinosaur-Bird Link: Ancient Proteins Preserved In Soft Tissue From 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur

Ancient protein dating back 80 million years to the Cretaceous geologic period has been preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues of a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, according to a study in the May 1 issue of Science...

... "With this new paper, we hoped to show that our T. rex discovery was not a unique occurrence," notes Asara, who is also an Instructor in Pathology at Harvard Medical School. "This is the second dinosaur species we've examined and helps verify that our first discovery was not just a one-hit wonder...

My favorite part is how the accepted range for soft tissue to exist went from 10k-100k years, up to 80 million+ with these discoveries and how pourous sandstone is now the magic, sealed barrier by which it is possible.

Can you say "assumptions over reality" ten times fast lol.

[Questatement]

Did creationists date them? What'd they get?

My research shows dates between 9,800 and 50,000 years for C-14 on dinosaur and related organic fossils dated with those dinosaurs based on long-age assumptions ranging in the 60-80 million year mark.

I know... why not a straight up <10k years as creatioinist's claim from the bible?

1. The naturalist's theory of C-14 conversion assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere (that it is being broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced). However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that C-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be much more than a few thousand years old. BTW - the flood of Noah is dated at 3412 years ago by biblical chronology and presumed by creationists to be the cause of most fossils.

2. It is also true that cosmic rays would better deflect away from the earth via the earth's magnetic field if, as evidence shows, that field was much stronger in the past. With fewer cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, there would have been less production of carbon-14 then than now... accordingly reducing old-age C-14 dates on a sliding scale.

[FriedrichSeneca]

My research shows dates between 9,800 and 50,000 years for C-14 on dinosaur and related organic fossils dated with those dinosaurs based on long-age assumptions ranging in the 60-80 million year mark.

I don't know what you mean by researches, but mines as a physics student tells me that C14 cannot be used by fossils older than 60,000 years because of its short 5,730 years half-life. We use K40/Ar40 for older fossils such as dinosaurs'.

Conclusion: you're talking pseudo-intellectual nonsense.