In the sense that understanding what I read and describing it accurately is my field of expertise, yes.
I admire your chutzpah in citing Brian Thomas, MS articles to argue against my contention that Brian Thomas, MS is a deceitful writer. "He's not lying--see, he says so himself!" Oh well, Brian cites his own articles in his references all the time, I guess you might as well too.
It's also amusing that you cite an excerpt with a scientist saying "we really don't understand decay" in support of your assertion about the "current understanding of collagen rate of decay."
I can't follow Brian's references in the second excerpt because they're behind paywalls. I've followed many of them before, though, and I've usually found that he's misrepresented their content. You'd be better off not accepting his representations at face value.
There's a number of other articles along these lines at the ICR website.
Oh, I know. Blyin' and I go way back.
The articles quote other sources, or are his summary of those sources.
This is just a quote from an article:
“in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents.”
You have yet to demonstrate where he’s deceitful on his contention about the decay of collagen in the first place. So you’ve got it backwards. It’s “he’s lying because I say so” or “just assume he’s lying”.
The scientist wasn’t saying there’s no scientific estimates of collagen decay. That would mean no research had ever been done, which is obviously wrong. What he obviously meant was that the estimates must be wrong. That’s obviously an ASSUMPTION that he’s making.
Give me examples of where he’s misrepresented content. Chances are they’re like your current contention. You make some assumptions or misrepresent something yourself.