What has been found instead are rock-fossils, sedimentary rock formed by mud particles filling in cells of buried dinosaurs. They look exactly like the original bones, but are not bones, they are sedimentary rock. Did some research on the Schweitzer research and reaction to it among scientists...and found that RC testing actually was done on other dino bones (by bones I mean the ones found with soft tissue that some think have not fully fossilized).
In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye's team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].
Look, my attitude is about learning with an attitude of curious skepticism.
Of course, if you fantasize that all those thousands of layers of various kinds of rock were somehow laid down in a matter of days in recent millennia, you likely won't buy anything that reeks of "scientific explanation".
What I fantasize about is a world where people can discuss theories without using condensation as a means of rhetoric.
I have read the young earthers mention vertical fossils in sedimentation layers as evidence that it can happen quickly. The answer as far as I understand it from the main stream is that it only happened quickly for those layers where the fossil is vertical, but that the sedimentation was slower other times. Is the reason to suppose this mostly based in igneous radiometric dating in proximity to the layers that must have been more slowly developed?
There is much I don't know and am curious about, and I was honestly seeking answers to questions raised. Good information rather than condensation and links to common geological links would be appreciated. I am asking because I have done some reading and can't find the answers.
AndyTheBear:
"Did some research on the Schweitzer research and reaction to it among scientists...and found that RC testing actually was done on other dino bones (by bones I mean the ones found with soft tissue that some think have not fully fossilized)." Schweitzer's "soft tissues" are still controversial, and not fully accepted as genuine dino-stuff.
Of course, in due time they may well become accepted scientifically, especially as more & more examples are found, and more questions answered about them.
But that is not yet the case.
As of today, the number of published examples of truly "soft tissue" allegedly from dinosaurs is very small, less than a hand-full, not "dozens" as is sometimes claimed.
Those "dozens" of soft-tissue examples you sometimes hear about are not in fact really "soft".
Rather, they are especially well preserved stone fossils of dinosaur hide and sometimes even internal organs.
They are called "soft tissue" because that is what was fossilized, but there is nothing "soft" about those fossils.
In those very small number of cases -- Schweitzer's being the best known -- where actual dino-tissue is alleged, small amounts of simple collagen were reported.
Analyzed, it was found to be similar to collagen in chickens, of which Tyrannosaurs are thought to be a particularly exuberant example.
So, as of today, the evidence is suggestive but not conclusive, and will remain that way until more examples are fully analyzed.
AndyTheBear: "...it only happened quickly for those layers where the fossil is vertical, but that the sedimentation was slower other times.
Is the reason to suppose this mostly based in igneous radiometric dating in proximity to the layers that must have been more slowly developed? "
Sorry, but I don't quite understand the question.
Yes, I "get" that examples of vertical tree trunks have excited the imaginations of some "young earthers".
But I don't "get" why a local mud-slide millions of years ago should create such excitement today.
