Posted on 08/15/2015 8:58:12 AM PDT by JimSEA
Twenty years ago Mary Schweitzer found herself the closest that anyone has ever been to a living dinosaur. As she examined a thin slice of a T. Rex bone fragment under a microscope, she realized she was looking at what appeared to be preserved red blood cells- cells which had no place in a 65 million year old fossil. It was the first time that anyone had found evidence that biological material could survive the passage of millions of years and still retain its molecular structure, challenging one of the central beliefs of paleontologists. Proving that what she was seeing had in fact once been dinosaur cells was a tall order, however, and one so outrageous at the time that it was met with considerable hostility from her peers. When Schweitzer first claimed to have found red blood cells in a T. Rex leg bone in 1993, her findings were dismissed by most scientists because it seemed improbable- not to mention downright impossible- that red blood cells could have survived in a 65 million year old bone. Schweitzer recieved her Ph.D. for her work on proving that the cells had originated from once-living dinosaur cells. The controversy was renewed in 2005 when Schweitzer reported finding collagen, a tough, elastic structural protein, in fossilized bones. Since then Schweitzer has found evidence of blood vessels, feather fibers, and osteocytes (specialized bone cells) associated with fossilized dinosaur bones.
There’s a tooth?
We found a fossilized Palm stump in a very ( now) arid part of south Texas. It is sitting on my patio right now.
Where?
“her findings were dismissed by most scientists because it seemed improbable- not to mention downright impossible- that red blood cells could have survived in a 65 million year old bone”
Forgot to mention these were like dog years. It is 65 million dinosaur years. Not like the earth traveling around the sun years. Big difference.
The bible does not say the earth is 6000/6500 years old... period...
it's takes some highly questionable Bible studies to come up with that number
Conversely as these viable tissue samples in supposedly 65 million year old fossils show
There some highly questionable science going on it's coming up with that number
I’m sorry, but I’m just not seeing it. Perhaps you need to post more pictures.
“Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1] The use of radiometric dating was first published in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood[2] and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.
Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.[3] Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.
Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Clitorically speaking, you are correct.
But in case you are seriously interested in marine fossils from that period of earth history, they were probably gathered by early humans such as these depicted below and subsequently traded amongst the different tribes.
REALLY! Those.. I mean that`s a nice tooth.
however you have an extreme anomaly if you're coming up with what appears to be viable tissue samples in what dates as 65 million year old fossils
the only way you're going to resolve that is to throw all assumptions on the table and re-validate all and that including carbon dating techniques... you cant assume infallibility....
It appears you didn’t understand my comment.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Emo Phillips
Where’s the like button?
:)
Clearly, closer study is needed...
Thanks JimSEA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
