Dr. Schweitzer
Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Exactly right.
It is the 'old-earth' crowd that has 'hijacked' and 'misrepresented' the evidence.
When did 'evolution' *predict* that 68 million year old fossils would have soft tissue in them?
It *never* did.
No... she has published her findings in Science and others have noted that what she has found seems to be valid. However here is an interesting quote from her:
"Tissue preservation to this extent has not been noted before in dinosaurs," the team leader, Dr Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University, said.
She doesn't seem to be an IDwacko at all. The fossil itself was discovered by Jack Horner... Not exactly an unreputable scientist. So the question remains how did soft tissue survive in a Dinosaur? The fact that soft tissue has never been found in such an old fossil suggests that the environment it was fossilized in somehow preserved it.
I have a fossil (I believe it is Pecopteris) from the Pennsylvainian which was about 300 million years ago. Basically it looks like a short leafed fern and what always amazes me is how "green" the leaves still are.
As I understood the article, the acid
bath softened the protective density of
the leg bone. It was that density that
has protected the soft tissue all those
centuries. Fascinating stuff that
paleontology!
Why should it? Wrong subject.
Yes! Now scientists (or so called ones) can stop trying to clone stupid animals like sheep and go right to the T-rex. The we can put it on an island in the Pacific with all the liberals and have ourself a real "Survivor".
Uh, no.
The Bible does not, I say again, NOT claim that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, or less.
In fact, if these young-Earth claimants were serious Bible students, they would find strong evidence of an Earthly creation (man, cities, "fruitful places," birds, etc) that predate Adam.
Dr. Schweitzer
I have no real qualification for this, but I am thinking an oxygen free environment, suh as bog water.
One paragraph inculde a comment that all ofthe fossils from that location have a decay type smell. I'd suggest inspecting new digs ASAP for further evidence.
The obvious conclusion is that we were wrong about the effects of time regarding the decay of soft tissue. That is not being ignored; in fact this has opened up whole new avenues of research as the implications are being investigated. Science is recognizing that this is new evidence and embraces the effect it has on previous suppositions.
It is not evidence that the timeline is wrong, but rather that under the right conditions certain soft tissue cells can be preserved over extraordinary lengths of time. In fact, if it were the timeline that was wrong, the tissue evidence would be overwhelming in its abundance.
Paleontologists have generally been reticent to saw very valuable bones in half, though I'm willing to bet now they will start doing so more often. For anyone who "can't believe" that organic tissues could remain in tact for millions of years, consider what causes tissues to decay and what conditions are conducive to preservation. Consider that insects can be found perfectly preserved in amber millions of years older than these dinosaur fossils.
Perhaps that data is better explained by evolution?
Just look at the pathetic attempts we see from some of the anti-evolution crowd here; no wonder it is rejected by science.
Bring real data and you will be listened to.
Same reply - any evidence offered by "creationists" is automatically rejected. But again, it really doesn't matter as to what people actually believe.
Why do you conclude that this contradicts the established age of the fossil, and what suggestions do you have for rechecking those dates?
Nice try. But aren't you forgeting several different kinds of radiometric dating, as well as paleomagnetic and other recent methods of dating?
Slipped your mind?
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.
Revelation 4:11
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info
My comment based on this quote
invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.
Science does not have a free hand apart from God. What God wills happens.
It wouldn't be the first time the textbooks were wrong about fossilization. They used to say it took millions of years, but scientists have shown under the right conditions fossilization can occur in a matter of weeks.
"“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens." - article
Yet another example of how evolutionary theory hindered true research instead of promoting it.
Maybe, just maybe, it's not the decay that the textbooks have wrong. Maybe what is wrong is this..." Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. "
I'm not saying she wants too. But Dr. Schweitzer would be laughed out of the so-called scientific community if she attemtped to dispute the geologists. She's lucky that enough scientists have taken her to be credible that they even bothered to check other fossils and confirm her findings.
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.