Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[The_Media_never_lie]

Interesting post.

[RoadTest]

"a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”"

What she looked at was only a few thousand years old, but if you worship Evolution, you can't believe it.

[DocRock]

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue
70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels
(Click Pic to read MSNBC.COM story)

(Click Pic Below to download 11.4 MB
High Quality .asf Format Video of
Interview with Professor Mary H. Schweitzer)

If you are on Dial-up,
Click HERE to watch 2.1 MB .wmv
Low Quality Interview

Excerpts from Interview with
Professor Mary H. Schweitzer
North Carolina State University
(timed to videos above)

1:25 It flies in the face of everything that we understand about how tissues and cells degrade. It’s not something that anyone of us could ever predict or hope for.

2:49 It is the first appearance of t-rex so therefore its... geologically its the oldest t-rex on record.

4:45 Like I said, a lot of our science doesn't allow for this. All of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this. So if this material turns out to be actual remnants of the dinosaur then yes, I think we will have to do some, umm, certainly re-thinking of some of the basics of the model of fossilization.

5:16 It just doesn't seem possible. But yes, you can actually take the vessels and they do have internal components and so you can take a probe and kind of squeeze those things out into solution and the vessels are fine. It’s just... I can't explain it to be honest. I just can't.

Reference: Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1952-1955 , 25 March 2005

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

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. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

She is a bundle of contradictions, but she has learned her pressure lessons well. Frankly, If God created the world, there is no possible way a scientist could ever fully understand what happened without contemplating the nature and power of the Creator. When you look at art you consider the artist. literature, the author. Architecture, the designer. To demand no thought of the source is to not really believe in the source.

[BrandtMichaels]

I would like to see some evidence or links to back up either of your claims. More specifically exactly how can you claim the "Bible does not specify less than 10,000 years" and then go on to post "strong evidence of an Earthly creation that predate Adam." 2 completely contradictory statements.

By the way have you ever studied the scientific measurements (per Barry Setterfield) regarding the speed of light not being a constant?

[trashcanbred]

Funny...astrologers have the same complaint against scientists that you do... they won't debate them either. You see... scientific debate stems from some form of evidence... and while there is tons of proof for evolution, there isn't any for ID... just like astrology.

Please don't ask me for proof... just do a search on my recent posts on FR and you will see some. Like Liberals, ID'ers seem to be both phyically and intellectually lazy and I am tired of repeating myself.

Now how are you gaining scientific credence with ID? IS it through the scientific process? Nope... cause lies fall apart in front of the scientific process. So you gotta go and brainwash the unsuspecting little minds of mush (I think that is how Rush calls em). Now... THAT is a cult and you are a member of that cult. ID'ers are no different than Stalin and Mao, you are rewriting the history books to fit your agenda.

[Manic_Episode]

The Bible does not, I say again, NOT claim that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, or less.

=============================

You are correct in this, except Luke 3:23-38 does suggest a young earth.

=====================================

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. ===================================

Verse please. I'm fairly certain you are referring to the gap theory, which I completely reject and I don't have the patience to debate it with you.

[trashcanbred]

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.

I read somewhere they are doing just that.

[mlc9852]

Just so long as we win in the end. One day we will know who was right. I'll stick with God.

[Alouette]

[MeanWestTexan]

"Then explain how there is a Helen Thomas."

She and her kind survive by eating the flesh of the recently dead. Common folk call them "ghouls."

[manwiththehands]

She can't explain how soft tissue can survive millions of years. This would make more sense if the "young earth" creationist types are correct.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Main point: Evolutionist scientists had something wrong and were too stubborn and uncurious to investigate it. It's probably too early to draw any other definitite conclusions other than that one. The texbooks were wrong. The "right thinking" scientists were wrong. They are not all knowing gods. That's the main point here.

[GourmetDan]

What exactly is the misrepresentation?

Yes, science is totally in error about its perception of old age. Old age is an ancient pagan idea carried over into modern times.

You haven't seen *any* evidence for old-age. You have seen plenty of *interpretations* of evidence as supporting an old age.

There is plenty of pictoral evidence that dinosaurs and man co-existed. Try a google search.

Old-age must be preserved at all costs because the only alternative is.... Biblical accuracy and that threatens our current scientfic priesthood.

Exactly what is the misrepresentation?