Posted on 12/02/2009 8:28:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Although creation-based organizations have reported for over a decade on the technical scientific journal articles published about soft tissue found inside dinosaur remains, mainstream media outlets have largely been silent on the subject. But a recent segment that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue may be gaining more traction, and even “may be changing the whole dino ballgame,” according to correspondent Lesley Stahl.[1]
The program is currently viewable online at the CBS website. In a field test demonstration to determine whether a dinosaur fossil was real bone, and not bone replaced by minerals, Stahl touched her tongue to it...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”
—Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78
Ping!
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Jim and GGG.
I’m not a young earther. However, am fiercely a Creationist.
Well, it should make news unless it contradicts or conflicts with the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd...:)
AGW nazis ain’t got nothin’ on the Temple of Darwin fanatics.
Thanks, Quix. BTW, even though I’m a young earther, I regular post ID articles to the HMS Creation ping list.
All the best—GGG
A reporter touching their tongue to a bone is proof of ‘what’?
Is Stahl experienced at touching her tongue to the bone?
dont worry, once the handy-dandy super elastic evolutionism plastic machine is turned on full speed, the worshippers at the temple of darwin will come up with either why it supports evolutionism, or why it most certainly supports evolutionism, and if neither of those two, then the third option will be that it without a doubt, supports evolutionism.
Bogus!!!!....this has been NEWS for awhile...
I saw paleontologist Jack Horner, talk about this on the Discovery channel 6 or so years ago....it was a great find and an unusual lucky find to find 65+ million year old bone and marrow in such good condition...but it is more than possible and no fantasy 6000 year old earth is the cause...
Some bone matrix is just better at preserving than others...
I’m not a believer in a literal reading of Genesis, but there’s no way that soft tissue could survive for sixty million years. If that stuff really is dino tissue, then the currently accepted timeline is wrong.
No let’s hear these “conservatives” on FR defend the MSM.
I would imagine that Stahl was informed of this field test by Schweitzer.
"Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue
John Roach for National Geographic News
December 3, 2007
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html
Paleontologists Find Dinosaur Protofeather
By Brandon Keim January 12, 2009 | 2:05 pm |
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/dinofeathers/
In my experience, the rarely support evolution, they just dis on us backwoods, knuckle dragging, Bible thumpers. God will be justified though. He knows how to make all of the world’s knowledge look stupid.
Well, except the whole issue of coordinated fraud, no evidence and a massive socialist political machine that pushed the creation and acceptance of AGW from the beginning.
Natural Selection started as an underdog and grew on its own scientific merits despite claims of heresy within a highly religious environment.
That soft tissue would have evolved into a Volvo by now.
Soft tissue in fossils still mysterious: Purported dinosaur soft tissue may be modern biofilms
Fri Aug 1 10:08:25 2008 · 8 of 13
null and void to wendy1946
Let's see where the data takes us before anyone counts coup here.
Even Especially because 65,000,000 million years is an improbably long time for organic matter to survive this stuff is very interesting.
No matter where the data goes, our understanding of all of creation will be improved.
Perhaps that will mean fossilization and decay processes are far different that we thought.
Perhaps it will mean that everything we know about radioactive decay, geology, cosmology, anthropology, time, and biology needs major revision.
Perhaps our understanding of subterranean bacterial growth in incomplete, and we confused what something looks like for what something is.
Me? I'm hoping it is really bits 'o dinosaur.
That would be way kewl!
IBT*it belongs in religion*...
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.