Dinosaur Soft Tissue Finally Makes News

ICR News ^ | December 2, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[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...

[null and void]

Clearly, you have never seen my basement!

[editor-surveyor]

“These fossils stink” said the colleague.

The first time that deep black clay is excavated, it always stinks bad! - If it is broken up and allowed to dry out, the stench goes away. The stuff is loaded with rotting organic material.

[GodGunsGuts]

I can’t speak for individual creationists, nor do I know the context of your conversations/debates. But what I do know is that the major creation science organizations do not teach that you must believe in biblical creation in order to be saved.

[antiRepublicrat]

A perfect match so far...

Not even close to a match. There have been individual frauds in natural selection, and other evolutionary scientists have always been the ones to expose them. Given that fact, all of the proven frauds creationists trot out as disproving natural selection are in fact a testament to the good scientific review behind natural selection.

AGW itself being a fraud, it required the skeptics to uncover it. Other AGW scientists certainly weren't going to expose any instances fraud and thus lose their place on the AGW gravy train.

And the most ridiculous statement of the day, at the least!

Absolutely true. AGW had government backing pretty much from the beginning, a socialist agenda to leverage it into power and control. Darwin had no such backing. He was one man in a very religious era where his ideas constituted heresy. The evidence being behind him, his theory flourished even in that opposing environment.

The basic difference is that NS grew on its merits to become dominant in science, while AGW was pushed by governments to become dominant regardless of merits.

[antiRepublicrat]

virtually all the global warming nazis masquerading as scientists have made the universe their god, worship at the alter of mother earth, and view darwin as its messenger.

Um, no. Religion has nothing to do with it. Besides, if you wanted to make it religious can make an even better case to support global warming based on religion due to God's order to take care of the Earth. By pumping out CO2 we are sinning against God.

[faucetman]

I have not been a young earther either, BUT science keeps coming up with evidence for thousands of years and no new evidence for millions of years. Since the bible more
likely teaches thousands of years, I am changing my tune. Answers in Genesis, Creation Museum make strong arguments for a young earth. I remember when I first looked into the Grand Canyon, IMMEDIATELY “The Flood!!!!” jumped into my mind. Not scientific, but you can call it a spiritual experience (you atheists will not know what I am talking about).

Just like we allowed the left to change the THEORY of man made global warming(which it STILL is, by the way, a THEORY), to known fact (which of course it is NOT). In fact it is likely a manufactured FRAUD as we are just now finding out.

We have allowed the left to change the THEORY of evolution(which it STILL is, by the way, a THEORY), to known fact (which of course it is NOT). Hmmmmmmm there seems to be a parallel here. The same people, the same so called proven science, (even though many, many times evolutionists have be CAUGHT committing FRAUDS and doctoring evidence.

I am experiencing Deja Vu all over again.

The TRUTH shall set you free.

[editor-surveyor]

Evolution is a far larger fraud than AGW. - There is no physical evidence to support it whatsoever.

Drawings, plaster carvings, minute fragments of bones and teeth, are not evidence of anything but the fertile imaginations of its adherants.

[Quix]

I’m not at all convinced that Genesis insists on 6 thousand years.

I still think that BEFORE IT WAS FORMLESS AND VOID

it could have been a series of interesting things . . . after which God decided to start all over again . . . as He almost did a time or two after Genesis.

Millions of years . . . I don’t think we know near as much as we think we know about dating anything.

I just find 6 thousand years too much of a stretch.

There’s Chinese characters, writing 7 thousand years old.

[rosettasister]

Quix,

I’ve never understood this.

I’ve been fortunate enough to teach in a classroom setting where I was able to teach BOTH Creation and evolution.

Everything is possible with God.

Anyone who says otherwise puts themself above God.

Not that I care, but Darwinists love to belittle Creationists by pointing to a very small segment of the population who promulgate the theory that our Earth has only been around a short time.

[Ira_Louvin]

Why do the creationist/i.d crowed keep asking for the evidence when it is here. All you have to do is go to a museum and see it for yourself. You can take a look at Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens and see the clear transtion.

I am sure that many prisioners would agree that minute fragments of bones and teeth, are not evidence of anything, however we both know that statement is false.

[ElectricStrawberry]

So this is "defense of religious freedom"?? BWAAAAAhahahahahaha...got dictionary??

BTMS* nonsense strikes again. Writing a new story about the same thing you've written about multiple times must be sooooo difficult for a "science" writer.

Uh oh....a TELEVISION corespondant says "changing the whole dino ballgame"....wipe out entire fields of science with that one. Unquesitonable scientific proof that Man walked with dinosaurs and they were all killed in some big flood.

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. It stuck like Velcro. She then asked paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, “This is 80 million years old and it can do that?” “Yes,” Schweitzer said confidently.

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.....this is "science" in BTMS* world? The scientific determination of "bone or rock" is determined with a tongue-stick test. That's "science"....

In demonstrating that dinosaur bones still somehow contained soft, bendable tissues

They didn't find that in any manner. They de-mineralized a fossil in a weak EDTA solution and discovered soft-tissue structures AFTER the rock was dissolved. Keep up the misinformation and selectively quoting 2-word phrases and filling the rest in with your nonsense, BTMS*.

60 Minutes reported, “It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone.

More tidbits of wisdom from a TELEVISION CORESPONDENT....Earth to "60 minutes"....a modern bone would not need to be de-mineralized to find soft-tissue structures.

All further editorial comments by Stahl are to be ignored as uneducated filler.

But it is not some arbitrary “rule of science” that dictates that flesh usually rots quickly. It is extremely well established by common observation, as well as by decades of easily repeatable experiments, such as those measuring protein decay that occurs in mere days.2

BTMS* here is mixing experiments and rightly believing that you will not know the difference between a dead thing out in the open and a dead thing in conditions that promote fossilization.....because you buy into this nonsense.

Instead, the “science” being challenged is perhaps the deep-time evolutionary dogma that remains widely held despite contradictory evidence.3

The discovery of soft-tissue structures in a fossil hardly challenges one single notion of the Theory of Evolution. See, BTMS*, if you were a scientist, you'd know that.

By removing the unscientific interpretive filter of “millions of years” placed on it, the conundrum created by this soft evidence evaporates.

Yes, by removing entire fields of science, Man can live in the land of 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs.

If these dinosaurs were buried during a recent and major watery catastrophe, then the discovery of their still-soft tissues is much easier to explain.

Too bad they weren't "still-soft" tissues, BTMS*....they were fossilized tissue that had to be demineralized to get to soft-tissue structures.....that they are not wholly mineralized is a new concept that most certainly does not prove that man walked with dinosaurs.

If these dinosaurs were killed and buried in the Flood, there would've been representatives of them on the Ark and they would not have been conveniently all placed in specific and orderly strata.....would've been a mish-mash of all living things......including the rest of the humans.

Didn't you ever wonder, BTMS*, why no humans have been found in the extinct dinosaur strata?

This guy died recently.....right?

[Ira_Louvin]

“Not that I care, but Darwinists love to belittle Creationists by pointing to a very small segment of the population who promulgate the theory that our Earth has only been around a short time.”

That could possibly be due to the fact that that theory has been falisfied many times over, and to coutinue to teach that is to deny science

[null and void]

BTMS*?

[FormerRep]

I’m going to call you on that one GGG. As much hate and venom as I’ve seen spewed against other doctrine (catholics especially) and how they are wrong and are against the word of God... Urroner is right in his assessment of the judgmental ways of a good deal (not all e.g. Titus Quintus/Editor-Surveyor) of the strict creationists. The rest of us can look forward to a nice fireside chat with the devil.

[antiRepublicrat]

Evolution is a far larger fraud than AGW. - There is no physical evidence to support it whatsoever.

There is a LOT of physical evidence over 150 years throughout several scientific disciplines that all comes together to support evolution. Even the discovered "soft tissue" is evidence for evolution. The only problem is the warped, incomplete information or sometimes flat-out lies creationists give about those tissues.

[rosettasister]

Hi Ira!

I can tell from your tagline that you mean God’s science.

This is a false dichotomy.

Why wouldn’t God use evolution to further His plan to return us to Him?

[ElectricStrawberry]

BTMS*....Brian Thomas MS*....can’t take credit for it, but it’s easier to type.

BTMS* is just another “science” writer that doesn’t know “science”, doesn’t live in the “science” world...writes disingenuous nonsense targetting those that don’t know “science”...yet is acclaimed to be the best science writer in the galaxy.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Actually, real scientists would say that this has exactly nothing to do WITH “evolution”....but you’ve got something to say there.

[stormer]

Horner’s comments referred to the fossils themselves, not the matrix. That said, hydrogen sulfide odor is a redoximorphic feature associated with organic processes - fully developed clays are by definition mineral, not organic, are rarely black (never, in my experience), and basically odorless.

[null and void]

Thanks