Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Finally Makes News
ICR News ^ | December 2, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: baptist; belongsinreligion; bible; catastrophism; catholic; censorship; christian; climatechange; corruption; creation; crevolist; dinosaurs; evangelical; evofraud; evolution; genesis; godsgravesglyphs; hadrosaur; intelligentdesign; judaism; jurrasic; lutheran; maryschweitzer; moralabsolutes; noahsflood; notasciencetopic; paleontology; propellerbeanie; protestant; schweitzer; science; spammer; trex; universalflood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-157 next last
To: ElectricStrawberry
Our good friend Tollund Man. Absolutely fascinating. I have a copy of P.V. Glob's The Bog People on the shelf behind me as I type. I haven't read it a while, I think I'll pull it out. Thanks for the reminder!
61 posted on 12/02/2009 11:01:06 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rosettasister

That is a question that science cannot answer as it is a matter of faith, and based on the supernatural

As I am sure you already know science only deals with the natural world.

However nice try at the straw-man


62 posted on 12/02/2009 11:01:36 AM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

I’d be careful of definitions. These were not “soft” “tissues” as in they didn’t cut into a fossil and find these “soft” (to the touch) tissues....they were fossilized “soft-tissue” (tissue other than bone) that had to be demineralized in an acid to dissolve the rock. Had they simply cut into a fossil and found actual “soft” to the touch “soft tissues” of the likes they’re finding once they dissolve the rock, I’d be more surprised.


63 posted on 12/02/2009 11:05:35 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I would imagine that Stahl was informed of this field test by Schweitzer.

I would be surprised to find that Schweitzer wouldn't know that some rocks will stick to your tongue or wet lips. On the farm in Iowa, where there used to be an ocean....evidenced by oceanic fossils in the soil....they called 'em "lip rocks" 'cause they'd stick to your wet lip.

64 posted on 12/02/2009 11:09:28 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

not asking “science” to answer

asking you, a creature, to answer


65 posted on 12/02/2009 11:26:35 AM PST by rosettasister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rosettasister

I do not discuss my religious beliefs here.


66 posted on 12/02/2009 11:28:57 AM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

You’re contending that Australopithecus was an ancestor of Homo Sapiens?


67 posted on 12/02/2009 11:35:55 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

That is what the evidence shows.


68 posted on 12/02/2009 11:37:38 AM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Source?


69 posted on 12/02/2009 11:43:12 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens. This is a beautiful series of transitional fossils.

When you review the available evidence the transition is quite clear.


70 posted on 12/02/2009 11:51:55 AM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Thank you.


71 posted on 12/02/2009 11:57:33 AM PST by rosettasister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
OK, I'm not going to spend much time on it; it's just that I recall reading an article suggesting that Homo Habilis appears to have been a contemporary of Australopithecus, not a descendant.
72 posted on 12/02/2009 12:09:21 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Since the transition is so slow and gradual it is possible that some of the first Homo habilis did live at the time as the last of the Australopithecus. For example I am a descendant of my maternal great grand-father and we both lived at the same time.


73 posted on 12/02/2009 12:19:20 PM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The soft tissue thing is one slice of bread on what I term the basic evolutionist time sandwich; the other slice of bread is the Haldane dilemma. They need quadrillions of years, and they only have a few thousand.


74 posted on 12/02/2009 12:35:16 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
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.

Bingo, another person gets it... Midrashim and other literature and artwork indicate that there were a number of leftover dinosaurs walking around at a time just prior to the flood. The true main age of dinosaurs would have been several thousand or a few tens of thousands of years back, but not tens of millions.

75 posted on 12/02/2009 12:39:04 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

From the title, sounds like a new type of toilet paper.

“Get the one that is soft as a dino’s behind. Get Dinosaur Soft Tissue. At local stores everywhere.”


76 posted on 12/02/2009 1:13:10 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; B-Chan
The true main age of dinosaurs would have been several thousand or a few tens of thousands of years back

I forget--what's your explanation for why, if dinosaurs are no older than, say, mammoths, we find entire mammoth bodies preserved, along with their stomach contents, while we only find bones and fragments of fossilized soft tissue for dinosaurs?

77 posted on 12/02/2009 1:13:24 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
we find entire mammoth bodies preserved, along with their stomach contents

Frozen, weren't they? I don't believe the controversial dinosaur soft tissue was discovered in such a state.

78 posted on 12/02/2009 1:16:34 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
"They de-mineralized a fossil in a weak EDTA solution and discovered soft-tissue structures AFTER the rock was dissolved."

I have tried to look for demineralization of a fossil but to no avail, could you please direct me to your source?

79 posted on 12/02/2009 1:19:30 PM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Once again xcamel, if it offends you, stay out. Post your evo articles, chances are, I’l stay out, as to me they are BS.

Have a nice day.


80 posted on 12/02/2009 1:48:17 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-157 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson