Posted on 04/30/2009 6:49:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaur Blood Protein, Cells Recovered
(see article link for picture links!)
April 30, 2009 — It’s official: soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, have been recovered from dinosaur bone. Mary Schweitzer’s amazing claim in 2005 (03/24/2005) was subsequently disputed as possible contamination from biofilms (07/30/2008). Now, Schweitzer and her team took exceptional precautions to avoid contamination by excavating hadrosaur bone from sandstone said to be 80 million years old. A short description of her findings, and a picture of the tissue, was announced today by New Scientist. The paper was published in the May 1 issue of Science.[1] Read the press release from Schweitzer’s institution, North Carolina State University, which says that the preservation of soft tissue in this duck-billed dinosaur fossil was even better than the material from the T. rex sample analyzed in 2005.
Robert F. Service commented on the finding in the same issue of Science...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
There are armies of guys with doctorates in the matters I raised.
“Okay, try your logic on this. If they’re off by a factor of 10,000 and this fossil is only actually 8,000 years old, and they use exactly the same method to date the Earth and it’s off by the same amount then the Earth is still almost half a million years old.”
This “logic” doesn’t work if both the age of the fossil and the age of the earth have been calculated wrong by evolutionists. Your logic assumes that the fossil is correctly date at 80 million years and that you have any idea of the age of the earth. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
How do you know it's wrong if you don't have anything better to measure it with?
The dinos got wiped out in the activity that is described in Genesis 1:2 land before our time.
“There are armies of guys with doctorates in the matters I raised.”
And your point is? I still have not heard a logical explanation of why there is soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, recovered from a dinosaur bone that you and your army of phd’s claim to be 80 million years old.
How does “something” like a decay rate change?
Several answers that are based in science are proposed.
1) We don't have a long enough observation of decay to know what the rate of change is - i.e. we just discovered an could measure radioactive decay relatively recently. Since we can't explain “strange” nuclear observations (i.e. there are things like excess heat, the “hardness” of causing fusion, strange particles, etc) then there is OBVIOUSLY some mechanisms still at play we don't understand at a nuclear level....one COULD involve change over time...
2) General Relativity - Time itself has (relative to our physical universe) a change rate.
Just scratching the surface here on radioactive decay there are other theories out there, but I am more of a Fossil guy than particle guy.
My other passion is Chaos Theory/Uncertainty/Quantum Mechanics
Since I already had this in my history:
USGS: Age of the Earth.
The short answer is meteorites.
Floodology recapitulates phylogeny.
I could care less.
“How do you know it’s wrong if you don’t have anything better to measure it with?”
How do you know you are right since you have no idea how to accurately measure anything over periods of let’s say 80 million years. Think how illogical it is to assume that this earth would be so stable over a period of 80 million years that measurements can accurately be assessed by data that we have developed over the last 80 years.
Oldest Antarctic Ice Core Reveals Climate HistoryJun 11, 2004 ... Secrets of the Earth’s past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm
Plenty of ice, plenty of layers, plenty of time, and we got the core.
The cores for Greenland aren't as comprehensive because sometimes it melts down a lot at the bottom.
If you look into fossil dating, carbon dating is very, very difficult for once-living matter, since living animals uptake old carbon in the food-chain.
That’s why we use strata and other hints to bound any dating. the assumed date is more or less deduced from surroundings after “obviously” wrong dates are ruled out. There are assumptions everywhere (on both sides).
What I rail against is the “statements of fact” like this fossil is 80 M years old, instead of “we have estimated the age of the fossil, given method x to be around YYY in age”.
In fact PROBABLY EVERYBODY is wrong on the date.
I just don’t believe there is viable DNA that’s 80 M Years old.
Nor do I believe in Global Warming.
Nor do I believe in Spontaneous Generation.
Nor do I believe that information arises from chaos (in any form).
sorry, but I am not politically correct, either.
And I have 2 Science degrees, and worked in the industry to 25+ years.
what a heretic.
I have been in the hot dog factory and I don’t eat hot dogs.
“Secrets of the Earth’s past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature.”
So much speculation so little hard fact.
The ice core is 3 km long. There’s no speculating on how long it is. If you don’t like what this one says, go get your own.
LOL
Nother question... How do they know that what they have found belongs to the dinosaur? Is there some kind of dino-tissue bank somewhere to compare these 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.