Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth (first T. rex, then another T. rex, now this!)

ICR ^ | May 12, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Recently-discovered dinosaur soft tissues, and even blood cells, represent some of the biggest hurdles for long-age evolutionary belief. Soft tissue was found in the femur of a large Tyrannosaurus rex about a decade ago, and more was discovered in another T. rex a few years later. And recently, soft tissues with proteins were found in a hadrosaur from Montana...

[count-your-change]

I don't accept the 6000 year old earth of the YEC folk so I won't attempt to explain their logic or belief.

But I can suggest that perhaps dinos lived where conditions favored preservation of their remains or their numbers were so large that even rare preservation would equal large numbers while numbers of other species were much smaller.

But in fact, who knows for certain why one specie's bones turn up more often than another. We can expect anything we wish but without a better understanding of the process of fossilization and the circumstances under which it occurs your questions may not be answerable.

America once had tens of millions of bison, why are the prairie lands not carpeted with their bones mixed with the bones of Indians? Too recent for fossilization to occur?

Maybe, but just how long does it take for fossilization to happen? How easy is it to produce fossilization? Hundreds of years? Thousands? Alkaline soil, acidic soil, who knows?

As to the animals taken aboard the Ark, diversity within a “kind” is pointed to by Darwinists as an example of evolution into new species but what a species is, is more in the eye of the beholder since there are several ways of defining a species.
Cats are still cats, of one “kind”.

If Creationist logic is otherwise you'll have to put that question to them, I don't think it will be.

[count-your-change]

Playing around with vinegar and egg shells is a trick.

She was just doing a little basic chemistry.
Like I did when I wanted to clean mineral deposits from a very large, boiling missionary by angry natives size, iron pot.
I could get it sandblasted for a hundred bucks or use five bucks worth of pool acid. The acid worked fine and did no harm to the metal, basic chemistry.

[count-your-change]

“VERY SIMILAR FOSSILIZATION”

If that be so then one way is could, could occur is if fossilization began rather soon after death and proceeded to a point where it stopped completely or slowed to a near stop. Rather like a copper roof turned green for fifty years or for a hundred. Both look the same.

However...it’s late/early and I’m going to my cave to cogitate on these matters.

[valkyry1]

This is hardly an endorsement of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory

Yet more distortion by the evos, and they have been getting away with it for years. Every time you dig deep and look at their claims, they will be found to based on falsehoods. 

[valkyry1]

Evos have been trying to rework FR for years now

Which would be quite a coup for them. 

[tacticalogic]

That would most likely be your projections haunting you again. That has to be torturous for you.

Nope, you actually admitted it. You seemed quite familiar with the concept and knew you were doing it. That's how you make anyone who doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationsm out to be a liberal atheist. All it takes is to question the "young Earth" part, and suddely you're Richard Dawkins.

[metmom]

Ps 19: 1-4 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

[metmom]

You have made up yet another term in efforts to disparage creation. This *Creatinism* with a capital “C” is only of your own construct and yet you use it interchangeably with *creationist* with a small “c”.

In addition, anyone who does not tow the evo party line and accept evolution as presented by the secular humanist/atheist crowd, is by default crammed into the *Creationist* with a capital “C” box, no matter what they say their beliefs are, except those who take the unguided, undirected, no intelligence allowed, on evos terms only, view of how life began.

It gets back to trying to make creationism look so bad that people reject it and then must accept the evolution alternative simply because there’s no other alternative.

[allmendream]

Editor-surveyor started this argument by claiming that the bones that Dr. Schweitzer found were not demineralized but found in the soft state. He also claimed that he had read this in a “press release” that Dr. Schweitzer wrote herself.

I sourced both her T-rex and Hadrosaur papers where she clearly says that she demineralized the bone.

The fact that actual unfossilized bone doesn’t abrogate any of the salient facts of the matter, despite how many times you think that somehow it does.

Do you admit that Dr. Schwitzer demineralized the bone, as she said she did? If so then you agree with my points exactly, GGG.

And the fact that either bone or fossilized bone can be demineralized doesn't change the fact ONE SINGLE IOTA that one bone was fossilized and the other was NOT.

So why do we not find unfossilized bone from dinosaur?

Why do we not find human fossilized bone to the same extent?

[allmendream]

Creationism is not of my own construction, it is the common definition of the term.... one who believes that all species were created nearly contemporaneously in their present form.

Creationists need no help from me to look bad.

So if I am trying to make Creationists look like kooks by bringing up Geocentric Creationists, is that an admission on your part that you think Geocentric Creationists are kooks?

[allmendream]

And I am not asking anyone to accept evolution “as presented by the secular humanist/atheist crowd”, but as it is taught by scientists, as a scientific theory that as Pope Benedict XVI clearly stated “enriches our understanding of life and being and such”.

[allmendream]

Edited...

“The fact that you can also demineralize actual unfossilized bone doesn't abrogate any of of the salient facts of the matter”

namely that...

The fossil was not found in a “soft” state, it had to be demineralized.

That unfossilized bones and fossilized bones are not the same, even if you can demineralize them both.

So why don't we find human bones fossilized and in the same strata as dinosaur fossils?

Why don't we find dinosaur bone unfossilized?

[Wacka]

For the sixth time:

If the dating of the rocks is bad, explain how they date rocks and why their methodology is bad. Then explain the correct methodology and how it would give a young age for the rocks. Do not use your CREtin magazine articles. Use legitimate scientific papers.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry, Wacka, if you want your questions answered on demand, you will have to start showing the proper humility and respect for God’s creation, and God’s creation scientists. Otherwise, I may get around to answering your question, I may not...we’ll just have to wait and see.

[tpanther]

Nope, you actually admitted it. You seemed quite familiar with the concept and knew you were doing it. That's how you make anyone who doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationsm out to be a liberal atheist. All it takes is to question the "young Earth" part, and suddely you're Richard Dawkins.

I'd like to see that...where I "actually admitted it" until then, it's obvious alot of people if not most recognize your projections.

Again.

[tacticalogic]

I watched you do it. If you think nobody recoginzes that you're doing it, then you'll probably deny your own words if I went back and dug up the post.

You obviously understand the concept, and you have to know that nobody does it very long without the consequences coming back to bite them, and ultimately damaging their own cause.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Editor-surveyor started this argument by claiming that the bones that Dr. Schweitzer found were not demineralized but found in the soft state. He also claimed that he had read this in a “press release” that Dr. Schweitzer wrote herself.

I could see how someone could come to that conclusion after reading the original articles and press releases, many of which focused on the soft tissue and did not mention demineralization.

==So why do we not find unfossilized bone from dinosaur?...And the fact that either bone or fossilized bone can be demineralized doesn’t change the fact ONE SINGLE IOTA that one bone was fossilized and the other was NOT.

Finding dino bones with soft tissue still intact means the bone has not had enough time to completely fossilize. Or in the words of Dr Mary Schweitzer’s interview with the BBC:

‘She discovered transparent, flexible filaments that resemble blood vessels. There were also traces of what look like red blood cells; and others that look like osteocytes, cells that build and maintain bone.

“This is fossilised bone in the sense that it’s from an extinct animal but it doesn’t have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil,” she told the BBC’s Science In Action programme.

“It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it’s not any more dense than modern bone; it’s bone more than anything.”’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm

[Wacka]

I’ll quit using the CREtin label when you stop saying “evos” and stop calling Darwin “Derwood” and insinuating that anyone that doesn’t have your narrow view of Christianity is an atheist.

My request that I keep repeating is just plain science. You and others state the dating is wrong. To show that it is wrong, you have to first understand the methodology used, then explain what they did wrong, then state what the methodology should be, then using that new methodology,show how your hypothesis is correct.

Quoting your version of the bible is not science.
Quoting those creationist magazine articles is not science.
Doing actual experiments IS science.

[Wacka]

editor-surveyor:

Do you believe that General and Special Relativity are correct?
If not, how do you do your job with any confidence? (if you are actually a surveyor)

Surveyors use GPS systems that are accurate to millimeters. The GPS system has circuitry and programming built into them to compensate for relativity because of the motion of the satellites and gravity. If you do not compensate for relativity, the clocks in the satellites are behind by 38 milliseconds per day. This translates to an error of about 10 kilometers/day on the ground.
Or is this one more instance of god “fooling” us?

Here is a link from an OSU astronomy class:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

[GodGunsGuts]

==I’ll quit using the CREtin label when you stop saying “evos” and stop calling Darwin “Derwood”

Actually, I refer to Mr. Med School/Clergy Dropout as darwood, not Derwood. But yours has a nice ring to it. Don’t worry, I will be sure to give you full credit if I use it in the future :o)

As for the problems with the Temple of Darwin’s circular dating methods, you might want to start by giving Dr. Pitman’s site a read:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html