Posted on 07/06/2009 8:50:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
July 1, 2009 — “Absolutely amazing” and “absolutely gobsmacking” are exclamations made by scientists analyzing the fossilized skin of a hadrosaur known as Dakota. The researchers found cell structures and organic matter in the skin and layers that resemble the skin of birds and crocodiles.
The specimen was uncovered in 1999 on a North Dakota ranch and is still being analyzed. Photos on the BBC News show clear scales and cross sections of microscopic tendon structures. The article said, “Tests have shown that the fossil still holds cell-like structures,” adding, “although the proteins that made up the hadrosaur’s skin had degraded, the amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present.”
How could soft tissue structures and details survive intact for 66 million years?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
OK, so you use fake science to rationalize Creationism. So bones from plants and animals that died in the present millennium have fossilized in a mere millennium! Why do I bother.
Never point out the fallacy of the crevo mind, it just brings personal attacks on you.
Remember, this crap always gets posted in NEWS as if it's viable to true scientific research. Next will be the 'liberal' accusations, and worse. And the Mods let it go on, and on, and on.
Not really. And there is certainly no physical evidence. If there were dinosaurs alive 2000 years ago, we'd be discovering dinosaur bones, rather than just fossils.
Why do you bother?
You make no sense at all. - I have a fully petrified piece of poplar that I sawed off myself about eight years ago, and left laying by a small creek that runs through about 10 miles of limestone. We use it for a napkin weight on our front courtyard table. We have some larger pieces too, but they were not so neatly sawn.
Another amazing find of fossilized skin.
Yet for creationists, this is just another stone that fell from the moon.
The ancients were pretty keen naturalists. They described flora and fauna from all over the world. You'd think T-Rexs and Brontosauri would be something they'd mention. Furthermore, the Romans put every exotic animal they could into the Coliseum for the amusement of the masses. Any Emperor would have paid a king's ransom for a triceratops, yet there is no evidence of any such animal in descriptions of gladiatorial games. Why not?
Marco Polo wrote of the “dragons” he encountered, as did Alexander. Are you going to write them off?
Which were most likely nothing more than large crocodiles or alligators.
Absolutely amazing.
Can you find a contemporaneous artistic depiction of a dinosaur? e.g., a Roman or Greek vase with a dinosaur on it.
You’re welcome to believe what you want, but asserting that dinosaurs were commonplace two thousand years ago makes you sound like a lunatic.
I don’t blame you for defending your Evo-religion, but if you go back and read the Nat’l Geographic article, it is they who refer to the degraded cells as “skin” not unlike bird or croc skin. And as for rational explanations, the most obvious rational explanation for unfossilized dino blood, blood vessels, connective tissue, and now skin, is that dinos are far more recent than the Temple of Darwin would have us believe.
Only to a true lunatic such as yourself!
Your mind is cast in foul mud.
Nice try for an amateur, but that idea has been well refuted by analysis of their descriptions.
But no legitimate scientific evidence?
If you have those descriptions available, please provide them.
Do you really need to resort to personal attacks like that? Many would agree with the person to whom you reply so nastily, as your premise if pure crap, anyway.
I'd be interested to see it, as well, unless it's a fabrication, as I suspect it will be.
To prove that dinosaurs existed 2000 years ago, all this poster has to do is show us a dinosaurs bone (rather than a fossil).
And the T-Rex “soft tissue” doesn’t count, as all of the organic content there was replaced with minerals.
Not that I can see, not really. They say the dinosaur when it was alive had skin not unlike bird or croc skin. They don't say they found unfossilized skin--in fact, the article says "Such a discovery was possible because the dinosaur's skin fossilized before bacteria had a chance to eat up the tissue." The headline should probably have read '"Dinosaur Mummy" Had [rather than Has] Skin Like Birds' and Crocodiles'," but it must get frustrating to try and write summaries and headlines in a way that creationists can't distort.
Since the only personal attack was on me, what are you talking about?
Go back to the “dragon” thread from last thursday. I put a link in one of my replies there.
I have an open question for those adherents to evolution:
-Do you believe in flying saucers? (i.e. extra-terrestrials)?
This is a serious question and here is why:
If, presuming evolution as fact, we can evolve on this relatively new planet, could life not evolve on other, older planets.
Further, if these creatures did indeed evolve, and are presumably farther along the evolutionary ladder, would they not be able to travel extra-solar system?
If an evolutionist denies the possibility of ETs and/or flying saucers, then they would logically be denying the possibility of evolution on other worlds, which seems self-defeating.
Your thoughts?
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.