Posted on 05/12/2013 1:02:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of the only well preserved dinosaur skin samples ever found is being tested at the Canadian Light Source (CLS) synchrotron to determine skin colour and to explain why the fossilized specimen remained intact after 70-million years.
University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi said the hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period (100-65 million years ago), was found close to a river bed near Grande Prairie, Alberta.
The area has a robust "bone bed" but Barbi is not yet sure why the fossil preserved so well.
"As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary – this is real skin. Everyone involved with the excavation was incredibly excited and we started discussing research projects right away."
Barbi said this is only the third three-dimensional dinosaur skin specimen ever found worldwide. "This fossil is fascinating because it can tell us so much about the life and the appearance of the dinosaurs in the area."
But there are almost more questions than answers, he said.
One question is whether the hadrosaur skin was green or grey, like most dinosaurs are portrayed, or was it a completely different colour. Barbi said he can use the CLS to look at unique structures called melanosomes, cellular organelles the contain pigments that control the color of an animal's skin.
"If we are able to observe the melanosomes and their shape, it will be the first time pigments have been identified in the skin of a dinosaur," said Barbi. "We have no real idea what the skin looks like. Is it green, blue, orange…There has been research that proved the colour of some dinosaur feathers, but never skin."
Using light at the CLS mid-infrared (Mid-IR) beamline, Barbi and CLS scientists are also looking for traces of organic and inorganic elements that could help determine the hadrosaur's diet and why the skin sample was preserved almost intact.
For the experiment, the sample is placed in the path of the infrared beam and light reflects off of it. During the experiment, chemical bonds of certain compounds will create different vibrations. For example, proteins, sugars and fats still found in the skin will create unique vibrational frequencies that scientists can measure.
"It is astonishing that we can get information like this from such an old sample," said Tim May, CLS Mid-IR staff scientist. "Skin has fat and lots of dead cells along with many inorganic compounds. We can reflect the infrared beam off the sample and we can analyze the samples to give us very clear characteristics."
May said that infrared techniques are so accurate at determining chemical characteristics that it is known as the "fingerprint region" of the light spectrum.
But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at the CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years.
"What's not clear is what happened to this dinosaur and how it died," he said. "There is something special about this fossil and the area where it was found, and I am going to find out what it is."
That is the most twisted, misleading & dishonest misrepresentation I have read so far.
But from you, I’d expect nothing less.
Sorry FRiend, but on Free Republic you get back what you dish out. ;-)
Spoken like a true Christian.
[At least, according to your version of ‘christian’]
First, perhaps you failed to notice that not only the Old Testament (i.e., Job 4:8, Hosea 8:7), but also the New (i.e., Galatians 6:7, James 3:18) speaks frequently of reaping whatsoever you sow.
Second, like any Christian I believe in forgiveness of sins, for those who confess and request it.
And you will do that when?
Third, everyone should by now notice how eager, indeed super-eager, Fantasywriter is to abandon any discussion of evolution or prehistoric critters in general, and focus instead on personal attacks on those who disagree with her/him.
So I'll say it again: if personal attacks are your game, that's fine with me -- after all, it takes all kinds -- however, you can only expect to get back pretty much just what you dish out.
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound on the table.
And such a belief (i.e. the ‘appearance of age’) is about as useful as ‘Last Thursdayism’ the belief that everything was created with an appearance of age and false memories last Thursday.
If one supposes that God used natural laws to create the universe - then one can develop a useful and predictive model. Thinking that the universe obeys predictable and ordered laws is indispensable to science. But if one supposes that miracles were used to create the universe - there is absolutely no useful applications that would lead to accurate predictions or further discovery.
“Sorry ... but ... you get back what you dish out.” BroJoeK
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Jesus
So, are we to understand that the reason Fantasywriter so eagerly launches personal attacks on fellow FReepers is because she/he wants to be the object of such attacks in return??
I'm pretty sure that's not what Jesus had in mind, FRiend.
Your generalizations are smears, pure & simple.
I have some beachfront property for sale if anyone is interested . . .
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm
Intriguing that there is detailed pottery of dinosaurs, with coloring; human figures interacting with dinosaurs.
In light of the dinosaur foot and human fossilized foot prints in Glenrose, Texas, it does seem like there is reasonable evidence pointing towards co-existence at some point in time.
It is not in least bit foolish to consider there was a superseding set of laws in operation when the earth was formed and God created life. We all know the law of gravity right? We can reproduce it at will. Yet airplanes fly because of principles of aerodynamics..."breaking" the law of gravity.
The problem with creation is: it's just not happening any more - no truly new species observable, no amazing spontaneous life happening today.
Evolution "science", falsely so called, simply cannot reproduce the beginning. Since creation cannot be observed, the deceitful explanations cannot be easily shown for what they are: lies. It takes effort to falsify the nonsense of this so called "science". And every time one falsehood is finally exposed, another plausible theory is hastily devised because the blind faith of anti-God won't seriously even consider any contradicting evidence. It's remotely like today's mainstream media, in a way, but I almost feel that one has a better chance of truth with today's political hacks than with the evolution "science" hacks.
2 Peter 3:1 ¶ This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 ¶ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Let evolution "science", falsely so called, devise an observable, repeatable, testable method to create a simple, single living Maple leaf from raw chemicals and I'll convert.
This evidence is so old...
Not to be glib, but that’s one thing i’ve noticed about Young Earth creationists. Their evidence is always so old...
The Acambaro Dinosaur figures are fakes.
These claims were investigated by Dr. Charles Di Peso in 1953. Some of the problems he noticed;
1. The surfaces of the figures appeared new. There was no evidence of dirt packed into crevices and they were not marred by a patina or coating of soluble salts characteristic of genuinely old artifacts from the same area.
2. The find included 32000 figures in almost perfect condition, which is unbelievable and has no equal in all of anthropology. The few pieces that are broken are unworn, and no pieces are missing. Also, no pick or shovel marks can be found on any of the figures.
3. Waldemar Julsrud, the one who arranged to have the site excavate in 1945, paid his workers 1 peso for every intact figure they brought him. Quite a motivation for fraud.
These are just some of the reasons the Acambaro find is a fraud.
Same goes for the Paluxy Tracks in Glenrose, Texas. That evidence is so bad, not even the Institute for Creation Research will vouch for it.
http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/
Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis even includes them in his list of Arguments Creationists Shouldn’t Use.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
I looked at the article you posted, but I only made it to the 5th paragraph before I face palmed. The author makes the claim that “Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC.”
You don’t use radiocarbon dating to get accurate results when you test ceramics. Radiocarbon dating is for organic material, wood, leather, etc.
Is there a field of science that YEC’s ever get right?
We all get to some 'day' yet future have our own accounting with the Creator. Genesis is not a 'story' in the sense of fairy tail/tale. Nowhere in the whole of the Bible is there a declaration or even a hint this earth is young. Instead from Genesis (the beginning) to the last Book Revelation all indications are that this earth and heavens are indeed very very old. What is 'young' on the measurement of time are humans in flesh bodies.
Scientific modeling is based upon pure ignorance, a willingly ignorance at that, of what is literally Written. Peter says in IIPeter 3 there are three different heaven/earth ages... we are in the heaven/earth age that is now, per Peter. That heaven/earth age that WAS is described being destroyed in Genesis 1:2 and other places wherein everything, 'life' that is, was destroyed when the devil rebelled. Flesh bodies have a time expiration date placed upon them but the soul/spirit intellect placed in the womb at conception returns to the Maker that sent it. This is the reason why the evolutionary fairy tail/tale is junk science.
Peter says that a day with the LORD is as a thousand years.... so that would mean that those days of creation spanned at minimum 8 thousand years...
Your smears are smears, pure and simple.
So, when are you going to stop with the personal attacks and remember that the thread subject is, let's see now... oh, yes, evolution and science in general?
And if that subject is of so little interest to you, then why are you posting here, FRiend?
There are literal mountains of undisputed scientific evidence supporting theories of "old earth" and evolution.
All alleged evidence to the contrary is at best disputed, at worst totally debunked.
Actual physical fossil evidence of co-existence between dinosaurs and human ancestors reveals creatures along the lines of these:
Indeed. I’d particularly like them to give a reasoned explanation for the Wallace Line (actually I’d like a reasoned explanation for anything but just this one will do for now).
In fact, evolution-in-action is observed every day, so it's not even theory, it's fact.
Of course, you can't see it, because you won't accept the theory, so you claim some other word describes it: not "evolution" but "adaption".
But it's the same thing: evolution is simply adaption repeated millions of times, until different descendant groups no longer normally interbreed with each other, at which point scientists identify a new "species".
But before there can be a new species, there must first come adaptions through different breeds and sub-species.
These we see every day.
And the precise scientific interface between a sub-species, species and genus, is often a matter of definitions and debates.
We can see any number of examples, a famous one being Polar Bears: once considered a separate genus, now "downgraded" to just another species within the Ursus genus, among other reasons because it was found they can, and sometimes do, interbreed with brown bears.
mbj: "Evolution "science", falsely so called, simply cannot reproduce the beginning.
Since creation cannot be observed, the deceitful explanations cannot be easily shown for what they are: lies."
It appears that you truly don't know what evolution theory is, and therefore mischaracterize it.
Basic science deals in four general areas:
Basic facts of evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) are observed every day.
Evolution theory is confirmed by any number of falsifiable predictions.
Various hypotheses relating to evolution -- i.e., on the origin of life itself -- have not been, and likely cannot be, strongly confirmed, since, as you might point out: even if life could be recreated in a laboratory someday, that would not necessarily confirm it happened in nature, billions of years ago.
So, it is not a matter of scientists telling "lies", but rather of various popularizers failing to distinguish between observed facts, confirmed theories and unconfirmed hypotheses (aka S.W.A.G.s).
mbj: "And every time one falsehood is finally exposed, another plausible theory is hastily devised because the blind faith of anti-God won't seriously even consider any contradicting evidence."
Clearly, you don't understand what the word "science" means, or it's first basic rule: natural explanations for natural processes.
By definition, science cannot deal with supernatural causes or effects, and if you attempt to inject those into science, then the result is, by definition, no longer "science".
It might then be metaphysics, or theology, or religious faith, but it's not "science".
Science by definition only deals with the natural world, not the supernatural.
mbj: "Let evolution 'science', falsely so called, devise an observable, repeatable, testable method to create a simple, single living Maple leaf from raw chemicals and I'll convert."
Obviously, you deeply confuse and misunderstand what science is all about.
Nobody "converts" to science!!
Science is simply a body of natural explanations for natural processes, which you are free to accept or not accept as you may chose.
But what you cannot legitimately do is claim that your religion is just another "science", or that science is just another religion.
By definition, neither are true.
As for possible natural origins of life on earth, there are several unconfirmed hypotheses, including abiogenisis and panspermia.
Nobody is asked to "believe" or "convert" to any of them -- they are simply ideas that some scientists are working to confirm or falsify through various laboratory experiments.
Point is: nothing in science should ever challenge your religious faith, because science by definition is not religious.
The philosophical term for science is "methodological naturalism", meaning it tries to provide natural explanations, without reference to the supernatural, or to ancient texts.
You can consider whatever model of superseding laws you want - they are not of any practical use when they depend upon unpredictable and unreproducible action.
Airplanes are subject to gravity when they fly, the force of gravity is matched by an equal and opposite force of ‘lift’ from aerodynamics.
Right now stars are forming via gravity and nuclear fusion off in the heavens. Are these stars not created by God? The Bible says I was created from dust, and to dust I will return; but I was also created via cellular processes involving DNA. Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?
That science changes it’s models based upon new evidence is a strength of science - not a mark of shame. Contradicting evidence IS considered, and fit into the refined or new model.
Just as gravity through universal attraction of mass is not a theory about how mass was created - evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is not a theory about how life was created.
But once there is life, with a molecular form of inheritance that is subject to change, evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is inevitable.
Your unsubstantiated smears continue.
& your Biblical foundation for lying about me is...?
Your unsubstantiated smears continue.
Fantasywriter: "& your Biblical foundation for lying about me is...?"
& your Biblical foundation for lying about me is...?
Seriously, if you have no interest in the subject of this thread, then why do you keep posting?
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.