Hydrosaur soft tissue!:
Posted on 05/12/2009 7:26:20 PM PDT by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Hydrosaur soft tissue!:
Ping!!!
How does the age of the tissue indicate the age of the planet?
Interesting.
PRESERVED T. Rex Soft Tissue RECOVERED (Pic)
Star Tribune | 03.24.05 | Randolph Schmid
Posted on 03/24/2005 3:04:54 PM EST by wallcrawlr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369945/posts
Would you Adam ‘n’ Eve it ... dinosaurs in Eden
(CRE-VO) Mixing science with creationism
The Observer | May 22, 2005 | By Paul Harris
Posted on 05/25/2005 12:14:01 AM EDT by restornu
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1409928/posts
24 posted on 05/25/2005 4:13:53 PM EDT by tahotdog
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1409928/posts?page=24#24
Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus Rex
[Surviving soft tissue w/ pics]
Science Now | 10/1/2006 | staff
Posted on 10/01/2006 11:12:10 AM EDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711619/posts
Ancient T. rex and mastodon protein fragments discovered, sequenced
National Science Foundation | 12-Apr-2007 | Cheryl Dybas
Posted on 04/12/2007 3:43:57 PM EDT by AdmSmith
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816333/posts
BBC: Protein links T. rex to chickens ~ ummm tasty....
BBC | Thursday, 12 April 2007 | Paul Rincon
Posted on 04/12/2007 4:57:11 PM EDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816370/posts
Scientists Retrieve Proteins From Dinosaur Bone
New York times | April 12, 2007 | John Noble Wilford
Posted on 04/12/2007 5:05:00 PM EDT by gcruse
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816375/posts
Dinosaur protein sequenced - Lucky find shows up record-breaking fossil.
news@nature.com | 12 April 2007 | Heidi Ledford
Posted on 04/13/2007 6:14:00 PM EDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1817005/posts
Dinosaur research backs link to birds
AP on Yahoo | 4/14/07 | Randolph E. Schmid - ap
Posted on 04/15/2007 1:18:48 AM EDT by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1817592/posts
Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, More
National Geographic | May 1, 2009 | John Roach
Posted on 05/01/2009 11:43:11 PM PDT by nickcarraway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2242582/posts
- cre/vo “great divide” -
Dinosaur Shocker
(YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)
Smithsonian Magazine | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields
Posted on 05/01/2006 11:29:14 AM EDT by SirLinksalot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1624642/posts
The scrambling continues (Fallout over T-rex bone tissue continues)
Answers in Genesis | March 6, 2006 | Staff
Posted on 03/10/2006 9:25:07 AM EST by DaveLoneRanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1593799/posts
Dino Skin Preserved in Rare Fossil Find
Discovery News | November 21, 2006 | Jennifer Viegas
Posted on 11/23/2006 12:43:21 AM EST by DaveLoneRanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742984/posts
Dinosaur Blood Protein, Cells Recovered (yet more evidence for Young Earth Creation!!!)
CEH | April 30, 2009
Posted on 04/30/2009 6:49:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2241706/posts
First dino ‘blood’ extracted from ancient bone (more evidence for young earth creation!)
New Scientist | April 30, 2009 | Jeff Hecht
Posted on 05/01/2009 8:25:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2242071/posts
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.
Posted on 05/12/2009 7:26:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2249728/posts
We know T. Rex is 100 million years old, because we find the fossils in rocks which are 100 million years old.
And we know these rocks are 100 million years old, because they contain T. Rex fossils.
To a certain extent, if the animal is found not to be quite so old, then it becomes difficult to make the case that the rocks are so very old.
So basically it's assumed that if it's possible to use circular logic, that's what's being used?
To a certain extent, if the animal is found not to be quite so old, then it becomes difficult to make the case that the rocks are so very old.
That seems to rely on an assumption that the rocks in question are the oldest rocks there are.
Maybe the T. Rex just had very sharp claws and was able to dig into the rock, and then meticulous replace the rock back into place in such a way as to give the appearance of the rock never having been disturbed?
Either way, we KNOW that the T. Rex is billions and billions of years old, since that's what Richard Dawkins said.
That's really grasping at straws too, since the alleged bacteria would need a source of nourishment to be there in such large numbers as to appear as dyno tissue.
Allow me to beat them to the punch...
I’ve done some thinking over the past few minutes... the conclusion I’ve come to is that my point of view has been wrong all this time. Even though I didn’t bother to read the post, I feel that you should know all of the references are blatantly incorrect and there is no truth in the claim that this has any direct or indirect impact on the true, factual, indisputable theory (in the scientific sense) of evolution. Anyone who believes this post does anything more than PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt the earth is trillions of eons old, is a moronic, creationist, nincompoop without a shred of original thought.
SHAME ON YOU, MR. GODGUNSGUTS FOR SPREADING YOUR EVIL PROPOGANDA... SHHAAAMMEE ON YOU!!!!!!
I feel better now.
Three dinos later they are actually starting to face the facts. It would appear that soft-tissue in dinos is fixing to be a regular facet of the fossil record.
Dang it!
I was in too late.
Obviously the formation cannot be older than the critter that's buried under it.
As you can see, the evos are in panic-overdrive here, throwing their illogical assertions left and right to cloud the issue.
I am sure all the Evos thank you for verbalizing their thought process and faith commitments for them. That way they can keep pouring milk over the darwin idols without interruption!
Can you show me one of these "illogical assertions"?
Darvinae su requiem?
I don't know, I think my "rock clawing and meticulous replacement" theory has some merit.
Yabba Dabba Doo Creationism!
Certainly no surprise to me, after the many mammoths that I have seen with skin and connective tissue remaining on parts of their legs.
“That way they can keep pouring milk over the darwin idols without interruption!”
That’s some good writin’! I’ve never heard that phrase... maybe cretaceous crunchies?
allmendream seems to agree
Something like that :o)
It is something I have come up with after thinking long and hard about what motivates your average Darwin-drone.
Easily: (post 8)
'That seems to rely on an assumption that the rocks in question are the oldest rocks there are."Major nonsequitur.
Excellent point... not that the Evo’s will cede that...
Alinsky would like it.
The Flintstones creators were definitely on to something!
“How does the age of the tissue indicate the age of the planet?”
Is that an inkling of an admission that the planet’s age may be in question???
Why is it non-sequitur? It was presented in the context of the article's claim that if this tissue is relatively young, then it's reasonable to assume that the entire planet is, too.
Yes, on to the juvenile appeal that living with dinosaurs can have on undeveloped intellects.
It was a kids show, designed for a childish intelligence.
He understood proaganda and emotional arguments.
Matthew 18:3 And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
“Either way, we KNOW that the T. Rex is billions and billions of years old, since that’s what Richard Dawkins said.”
And little Dickie Dawkins is never wrong, is he?
All good points... well placed sarcasm.
LIKE I SAID...
I know. Just shut up a and listen to what you have to say, and don't be asking any questions.
“Yes, on to the juvenile appeal that living with dinosaurs can have on undeveloped intellects.
It was a kids show, designed for a childish intelligence.”
Something like the Evo-Atheist obsession with, oh say, Star Trek, Bigfoot, UFO’s, science fiction in general... did I miss any?
LOL!
On a school field trip to the C&O Canal, we stopped inside a stone block tunnel built during that portion of the canal's construction in the early 1800s.
With a completely straight face, the area's preeminent science teacher told us to look up at the stalactites hanging from the ceiling and proclaimed that it “took millions of years for them to form”.
Even at the age of 10, my BS detector went off.
I appreciate your humor. But it points to a problem in the popular imagination that scientists rarely try to correct. You said, "the true, factual, indisputable theory (in the scientific sense)". In science, theories are not facts. Theories are theories. Scientists do gather facts in an attempt to support a particular theory. But those facts do not prove the theory. They only support the theory to varying degrees.
In other words, theories are not dogmas. A theory can be replaced if a better theory comes a long. But dogmas can never be replaced because dogmas are always true, at least for those who believe they are true.
If scientists did a better job of explaining what their theories represent, we would have better science. But scientists do a lousy job of explaining the proper role of theory. They treat it like dogma, and then let the general public view it the same way. This causes a great deal of misunderstand among all parties to the arguments about evolution.
We have presently a thread on FR where we have people arguing if UFO’s are from God or the Devil.
We have Geocentric creationist posters here on FR.
Liking science fiction hardly compares to the sheer crank nuttery of that.
Awesome! Love this stuff.
How creative is our God. How trustworthy His Word. How useful this tool called “science.”
If they keep digging they may eventually find a dinosaur with a pet collar and the tag with the owner’s name. Now that will really prove things. I’m still baffled by the clam shells found in the Alps. I wonder if Noah might have thrown them over board because they weren’t Kosher?
LOL. :-)
The article’s claim is a logical extension of fact, but your statement is not. It needn’t be the oldest rock for the assertion to be true.
Exactly the reason I choose not to engage you Evo-morons in debate anymore.
I’m right there with you... but the last time I tried to put forth that fact I was blasted by Evo’s who claimed theory meant something completely different in science and that I was an idiot for not understanding it. That’s the reason I said, “in the scientific sense”.
It depends on what the meaning of “Is” is, you see.
I can deal with someone who presents their ideas as ideas and their faith as such. But it’s hard to argue with clones.
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.