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 ...
How, indeed...
The same way that they apparently survived for 6000 years.
Thanks for the ping!
You mean Pure F—ing Magic?
It is only a simpleton’s view that this is about two rock-hard dates of 4.6 billion years and 6,000 years. No creationist is saying dinosaurs died out right after being created. But it’s certainly far more believable to assume some imperfect preservation from 4,000 - 5,000 years ago rather than 60 million years.
You mean like an enormous cataclysmic flood?
Dino skin cells? What do they call them, pelosi?
If the assumption is that the specimen is 66 million years old that question won't be pursued too vigorously. After all there may not be an answer that is acceptable to Darwinism.
You mean like an enormous cataclysmic flood?
Water is not a low-oxygen environment.
More likely, this dinosaur was entombed in a landslide or something similar. This is an interesting find, but like the T-Rex soft-tissue (which wasn't really the soft-tissue itself, but the mineralized replacement), it's probably just a really unusual situation.
Step one....start with a false title to mislead the reader into thinking they found actual dinosaur cells.
Tests have shown that the fossil still holds cell-like structures
Now it's not "cells" as the title exclaims....it's "cell-LIKE structures".....hmmmm....cell-like structures made of "what"?
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
NOW, it's not even "cell-like structures"....NOW it's "degraded proteins......as in "they found some amino acids".....now it's gone from the ludicrous title of "reveals skin cells".....to "reveals amino acids"..... as in....We're looking at the altered products of proteins from the skin of this animal, locked within the three dimensional mineralised skin
So we're really talking something more like fossilized skin, not "skin cells".....like fossilized bones are not "bone cells".
ALWAYS, under all circumstances, ignore RATIONAL explanations:
They believe that the dinosaur fell into a watery grave, with little oxygen present to speed along the decay process. Meanwhile, very fine sediments reacted with the soft tissues of the animal, forming a kind of cement.
As a result, the 66 million-year-old fossil still retains some of the organic matter of the original dinosaur, mixed in with the minerals.
.....and by "organic matter" they're not talking "flesh"....they're talking "amino acids".
If they clone the DINO will they produce a RINO??? /snicker
Let's set aside for a moment the pretense that Creationism is not about a backdoor approach to promote Christian theology. Where in the Bible do the authors speak of dinosaurs dying out 6,000 years ago?
Even more believable that they were from less than 2000 years ago. There is a vast amount of cultural and artistic evidence that says that the dinos were recently alive. The logician and the scientist will accept that evidence, but the old-earthers and evolutionists will writhe in denial.
The Bible doesn't speak to any extinctions. - The evidence that is available strongly suggests that many species were still living into the present millenium.
I try to look away from these threads, but I couldn’t resist replying to your post.
Do you *seriously* believe that dinosaurs walked the earth 2000 years ago? I mean, that’s not only within recorded history, but there were quite a few historians writing at the time. Don’t you think that if dinosaurs were around 2500 years ago that maybe Herodotus and Thucydides would have commented on them?
Your post is just plain silly.
Steam and boiling water hold no gasses at all, and both were the dominant forms of water during the 'flood.'
Your post is what is silly.
The absurd assumption that Dinos died off is a recent error. No credible historian would have seen anything worth writing about at the time; it was just natural. Your thinking is convoluted and constipated.
Marco Polo wrote of the “dragons” he encountered, as did Alexander. Are you going to write them off?
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?
For an “editor” (LOL!) your reading comprehension skills sure are lacking.
Water itself may not be, but during a cataclysmic flood, it can create that type of environment. To wit, 1500 Guatemalans were buried in a mudslide caused by a few days of torrential rains. So I guess we both could be correct (landslide caused by lots of water).
The point is this: it is all conjecture and either conclusion is an act of faith because we weren't there to witness the event.
You have no idea what scientific evidence is, do you!
Stop wasting my time with your childish 'gotcha' posts.
The only thing lacking here is your honesty.
God created evolution and time.
Back to work...
You clearly don’t have any idea what truthfulness and honesty are, do you. Quit being sleazy with the lack of facts, be a little honest, and you may have a chance of being taken seriously.
Quit wasting my time with statements and outright lies you’ll never be able to back up. “Go to some thread from a few Thursdays ago” is hardly posting factual detail, that’s dishonest, lazy, sleazy chicanery.
That is riotously humorous coming from the poster of a sleaze campaign. Back up your statements, or be shown to be a liar.
That is a flat out lie that has been completely refuted here. The pickling of the samples produced unfossilized true soft tissue.
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.