Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay
Institute for Creation Research ^ | Sep 1, 2009 | Brian Thomas

Posted on 10/19/2009 1:40:13 PM PDT by lasereye

In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.

Since many think of a fossil as having had the original bone material replaced by minerals, the presence of actual bone--let alone pliable blood vessels, red blood cells, and proteins inside the bone--is quite extraordinary. These finds also present a dilemma. Given the fact that organic materials like blood vessels and blood cells rot, and the rates at which certain proteins decay, how could these soft tissues have been preserved for ten thousand, let alone 65 million or more, years?

These soft tissues have met with hard resistance from mainstream science, and some scientists have even discounted or ignored them. But fresh studies keep finding fresh tissue, making the issue difficult to dismiss. Either the vast evolutionary ages assigned to these finds are dramatically erroneous, or "we really don't understand decay" rates of the soft tissues and proteins.1

Paleontologists who have analyzed the tissues, visible through their microscopes and squeezable with their tweezers, insist that something is fundamentally wrong with laboratory data on biochemical decay rates.2 In turn, biochemists are confident that their repeatable experiments show that the soft tissues should not be there after all this time. To try to get around the hard facts of soft tissues, some scientists have even proposed that the blood vessels and red blood cells in question were bacterial slime. This was thoroughly refuted, however, by research showing that the dinosaur tissue contains a collagen protein that bacteria do not produce.3

This dilemma between the science of biochemistry and the belief in millions of years is not going away. In addition to the well-characterized tissues from a T. rex reported by paleontologist Mary Schweitzer in 1997,4 2005,5 and 2007,6 new soft tissue finds keep surfacing. Schweitzer published a report on another sample in Science in 2009,3 this time from a hadrosaur, in which the precise characteristics of dinosaur biochemicals were verified by a third party. This was necessary to confirm the reality of the soft tissues to an incredulous scientific community. (Similarly, Schweitzer's 2007 results have also been verified.7)

Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking."8 Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."9

Schweitzer's team recently concluded that "the most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils."3 But biochemical decay rates showing that soft tissues would be dust after all this time are also thus far unfalsified (i.e., have not been disproved). Therefore, the millions-of-years age assignments must go.

However, if the deep time goes, then so does the grand story of evolution that depends on it. For many, that is too sacred an assumption to dare alter. Biblical data, however, not only provide the timeframe for the death of these dinosaurs in Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement with observable data that their demise occurred when they "fell into a watery grave."8

References

1 Fields, H. 2006. Dinosaur Shocker. Smithsonian magazine online. Published May 2006, accessed July 20, 2009.

2 For example, see Bada, J. L., X. S. Wang and H. Hamilton. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 354 (1379): 77-87.

3 Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.

4 Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter. 1997. The Real Jurassic Park. Earth. 6 (3): 55-57.

5 Schweitzer, M. et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952.

6 Asara, J. M. et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry. Science. 316 (5822): 280-285.

7 Bern, M., B. S. Phinney and D. Goldberg. 2009. Reanalysis of Tyrannosaurus rex Mass Spectra. Journal of Proteome Research. Published online July 15, 2009.

8 Mummified dinosaur skin yields up new secrets. The University of Manchester press release, July 1, 2009.

9 Manning, P. L. et al. 2009. Mineralized soft-tissue structure and chemistry in a mummified hadrosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota (USA). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Published online before print, July 1, 2009.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; biology; creationism; crevo; dinosaur; evolution; maryschweitzer; scientism; softtissue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 10/19/2009 1:40:14 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lasereye

It’s an interesting quandary, to say the least.

Wouldn’t you love to see some of those finds cloned.

Wow...

Perhaps the material has decayed or morphed beyond useful dna or rna being available. If so, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa from here.


2 posted on 10/19/2009 1:47:54 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Deficit spending, trade deficits, unsecure mortages, worthless paper... ... not a problem. Oh yeah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

So....

Does this mean medieval knights really did slay dragons?


3 posted on 10/19/2009 1:49:48 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Biblical data, however, not only provide the timeframe for the death of these dinosaurs in Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement with observable data that their demise occurred when they "fell into a watery grave."

Whoever wrote that has never been to the Grand Canyon.

4 posted on 10/19/2009 1:53:31 PM PDT by TigersEye (Imagine the uproar when people imagine what Rush says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Whoever wrote that has never been to the Grand Canyon.

What are you referring to?

5 posted on 10/19/2009 1:59:09 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.

Mmmm.....

6 posted on 10/19/2009 2:09:53 PM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

>Does this mean medieval knights really did slay dragons?

Maybe they did.


7 posted on 10/19/2009 2:13:22 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

The statement I quoted.


8 posted on 10/19/2009 2:15:07 PM PDT by TigersEye (Imagine the uproar when people imagine what Rush says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

This stuff is very exciting.


9 posted on 10/19/2009 2:15:45 PM PDT by Gator113 (Obamba, Reid, Pelosi, the socialist triad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Something tells me someone didn’t check to see what “soft tissue” preserved inside dinosaur bone fossils actually entailed, and is therefore assuming someone found large chunks of marrow or something. Yes, soft tissue indications were found, mainly collagens, and were encased in rock themselves.


10 posted on 10/19/2009 2:18:03 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

oh goody. And merlin and excaliber?


11 posted on 10/19/2009 2:18:12 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

>oh goody. And merlin and excaliber?

Stargate SG-1 explains them.
;)


12 posted on 10/19/2009 2:21:32 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Ya know, I’ve given that some thought on a number of occassions. Science tells us that the dinosaurs were long gone when humans made the scene. You hafta ask; what was the origins of all of the legends concerning “dragons?”


13 posted on 10/19/2009 2:22:54 PM PDT by JayVee (Joseph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

It also strikes me as an incredible leap to suggest that just because our current understanding of the decay of collagens in a fossilization environment can’t explain the presence of those collagens, therefore the whole thing is wrong and the dinosaurs lived only thousands of years ago (and somehow almost all of their bodies mineralized so quickly except this one tissue; and yes we have found fossilized skin). Occam’s razor would suggest that we probably just don’t know enough about collagen preservation yet.


14 posted on 10/19/2009 2:23:56 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JayVee

>You hafta ask; what was the origins of all of the legends concerning “dragons?”

Indeed; and it was long thought that the giant squid was only a myth thought-up by sailors.


15 posted on 10/19/2009 2:24:09 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Repeating the same lies over and over and over....does not make the ad nauseum correct.

There has been exactly ZERO “soft, squishy tissues” found in dinosaur bones, Dr....er....Brian Thomas MS*....and if Brian Thomas MS* knew WTF he was talking about, he’d stop lying about it.....but the truth isn’t what B rian Thomas MS* is interested in.

What HAS been found in fossilized dinosaur bones is FOSSILIZED “soft tisssue structures” that are then de-mineralized.

....but Brian Thomas MS* doesn’t want you to really know that part....all he wants is for you to thinnk that there’s soft-squishy tissue found and then you too will believe that Man walked the Earth at the same time as 100+ large meat eating dinosaurs that all somehow dies 4,351 years ago because they somehow missed their seat on the Ark.

Next article to post would be the “dinosaur skin” that was found. (corrected to the truth....fossilized dinosaur skin structure)


16 posted on 10/19/2009 2:25:03 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Maybe. But there’s also the possibility that the fossilization happens quicker than is normally thought (you mentioned fossilized skins); if that is the case then the underlying [soft]tissues may also be effectively sealed and thusly more preserved than thought. (Like, if you will, forming a can around the food.)


17 posted on 10/19/2009 2:29:08 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The biggest “patch” of fossilized skin was about 1’ square. It’s a lot more likely that this “soft” tissue, which is only found in very small amounts, requiring a microscope to see, is preserved by an accident of the way the minerals accumulate during the fossilization process i.e. an airless environment deep inside a thick mineralized bone.


18 posted on 10/19/2009 2:34:07 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

>and then you too will believe that Man walked the Earth at the same time as 100+ large meat eating dinosaurs that all somehow dies 4,351 years ago because they somehow missed their seat on the Ark.

Who said anything about them missing their seat on the ark? They could have gone extinct before then, they could have been brought on-board as [fertilized] eggs, or they could have been hatchlings when they boarded. In all those cases, we would expect that all of the dinosaurs that were not on the ark were dead at that point.


19 posted on 10/19/2009 2:34:38 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

>i.e. an airless environment deep inside a thick mineralized bone.

And how is that NOT my analogy of the fossilization forming around the tissue in question and preserving it like canned food?


20 posted on 10/19/2009 2:36:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

I just wouldn’t be the same without the bi-weekly statement about the soft tissues. That story just won’t die the death it so deserves.


21 posted on 10/19/2009 2:37:42 PM PDT by par4 (Proud new member of the racist corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

“soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.”

The number of lies in that statement is like a BJ CLinton statement. Creationists and philandering liberals, one and the same.

(And by the way, would you eat a “soft squishy fresh” piece of meat buried only a few thousand years ago? Even his lie is idiotic.)


22 posted on 10/19/2009 2:57:35 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
Though you are correct in that what was found was "soft" after being de-minerialized, you are forgetting that the bones in question, from the Hell Creek formation, were reported to have "stunk".

The prevailing wisdom now is --- we don't know enough about how such soft tissue structures could be preserved ---not, like you say, "it's only been de-mineralized!" suggesting it had been fully fossilized like most other dinosaur bones, thus "nothing to see here folks" "just move along"...

23 posted on 10/19/2009 2:59:49 PM PDT by BlueDragon (there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to bo th variation & deviation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
There has been exactly ZERO “soft, squishy tissues” found in dinosaur bones, Dr....er....Brian Thomas MS*....and if Brian Thomas MS* knew WTF he was talking about, he’d stop lying about it.....but the truth isn’t what B rian Thomas MS* is interested in.

What HAS been found in fossilized dinosaur bones is FOSSILIZED “soft tisssue structures” that are then de-mineralized.

That is simply wrong. You are lying or read something that's a lie.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Dinosaur Shocker

24 posted on 10/19/2009 3:05:43 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Congrats! You win...


25 posted on 10/19/2009 3:12:44 PM PDT by Riodacat (Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat

You award this way too soon, The other candidates haven’t even chimed in on this thread.


26 posted on 10/19/2009 3:14:25 PM PDT by Pistolshot (Brevity: Saying a lot, while saying very little.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
You award this way too soon, The other candidates haven’t even chimed in on this thread.

Sorry. I guess I was acting a bit like the Norwegian Nobel Committee..

27 posted on 10/19/2009 3:24:31 PM PDT by Riodacat (Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JayVee

Think of all the rock quarrying that has gone on since humans developed tools.

Now think of someone finding a large dinosaur skeleton of, say, brontosaurus.

How would they explain its presence? Legends...

Now, about the riddle of steel, let me tell you of the age of high adventure!


28 posted on 10/19/2009 3:32:43 PM PDT by Tailback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Isn’t the primary cause of decay the action of bacteria? If no bacteria get access to the marrow cavity in a bone, is it reasonable to suppose that decay will be retarded?

No agenda, just askin’ questions!


29 posted on 10/19/2009 4:48:29 PM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., hot enough down there today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).

Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

“Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”

“Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”

“Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”


30 posted on 10/19/2009 6:18:54 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

If that was true then I assume the evos would have pointed that out by now. The soft tissues were first discovered in 1991. This is not something new. Here’s an article about that discovery.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1

“Though resilient, collagen fibers have been observed in laboratory settings to decay within a matter of weeks. Studies show that collagen should be unrecognizable after 30,000 years,2 a figure that is only 0.0375 percent of the standard age assigned to the hadrosaur.”

http://www.icr.org/article/hadrosaur-soft-tissues-another-blow/


31 posted on 10/19/2009 7:34:02 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tailback
Think of all the rock quarrying that has gone on since humans developed tools. Now think of someone finding a large dinosaur skeleton of, say, brontosaurus. How would they explain its presence? Legends...

Perhaps. Given the same premise in isolated cultures absent cross cultural influence, I'd be curious how you would explain the rendering by these cultures of similar creatures, with similar attributes.

32 posted on 10/20/2009 1:03:34 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Exactly what Earth shattering event within the last 6000 years made all dinosaurs extinct? ...and this whole line of thinking flies in the face of the YEC claim that all the dinosaurs died in the Great Flood.

I didn’t read anything in Genesis about animals being brought on board the Ark as fertilized eggs....”male and female” is the term used. What’s the difference between a male and female T. rex egg?


33 posted on 10/20/2009 5:11:26 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Another screed from the “You’re going to hell if you don’t agree with this article” people.


34 posted on 10/20/2009 5:13:13 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

“Yes, soft tissue indications were found, mainly collagens, and were encased in rock themselves.”

Now, now, this is way too complex for “creation science”, and way too fact-laden.

I’ve tried explaining this on previous threads, and pointing out another in the unbroken series of lies that is “creation science” to no avail.

I wish you better luck, but these people are uncommonly stupid, and uncommonly stubborn. They take full advantage of their God-given ignorance.


35 posted on 10/20/2009 5:20:19 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

There’s a difference between “not knowing how soft tissue structures were preserved” and the Brain Thomas MS* continuous false claim that they found soft-squishy tissues.


36 posted on 10/20/2009 5:37:59 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Nice tactic.

"You are simply wrong.....liar.....you're full of shi'ite.....or whoever you listen to is."

Guess you forgot to read AND COMPREHEND what YOU FREAKIN' POSTED.

“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,”

Thanks for making my task easier. They destroyed the samples by soaking it in a weak acid TO DEMINERALIZE the fossilized samples.

MAYBE you should rely on the PRIMARY SOURCE instead of the lyin Brian Thomas MS*.

Cortical and endosteal bone tissues were demineralized, and after 7 days, several fragments of the lining tissue exhibited unusual characteristics not normally observed in fossil bone. Removal of the mineral phase left a flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation.

Hint: DE-MINERALIZED...in 0.5M EDTA, pH 8.0....EDTA is a chelating agent, something that can deal with mineral ions...you know...the stuff that makes up the "mineral" fossilized bones that need to be DE-mineralized.....soaked in EDTA for 7 days.

SOMEONE is lying and that would be Mr. Brian Thomas MS*......DO TELL, dear lyin' Brian MS*.....do tell all about those "soft, squishy tissues" that have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones as your lie claims.

Hell, even the image attached to the article is a lie I'll attribute to the ICR.....as in...THAT is not what was found, ICR.

At no time did they find a bone full of marrow and intact red blood cells.....but whatever....the ICR has their BS to peddle.

37 posted on 10/20/2009 6:08:47 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
You should read the PRIMARY SOURCE instead of lyin' Brian MS* nonsense. Of course, you have to know the difference between finding a "protein" and finding a "specific protein sequence" in an immuno assay. you must know the difference between finding "blood cells" and finding "mineralized blood cell structure."

Lyin' Brian MS* is banking on you not knowing the difference.

38 posted on 10/20/2009 6:21:37 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry; lasereye
You should read the PRIMARY SOURCE instead of lyin' Brian MS* nonsense...

I eagerly await the "soft squishy" crowd's response.
39 posted on 10/20/2009 7:38:56 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
“Though resilient, collagen fibers have been observed in laboratory settings to decay within a matter of weeks. Studies show that collagen should be unrecognizable after 30,000 years,2 a figure that is only 0.0375 percent of the standard age assigned to the hadrosaur.”

I want to second (third, fourth) the suggestion that you check the original sources on any of Brian's articles, because he will lie to you. In this case, you only need to go to the footnote: "In bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environments." [emphasis added]

40 posted on 10/20/2009 10:12:23 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

>What’s the difference between a male and female T. rex egg?

Many avians are determined sex by the temperature the egg is allowed to vary, IIRC. But, you’re also completely discounting the hatchling possibility.

>and this whole line of thinking flies in the face of the YEC claim that all the dinosaurs died in the Great Flood.

Why do you say that? And the question itself shows the assumption that dinosaurs weren’t extinct at the time of the Flood.


41 posted on 10/20/2009 3:16:16 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Many avians are determined sex by the temperature the egg is allowed to vary, IIRC. But, you’re also completely discounting the hatchling possibility.

.....are you saying that T. rex is related to avians? If they brought all the dinosaurs on the Ark, even in the form of eggs......why'd they go extinct and all get deposited as fossils during the Flood? Every explanation just leads to another something to be explained away.

Yes, I discount the hatchling possibility for the flailing it is. I don't see any reasong in Genesis to believe that the animals on the Ark that were hatchlings or eggs just so happened to be the ones that are currently extinct......and why'd they go extinct if there were representatives on the Ark with which to rebuild their population. Some extinction event in known human history that only affected dinosaurs? Just a flail to attempt to claim that dinosaurs were alive 4,351 years ago.

Why do you say that?

....because the notion that the dinosaurs were already extinct at the time of the Flood flies in the face of the YEC notion that the Flood killed all the dinosaurs......which also brings in the notion of the dinosaurs not being on the Ark as they should have been...yet another twist created that must be explained away.

BTW, if you think the dinosaurs were already extinct by the time of the Flood, you are, according to the YEC crowd.....not a "real" Christian. Just ask GGG.

And the question itself shows the assumption that dinosaurs weren’t extinct at the time of the Flood.

Since a male and female dinosaur of EACH kind were not on the Ark....and God said bring 2 of every sort/kind, male and female...not 2 eggs....and Noah did as God said.....then dinosaurs could not have been alive at the time of the Flood or they would have been on the Ark and not have gone extinct in the Flood.

The correct flail would be to claim that all the dinosaurs fall into the "kind" of something that is currently alive....but that's all it is.....a flail to continue believing the fary tale of Man walking the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs.

42 posted on 10/21/2009 6:29:27 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

>>Many avians are determined sex by the temperature the egg is allowed to vary, IIRC. But, you’re also completely discounting the hatchling possibility.
>
>.....are you saying that T. rex is related to avians?

No, it was merely an observation that egg-laying creatures can have sex determined by external conditions.

>If they brought all the dinosaurs on the Ark, even in the form of eggs......why’d they go extinct and all get deposited as fossils during the Flood?

Your reasoning is faulty here: you’re assuming that the ones that died in the flood (unless previously extinct) are influencing those not in the flood.

>Every explanation just leads to another something to be explained away.

Really? Let me ask you this then: why is the Dodo extinct? Because of pigs that ate all their eggs. The Dodo, however had to be on the Ark, right? Then why is it extinct? (See, just because one event can cause extinction doesn’t mean it DID... likewise a significant drop in a population followed by some other, usually less significant, catastrophe could easily drop a population below its sustainment level.)

>Yes, I discount the hatchling possibility for the flailing it is. I don’t see any reasong in Genesis to believe that the animals on the Ark that were hatchlings or eggs just so happened to be the ones that are currently extinct.

Actually just because some of those went extinct doesn’t mean all of them did. Take horses, lions, rhinos, and elephants for example; they’re all large and it would have taken less space to get them as young-animals. {Hatchlings would be little different in this regard, taking the young to save space.}

>Some extinction event in known human history that only affected dinosaurs? Just a flail to attempt to claim that dinosaurs were alive 4,351 years ago.

You’re discounting the possibility that we humans WERE that “extinction event.” Take the legends of “dragons” and their slayings, for instance, those dragons could have been dinosaurs and the tales have a little truth in them... as I noted to someone else on this thread it was thought that the giant squid was a myth in modern history, but really-recent history has proven the old-sailor’s tale true [to some extent].

>>Why do you say that?
>
>....because the notion that the dinosaurs were already extinct at the time of the Flood flies in the face of the YEC notion that the Flood killed all the dinosaurs......

That doesn’t mean that they’re right about it; man could have killed all the dinos prior to the flood.

>which also brings in the notion of the dinosaurs not being on the Ark as they should have been...yet another twist created that must be explained away.

I’ve already said that, had they not been extinct they would have been on the ark; though perhaps not full-sized.

>BTW, if you think the dinosaurs were already extinct by the time of the Flood, you are, according to the YEC crowd.....not a “real” Christian. Just ask GGG.

Fortunately for me its Jesus that decides if I’m a “real” Christian or not; just ask St. John’s Revelation. (And somehow I think he’ll be a little forgiving on unorthodox viewpoints that don’t matter.)

Oh, since you brought up the numbering 2x2, there is also a a command to bring all the clean animals, and birds, in pairs of seven. (So, birds would obviously have a better chance of survival in the post-flood world considering their population was seven times that of a dino’s.)


43 posted on 10/21/2009 7:57:10 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
man could have killed all the dinos prior to the flood.

I think man killed them AFTER the flood. Thus all the tales of "slaying dragons". BTW, what do you think of the description of leviathan in Job 41? That's a fire-breathing dragon.

44 posted on 10/21/2009 8:01:13 AM PDT by MrB (The only difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
So Noah, while taking only eggs of soon-to-be-extinct creatures....whipped out a thermometer to check the sex of the creature inside?

Your reasoning is faulty here: you’re assuming that the ones that died in the flood (unless previously extinct) are influencing those not in the flood.

No, I'm assuming that those that were supposedly dinosaur eggs or hatchlings that were on the Ark......immediately died on the Ark because they most certainly were extinct after the supposed Flood. Dinosaurs before the Flood....no dinosaurs after the Flood. The notion that dinosaur eggs or hatchlings were on the Ark is not quite as ludicrous as Man walking in the land of 100+ meat eating dinosaurs.

Actually just because some of those went extinct doesn’t mean all of them did. Take horses, lions, rhinos, and elephants for example; they’re all large and it would have taken less space to get them as young-animals. {Hatchlings would be little different in this regard, taking the young to save space.}

ALL of them went extinct. There is NOTHING in Genesis that leads one to believe that there were hatchlings and newborns on the Ark instead of adult animals of breeding age. That's manufactured to get to the belief that eggs and hatchlings of extinct creatures were somehow on the Ark.

You’re discounting the possibility that we humans WERE that “extinction event.” Take the legends of “dragons” and their slayings, for instance, those dragons could have been dinosaurs and the tales have a little truth in them... as I noted to someone else on this thread it was thought that the giant squid was a myth in modern history, but really-recent history has proven the old-sailor’s tale true [to some extent].

Manufacturing humans making dinosaurs extinct is sooooo....YEC. SO of all the animals on the Ark, Man chose to make extinct the only ones that have been extinct for millions of years......how convenient...

There is zero evidence of dragons ever having actually existed....no, I don't believe in the spirit horse either.

man could have killed all the dinos prior to the flood.

Riiiiiiiight. Man killed 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs with rocks and sticks. Oops...forgot, Man just needed to throttle a few hatchlings.

Oh, since you brought up the numbering 2x2, there is also a a command to bring all the clean animals, and birds, in pairs of seven. (So, birds would obviously have a better chance of survival in the post-flood world considering their population was seven times that of a dino’s.)

BWAAAAAahahahahaha......birds surely would've killed off 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs. 14 chickens against ONE T. rex....I'll take those odds.

THIS is the stuff one has to make up to ensure the belief that Man walked in the land of large meat eating dinosaurs until 4,351 years ago?

45 posted on 10/21/2009 9:12:58 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

>ALL of them went extinct. There is NOTHING in Genesis that leads one to believe that there were hatchlings and newborns on the Ark instead of adult animals of breeding age.

There’s only the phrase “the male and his female” to indicate that they WERE of breeding age; but that is ignoring the art of animal husbandry wherewhich humans assign the pairings.

>That’s manufactured to get to the belief that eggs and hatchlings of extinct creatures were somehow on the Ark.

And you’re stating that there was absolutely no way they were on the ark; even though the story gives TONS of leeway for such specifics, like the actual cosmetic-structure of the ark: we’re given dimensions and several design-requirements, but it could have looked more like a giant box or more like a modern freighter (hull-shape-wise).

But you’re also discounting that I have also acknowledged the possibility that dinosaurs were extinct PRIOR the flood.

>Dinosaurs before the Flood....no dinosaurs after the Flood.

Certainly DOES NOT preclude the possibility that dinosaurs died PRIOR to the flood, which I HAVE acknowledged as a possibility.

>The notion that dinosaur eggs or hatchlings were on the Ark is not quite as ludicrous as Man walking in the land of 100+ meat eating dinosaurs.

Which is obviously just as ludicrous as man walking in the land of Lions, Hyena, and Alligators, right? {Oh, wait, we call that place Africa!}


46 posted on 10/21/2009 10:05:31 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
but that is ignoring the art of animal husbandry wherewhich humans assign the pairings

That works great for domesticated livestock....how's that fit the dinosaur hatchling hypothesis? Whole lot of running in circles to explain how dinosaurs were alive 4,351 years ago.

And you’re stating that there was absolutely no way they were on the ark

That's EXACTLY what Im stating. Even taking into account the mental hoops needed to jump through to have dinosaurs living in the age of Man, the "leeway" in Genesis does not allow for 100+ species of large meating dinosaurs having been around.....or having been on the Ark. Not in egg form, not in hatchling form......in a form needed to reseed the Earth, as IS stated....reproductive age form. I know....to explain it all away, Man must've taken out some vengeance on ONLY the dinosaurs and killed off God's creation that God wanted reseeded onto the Earth as He demanded. Such hubris Man has...

Dinosaurs DID die off before the alleged Flood...millions of years before.

Lions, hyenas, and alligators......are not large meat eating dinosaurs.

47 posted on 10/21/2009 10:57:10 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

The common error people make when talking about representative species on the ark is that Noah was not told to gather representatives of each land species but only to take on board the animals that would come to him at the site.


48 posted on 10/21/2009 11:03:43 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

That’s the gist I get....just imagine Noah travelling the world collecting all the world’s species that didn’t live in the immediate area....all while building the massive ark.

Wonder how dinosaur eggs “arrive” for their seat on the Ark...


49 posted on 10/21/2009 12:02:00 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig; ElectricStrawberry; RFEngineer
Something tells me someone didn’t check to see what “soft tissue” preserved inside dinosaur bone fossils actually entailed, and is therefore assuming someone found large chunks of marrow or something.

Why don't you try reading the article.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1

There has been exactly ZERO “soft, squishy tissues” found in dinosaur bones, Dr....er....Brian Thomas MS*....and if Brian Thomas MS* knew WTF he was talking about, he’d stop lying about it.....but the truth isn’t what B rian Thomas MS* is interested in.

Yes, soft tissue indications were found, mainly collagens, and were encased in rock themselves.

Now, now, this is way too complex for “creation science”, and way too fact-laden.

Well it's getting hard to know what to believe if I just listen to the evos alone. You guys need to argue this out amongst yourselves.

50 posted on 10/21/2009 7:42:56 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson