Skip to comments.Dinosaur Soft Tissue Finally Makes News
Posted on 12/02/2009 8:28:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Although creation-based organizations have reported for over a decade on the technical scientific journal articles published about soft tissue found inside dinosaur remains, mainstream media outlets have largely been silent on the subject. But a recent segment that aired on CBSs 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue may be gaining more traction, and even may be changing the whole dino ballgame, according to correspondent Lesley Stahl.
The program is currently viewable online at the CBS website. In a field test demonstration to determine whether a dinosaur fossil was real bone, and not bone replaced by minerals, Stahl touched her tongue to it...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but Ill be damned if theyre gonna ban Him or it from FR!
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Jim and GGG.
I’m not a young earther. However, am fiercely a Creationist.
Well, it should make news unless it contradicts or conflicts with the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd...:)
AGW nazis ain’t got nothin’ on the Temple of Darwin fanatics.
Thanks, Quix. BTW, even though I’m a young earther, I regular post ID articles to the HMS Creation ping list.
All the best—GGG
A reporter touching their tongue to a bone is proof of ‘what’?
Is Stahl experienced at touching her tongue to the bone?
dont worry, once the handy-dandy super elastic evolutionism plastic machine is turned on full speed, the worshippers at the temple of darwin will come up with either why it supports evolutionism, or why it most certainly supports evolutionism, and if neither of those two, then the third option will be that it without a doubt, supports evolutionism.
Bogus!!!!....this has been NEWS for awhile...
I saw paleontologist Jack Horner, talk about this on the Discovery channel 6 or so years ago....it was a great find and an unusual lucky find to find 65+ million year old bone and marrow in such good condition...but it is more than possible and no fantasy 6000 year old earth is the cause...
Some bone matrix is just better at preserving than others...
I’m not a believer in a literal reading of Genesis, but there’s no way that soft tissue could survive for sixty million years. If that stuff really is dino tissue, then the currently accepted timeline is wrong.
No let’s hear these “conservatives” on FR defend the MSM.
I would imagine that Stahl was informed of this field test by Schweitzer.
"Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue
John Roach for National Geographic News
December 3, 2007
Paleontologists Find Dinosaur Protofeather
By Brandon Keim January 12, 2009 | 2:05 pm |
In my experience, the rarely support evolution, they just dis on us backwoods, knuckle dragging, Bible thumpers. God will be justified though. He knows how to make all of the world’s knowledge look stupid.
Well, except the whole issue of coordinated fraud, no evidence and a massive socialist political machine that pushed the creation and acceptance of AGW from the beginning.
Natural Selection started as an underdog and grew on its own scientific merits despite claims of heresy within a highly religious environment.
That soft tissue would have evolved into a Volvo by now.
Fri Aug 1 10:08:25 2008 · 8 of 13
null and void to wendy1946
Let's see where the data takes us before anyone counts coup here.
Even Especially because 65,000,000 million years is an improbably long time for organic matter to survive this stuff is very interesting.
No matter where the data goes, our understanding of all of creation will be improved.
Perhaps that will mean fossilization and decay processes are far different that we thought.
Perhaps it will mean that everything we know about radioactive decay, geology, cosmology, anthropology, time, and biology needs major revision.
Perhaps our understanding of subterranean bacterial growth in incomplete, and we confused what something looks like for what something is.
Me? I'm hoping it is really bits 'o dinosaur.
That would be way kewl!
IBT*it belongs in religion*...
You anti-science HERETIC, you!!!!!
(Just didn't want you to feel neglected...)
Leslie was a real 'looker' once upon a time...
I can't see it replacing Kleenex.
They need better marketing people.
G3, although we completely disagree on the age of the Earth, I saw this show when it aired, and knew you’d be interested. Meant to ping you the next morning, but got involved at work, and forgot. Sorry!
Agreed. She had the best looking top of a head for her day...
*nully ducking and running for cover*
A perfect match so far...
"Natural Selection started as an underdog and grew on its own scientific merits despite claims of heresy within a highly religious environment."
And the most ridiculous statement of the day, at the least! (fraud has scientific merit?)
I knew I could count on one evo to come through.
PS Last I checked...virtually all the global warming nazis masquerading as scientists have made the universe their god, worship at the alter of mother earth, and view darwin as its messenger.
“I knew I could count”
Most of us had serious doubts.
GGG said: “AGW nazis aint got nothin on the Temple of Darwin fanatics.”
I guess you’ve never had to deal with the “Temple of Young Earther and Other People Who Damn All Who Believe Differently To Hell Even Before Those Others Come Before the Judgment Seat of Christ.” I have no idea why these people are so willing to push Christ of his Judgment Seat so they can put their fat butts into it. Maybe somebody can tell me why.
“These fossils stink” said the colleague.
“Hell Creek fossils ALWAYS stink” Horner replied.
He went on to explain how stupid he felt for not asking the question “why?”.
No problem. It was very nice of you to think of me :o)
You got no place to hide!
I tend to think that statement turns cause and effect upsidedown ;o)
I guess either you don’t know many Creationist or you don’t know those who have damned me to Hell several times.
Clearly, you have never seen my basement!
The first time that deep black clay is excavated, it always stinks bad! - If it is broken up and allowed to dry out, the stench goes away. The stuff is loaded with rotting organic material.
I can’t speak for individual creationists, nor do I know the context of your conversations/debates. But what I do know is that the major creation science organizations do not teach that you must believe in biblical creation in order to be saved.
Not even close to a match. There have been individual frauds in natural selection, and other evolutionary scientists have always been the ones to expose them. Given that fact, all of the proven frauds creationists trot out as disproving natural selection are in fact a testament to the good scientific review behind natural selection.
AGW itself being a fraud, it required the skeptics to uncover it. Other AGW scientists certainly weren't going to expose any instances fraud and thus lose their place on the AGW gravy train.
And the most ridiculous statement of the day, at the least!
Absolutely true. AGW had government backing pretty much from the beginning, a socialist agenda to leverage it into power and control. Darwin had no such backing. He was one man in a very religious era where his ideas constituted heresy. The evidence being behind him, his theory flourished even in that opposing environment.
The basic difference is that NS grew on its merits to become dominant in science, while AGW was pushed by governments to become dominant regardless of merits.
Um, no. Religion has nothing to do with it. Besides, if you wanted to make it religious can make an even better case to support global warming based on religion due to God's order to take care of the Earth. By pumping out CO2 we are sinning against God.
Just like we allowed the left to change the THEORY of man made global warming(which it STILL is, by the way, a THEORY), to known fact (which of course it is NOT). In fact it is likely a manufactured FRAUD as we are just now finding out.
We have allowed the left to change the THEORY of evolution(which it STILL is, by the way, a THEORY), to known fact (which of course it is NOT). Hmmmmmmm there seems to be a parallel here. The same people, the same so called proven science, (even though many, many times evolutionists have be CAUGHT committing FRAUDS and doctoring evidence.
I am experiencing Deja Vu all over again.
The TRUTH shall set you free.
Evolution is a far larger fraud than AGW. - There is no physical evidence to support it whatsoever.
Drawings, plaster carvings, minute fragments of bones and teeth, are not evidence of anything but the fertile imaginations of its adherants.
I’m not at all convinced that Genesis insists on 6 thousand years.
I still think that BEFORE IT WAS FORMLESS AND VOID
it could have been a series of interesting things . . . after which God decided to start all over again . . . as He almost did a time or two after Genesis.
Millions of years . . . I don’t think we know near as much as we think we know about dating anything.
I just find 6 thousand years too much of a stretch.
There’s Chinese characters, writing 7 thousand years old.
I’ve never understood this.
I’ve been fortunate enough to teach in a classroom setting where I was able to teach BOTH Creation and evolution.
Everything is possible with God.
Anyone who says otherwise puts themself above God.
Not that I care, but Darwinists love to belittle Creationists by pointing to a very small segment of the population who promulgate the theory that our Earth has only been around a short time.
Why do the creationist/i.d crowed keep asking for the evidence when it is here. All you have to do is go to a museum and see it for yourself. You can take a look at Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens and see the clear transtion.
I am sure that many prisioners would agree that minute fragments of bones and teeth, are not evidence of anything, however we both know that statement is false.