Posted on 10/04/2013 7:15:37 AM PDT by kimtom
Imagine watching an interview on television and hearing a bald, blind, deaf, wrinkled, hunched-back, bedridden man claim that he is 130 years old. Although you might doubt such a claim, if ever there was a man in modern times to live 130 years on Earth, he likely would have looked as worn out as this man appeared. Imagine, however, if a quick-witted, muscular, marathon runner with fair skin, thick, dark hair, low blood pressure, and a good memory, claimed to be 130 years old. What reasonable person would believe such a claim? Everyone would doubt the statement, especially the doctors, who had found the man’s overall health to be comparable to that of a 20-year-old.
Now take a step into the world of evolutionary science. According to evolution’s geologic timetable, since dinosaurs supposedly became extinct 65 million years ago, any dinosaur fossil found in the ground must be at least 65 million years old. But what if the fossils don’t “appear” to be that old? What if, when inspected by scientists, various dinosaur bones around the world are discovered with “highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”? What if fibrous proteins such as collagen were found, along with “cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells”? Would evolutionists come to a similar conclusion as most everyone would about a marathon-running, 130-year-old? Apparently not.
In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of dinosaur bones from around the world that are not completely fossilized. They actually contain intact protein fragments,.......
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
An old boot with a bunch of minerals precipitated on it is hardly “fossilized”, and the claim of a fossil fishing reel is just too stupid to even entertain.
I’m a guy with an advanced degree in a hard science who knows that when it comes to science, the information you get from people who have actually done the work is superior to those who have not.
no, you are a evolutionist whose pride is in his knowledge
and gets angry when your religion is threatened.
You are wrong, anyone (even you) can quote the work of other people. You do not need advanced degrees to see the truth. (even lies)
you do not need an advance degree to disagree, you do not need a degree to have knowledge.
you need only to read.
Therefore , I disagree with you, most emphatically
It is WHAT you read that makes you who/ what you are.
But alas! “the wisdom of men is Foolishness to God..”
Maybe if you reduced the temps to single degree Kelvin levels, otherwise the soft tissue should disappeared due to simple thermal degradation over 65 million years.
There are those of us who believe God's Word is not an engineering manual, and are open to scientific explanations of how human beings became what we are, but do not bitterly cling to unproven scientific theories.
Remember, the Ptolemaic Model of cosmology was considered a "fact" for more than a thousand years.
PS
“...the information you get from people who have actually done the work is superior to those who have not....”
Not if they do not understand it.
I can see an “out” for them... maybe.
The earth is billions of years old,
but somehow, some dinosaurs continued to live up to a few thousand years ago.
Otzi, and many bog man and women. Also mummies found in deserts, like the Gobi and in Peru. The conditions are bad for decomposition.
A couple of questions.
1. Is '“highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”' and accurate description of what was really found?
2. If it's not, why are there conclusions being drawn based on the premise that it was?
And just which branch of science is your specialty?
Well, then I guess we need people like you to explain who is right in the global warmi - err - climate change science then too, ehh?!?!
Evolution has more lies, fraud, and abuse of science than global warming [as well as all other scientific disciplines] but it has had much longer for the stories to be concocted huh?
UUhhmmmm....?
It’s due to man made global warming, Republican radical enviromental policy(s), effects of long dormant racism, and failure to support a wealth redistibution plan. Had these items been taken into account in our past then this soft tissue would have fossilized timely in their 80,000,000 year life span.
It is all very simple.
to answer both questions,
The material was not “expected” to remain flexible.
It was not fossilized.
It raises questions about age.
we know that fossilization does NOT take long. it begs the question, How long did it take, how old is this fossil.
Now to question standing evolutionary thought, is un thinkable!
Honestly is needed.
That seems to be a far cry from '“highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”'
Do you think implying that they found '“highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”' is providing that honesty?
So tactic, are you just trying to sow doubts about stuff that ‘s been reported for almost 10 years now?
“In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.
In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz2glrvxY1T
“
No, the article does a pretty good job of that. I do wonder how it's been reported for almost 10 years, and keeps showing up as "News".
post 36
honesty
“..almost 10 years, and keeps showing up as “News”...”
anything not heard before becomes news!!!
(is that new news, or old news..??)
The article describes things that the account of the researchers does not say they found. That causes me to have doubts. It was an honest assesment.
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.