Skip to comments.Mummified Dinosaur Skin Looks Young (therefore, according to the Evos, it must be an illusion)
Posted on 07/30/2009 8:48:55 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The remains of a dinosaur found in the Hell Creek Formation of North Dakota are so well preserved that some scientists are just gobsmacked.
The mummified remains belong to a hadrosaur nicknamed Dakota and were the subject of a recent study that appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. About the size of a hippo, the dinosaur is supposedly 66 million years old. But its skin says otherwise, a find that paleontologist and the studys co-author Phil Manning called absolutely gobsmacking.
Like many other young-looking dinosaur remains,[3,4,5,6] this specimen was extremely well preserved and contained soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds. Using various advanced techniques, the researchers established the survival and presence of macromolecules. They were even able to compare the dinosaurs skin structure with that of living creatures, finding that it is similar to the two-layered structure of modern birds and reptiles.
What is gobsmacking about this find is that...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
(in before helen thomas).
Give us this day our creationist spam...
Are you starting to get the idea that the 65,000,000 years we’ve heard about all our lives was never anything more than a bunch of bullshit?
The ICR article misrepresents the report
ICR claims this was 'mummified', however, the original report doesn't say that. It says: retains soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds. Mineral cements precipitated in the skin apparently follow original cell boundaries, partially preserving epidermis microstructure. Infrared and electron microprobe images of ossified tendon clearly show preserved mineral zonation, with silica and trapped carbon dioxide forming thin linings on Haversian canals within apatite.
Mineralization is very different than mummification.
And optical measurements of the distances of astronomical bodies, in the ranges of millions of light years, are all false, too?
Just a note of clarification on 7, it seems the word mummification came from the editorialized title, not the actual technical report.
A century ago on the plains of the North-West Territories my grandpappy fashioned his own dinosaur-skin clothing when moose and deer were unavailable.
The moccasins wore especially well...
I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED, to find that creationists are misrepresenting scientific findings in an attempt to prop up their ludicrous scriptural interpretation!
“Are you starting to get the idea that the 65,000,000 years weve heard about all our lives was never anything more than a bunch of bullshit?”
I so love cogency. :-)
..and the forty or so radiometric dating methods, and the different calcification dating methods, and the eolian dating methods.. yadda, yadda.. all put in place to trick us into thinking the world is really, really old.
Don’t confuse the issue with facts.
All designed to test your faith of course.
Or label you a non-believing, liberal-in-hiding, Darwin-is-your-god, evolutionist.
Just by the skin of her jowls!.
never trust anything containing this "word."
Don’t confuse me with the facts! The process described is mineralization/petrification (of course the YEC knuckleheads will point out some “petrified” cowboy boot and claim that’s PROOF that blah, blah blah...).
How can anybody even read anything from the ICR anymore? They always completely misrepresent findings. Honestly, how can such supposedly God-fearing people live with themselves? Is lying and deception okay in the service of God?
I notice their latest catch-phrase too, “soft tissue.” The only thing noteworthy about this find is that the skin survived after death long enough to fossilize. For that we need a lack of local scavengers and a low-oxygen or arid environment. Previous to this find evidence shows the area at the time of this dinosaur was very arid.
It must have moisturized regularly.
OH NO when attacking the flimsy house of cards of the religion of evolutionism...let’s belittle the opposing view....what open mindedness....hooray for your side.
Tell, Mnehring, how could the skin be completely mineralized if they found “Amino acid composition analyses of the mineralized skin envelope clearly differ from the surrounding matrix”? Obviously, mineralization was not complete.
The paper goes on to state that “The presence of endogenously derived organics from the skin was further demonstrated by pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry (Py-GCMS), indicating survival and presence of macromolecules that were in part aliphatic (see the electronic supplementary material).” Did you catch that, Mnehring? They detected the presence of endogenously derived organics. In other words, the dino had not completely mineralized.
Sorry, YOUNG DINO INTERPRETATION IS THE BEST EXPLANATION...AGAIN!
Why do you always accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of? Don’t they call that projection?
That alone doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does show that scientists reject new evidence that runs counter to their established conclusions.
Sorry, YOUNG DINO INTERPRETATION IS THE BEST EXPLANATION...AGAIN!”
Do tell. Perhaps you can demonstrate the length of time required for a dinosaur to completely mineralize? Bear in mind, given the state of preservation of the sample, it has apparently been isolated from a majority of external modifiers (air, water, etc).
YOUNG EARTHER PING! (to me)
Are you aware that potassium/argon dating shows the lava around Mt. St. Helens to be over a million years old? These dating schemes are all FUBAR. The planet IS more than 6K ort 10K years old, but not tens or hundreds of millions.
So your supposition is that all fossils were created by volcanic action (intense heat and pressure over an extended period)? Since fossils are found world-wide, why does the Bible not record this worldwide vulcanism?
For stalactites, what you have proven conclusively is that mineral content and water flow rates will affect growth of deposited minerals. Guess what - the rate of pine-cone accumulation on my deck is directly proportional to the number and size of trees in my yard.
This finding about fast-growing stalactites is not surprising at all; in fact, it would CONFIRM the hundreds of thousands - or millions of years - age of many such marvels because we can measure the water flow rate AND the mineral content and then reverse-calculate the age of the formation.
So essentially what you have done is taken an extreme event (much like Vesuvius’ eruption which quickly mummified, fossilized, and obliterated the Roman town of Pompeii) and extrapolated it worldwide when there is no data to support such an extrapolation, and used that to discount any and all fossils.
And you are taking a known, expected, physical phenomenon (mineral content and flow rates are proportional to the growth of mineral deposits) and claiming that all stalactites must therefore be young.
Interesting insight to the mind of a YECer...
You’ve got to be careful posting stuff like that around here. A quarter of the folks will believe it, and most of the rest will think you’re a blasphemer.
I just point out the labels that will be used.
If you don’t like the ICR, you could try National Geographic ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html ); they’re also describibing this stuff as soft tissue, and not petrified or fossilized material. Professional paleontologists have all seen fossils; you’re not going to read about one of them claiming to be “gobsmacked” from finding another fossil.
No, it’s all just an illusion. Darwin’s natural selection god is just trying to fool mankind into thinking the dino is young.
Temple of Darwin say avert eyes, close brain, repeat old earth mantra...before too late!
It is a GGG post and therefore not too much faith should be exerted to accept it.
Are you aware that potassium/argon dating is only applicable on samples of more than about 100,000 years? To test younger materials and expect accurate results is like buying clothes measured in miles. Typical creationist BS.
Then why would any honest person ever use it at all?
The only projection I’ve ever seen on this issue is creationists calling a scientific theory a religion.