Dinosaur Soft Tissues: They're Real!

ICR ^ | August 11, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[Jaime2099]

"Ah, yes... The ol’ conspiracy theory of science."

Your arrogance is boring.

"FYI, those “faulty dating technique” articles you’ve read discuss techniques used 40 years ago. Unfortunately for the creationists, science has marched forward and developed several very accurate dating techniques that are used independently of each other to verify the age."

So let me get this straight. Darwinists invented multiple dating techniques to show how accurate their other dating techniques are. Wow! Impressive. But it does not change the fact that tissue has been found on dinosaur fossils. Darwinists can check and double check their dating techniques all they want, but a million year old tissue found on a fossil is unscientific.

[whattajoke]

Your arrogance is boring.

You've stumped me. It's arrogant of me to merely state that you feel all of science is embroiled in some elaborate conspiracy against the small band of fundamentalist religionists who believe their particular interpretation of their particular brand of religion is THE one true interpretation, hundreds of years of science be damned. (pardon the pun.) And I'M the arrogant one?!

So let me get this straight. Darwinists...

Get this straight: The term "Darwinists" is a silly moniker made up by creationists to belittle biology for some reason. While Charles Darwin is certainly admired and was an impressive guy who is often associated with evolution, no one calls themselves a "Darwinist." Had he not published, it would have been Alfred Russel Wallace and you'd call scientists, "Wallacists." If not him, then the next guy. It's childish to use "Darwinists." Anyway, you were saying...

Darwinists invented multiple dating techniques...

No. They didn't. Chemists and physicists did back in the 50's - and in fact happened to win a Nobel prize for Chemistry as a result of their efforts. The idea of using it to add evidence to evolutionary theory was not an idea in any of the developer's heads.

Darwinists invented multiple dating techniques to show how accurate their other dating techniques are.

Creationist thinking at its finest. Actually, Unlike the "just-so" mythology of the nomadic goat-herders you put your faith in, science constantly attempts to improve methods. Science seeks to falsify results. By determine other half-lives and other ways of dating objects, they could falsify results. Turns out, it DID in some cases, but via science and further testing, current dating methods are quite accurate.

But it does not change the fact that tissue has been found on dinosaur fossils. Darwinists can check and double check their dating techniques all they want, but a million year old tissue found on a fossil is unscientific.

Which is why this is exciting news. Which is why so many people are interested in it. They'll study it and take their time and we'll hear more about this "tissue" over time.

BTW, dinosaurs died out much longer than 1 million years ago. If you want to sound intelligent, get the basic facts straight.

[Jaime2099]

"you'd think if there really were such a strong conspiracy, she'd have buried that finding right quick."

Why bury the findings, the religion cannot be wrong. If there is tissue that simply means that tissue can survive millions of years, right? Why should she lose her job, she's still in the Darwin tank. You seem to miss the entire argument against Darwinism. It is a religion, no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince them their religion is incorrect. It isn't the worst conspiracy ever, just a pitiful false religion.

[Jaime2099]

"Which is why this is exciting news. Which is why so many people are interested in it. They'll study it and take their time and we'll hear more about this "tissue" over time.

BTW, dinosaurs died out much longer than 1 million years ago. If you want to sound intelligent, get the basic facts straight."

Finally, some sense in your posts. Yes, her findings do need to be studied (and have by what this article states), but the matter at hand is the elephant in the room. The dating techniques used in science to date fossils. If this is tissue that she found, then there is an obvious problem with current dating techniques and everything that has ever used current dating techniques fall into question. That is science. If this plays out as science should, this could get very interesting for young earth Creationists. It is clear that the few thousand year old earth theory could become the most likely scenario using science.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Why bury the findings, the religion cannot be wrong.

According to you and your colleagues, this is damning evidence against evolution. If she's in the Darwin tank, why wouldn't she have just dissolved that soft tissue as soon as she found it? Why rock the boat at all?

You seem to miss the entire argument against Darwinism. It is a religion,

There's no argument there to miss, just a false assertion.

[Jaime2099]

"According to you and your colleagues, this is damning evidence against evolution. If she's in the Darwin tank, why wouldn't she have just dissolved that soft tissue as soon as she found it? Why rock the boat at all?"
,br> I already answered that, "Why bury the findings, the religion cannot be wrong." No doubt, her whole life she has been spoon feed the lies of Darwinism thanks to judges making a rash and unscientific decision to exclude a completely legitimate scientific theory and leave Evolution alone to be taught. The religion cannot be wrong, if she found tissue, then their must be an explanation that keeps the Darwin religion's beliefs intact. Because it cannot be wrong, it just simply can't, don't you see?

[tacticalogic]

If this is tissue that she found, then there is an obvious problem with current dating techniques and everything that has ever used current dating techniques fall into question.

So the dating techinique has to be wrong, there is no possibility that the assumption that that kind of apparent preservation of soft tissue for that long is not possible can't be wrong.

The only possible explanation for this must be consistent with YEC theory/theology. There can be no other explanation.

[P.O.E.]

Tastes like chicken!

(After all, aren’t birds descended from dinosaurs?)

[Jaime2099]

"So the dating techinique has to be wrong, there is no possibility that the assumption that that kind of apparent preservation of soft tissue for that long is not possible can't be wrong."

So what your trying to say is that you think it is more likely that tissue can survive millions (or billions) of years, than it is that the current dating techniques being used are inaccurate? If you want to believe that, great for you. But it is neither a very logical nor scientific conclusion to come to.

[bolobaby]

I said NORMAL speed of light - as in, light traveling through the vacuum of outer space.

But, it is sure nice to know that some rules might be broken under the right physical conditions - such as the speed of light or the duration which soft tissues might be preserved. ;-P

[bolobaby]

Hmmm. OK, so every word in the Bible is absolute. I *get* that about hardcore creationists.

So, just out of curiosity, which word is absolute in the holiest of prayers? Is it debts/debtors or trespasses/trespassers?

It’s not possible (*gasp*) that some MAN made translation errors, is it?

[bolobaby]

So know you are posting the words of men as absolute truth? Because MEN have gone on record to say that there is an “absolute time limit to anything that is protein or DNA?” So therefore it must be true?

My, what an interesting turn of events.

[tpanther]

like your liberal buddies demand ga-jillions of years old of godless, irrational, unintelligent, meaningless, purposeless, undesigned...

Sigh. Too many.

Yes, I can see how looking at your world in print in black in white would make you sigh. Maybe you clowns should just stop asserting such assinine ideas, and this part is key: forcing everyone else to comply!?

[tpanther]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear tpanther!

Thanks! GREAT follow-up!

[tpanther]

And evos aren't nearly as funny as they think they are putting hidden messages in their replies.

More interesting is that they claim to be conservatives and yet don't mention a word about 'O Crap' the president, it seems to me they're kind of sticking up for the guy.

But maybe some have finally given up with the pretenses since virtually everyone on FR can see that they're closet liberals?

And it doesn't escape anyone that algore, zero, and ALL liberals are evolutionists to the core. And the closet evo-libs on here would really rather that not be brought out into the light.

[goodusername]

“So what your trying to say is that you think it is more likely that tissue can survive millions (or billions) of years, than it is that the current dating techniques being used are inaccurate? If you want to believe that, great for you. But it is neither a very logical nor scientific conclusion to come to.”

—It’s a good idea to look at what’s actually being talked about when articles mention “tissue”. I’m not saying you’re doing this, but I think some people are imagining T-Rex steaks. What’s actually being talked about are a few bits and pieces of microscopic protein molecules.

Protein, and their building blocks amino acids, are extremely stable and robust molecules - much sturdier than, say, dna. And yet it wasn’t long ago that many scientists had hopes of finding dino dna. If scientists had hopes of finding 100 million year old dna, than how remarkable is it to find ancient bits of vastly hardier protein?
What’s the lifetime of an amino acid under good conditions? I have no idea. Neither does anyone. The primary reason anyone was surprised to find any protein in the T-Rex was simply because no such thing had ever been found before. Which actually goes to show how old such fossils are, than even to have even microscopic bits of the studiest of organic molecules remain is so incredibly rare. (Compare this to, say, mammoths which are sometimes found and appear to have died yesterday, and which even Creationists admit are thousands of years old. Or to human remains found in eastern China and the Andes that are thousands of years old and yet so well preserved by nature that one can still see the expression on their faces.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragements, dear tpanther!

[Jaime2099]

"The precise recipe of environmental conditions that lead to such molecular preservation is still a mystery" - Mary H. Schweitzer

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43381/title/Soft_tissue_from_a_dino_fossil

Why is it a mystery, because it defies scientific logic as we know it. Going from a one million year old fossil tissue found to an 80 million year old fossil tissue found is quite a leap to say the least. It takes a great deal of faith to believe a million year old tissue can be preserved, but one would have to be completely entrenched in Darwinism to believe an 80 million year old soft tissue can be preserved. There is no scientific evidence to back this claim. What this fossil has does is send the scientific community into a tail spin. Of course, at first, they will automatically say that it is preserved in an unknown way, but that knee jerk reaction is not good enough for me, nor should it be good enough for science either.

"Or to human remains found in eastern China and the Andes that are thousands of years old and yet so well preserved by nature that one can still see the expression on their faces.)"

Thousands of years and tens of millions of years are two completely different things entirely.

[tacticalogic]

So what your trying to say is that you think it is more likely that tissue can survive millions (or billions) of years, than it is that the current dating techniques being used are inaccurate? If you want to believe that, great for you. But it is neither a very logical nor scientific conclusion to come to.

Why is it not very logical nor scientific? The article submits that the conclusion that some natural process may be responsible is a "special pleading, with strong laboratory evidence against it".

By what objective criteria is this a "special pleading", and the laboratory evidence against it consequential, and the possibility that the sample is actually only a few thousand years old an inescapable conclusion in spite of a vast body of laboratory evidence against that conclusion?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Hmmm. OK, so every word in the Bible is absolute. I *get* that about hardcore creationists.

So, just out of curiosity, which word is absolute in the holiest of prayers? Is it debts/debtors or trespasses/trespassers?

It’s not possible (*gasp*) that some MAN made translation errors, is it?

Spiritual errors in conveying the words of God are impossible because God purposes His own words and preserves them:

The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. – Psalms 12:6-7

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. – Isaiah 55:11

You see, the words of God are spirit and life whereas the words of men are neither spirit nor life. His words are alive, they come alive within us, the words of men are not and do not.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

The words of God can only be Spiritually discerned. They are not like a science textbook wherein claims made can be subjected to empirical tests or scientific observations. Nor are the words of God like a literary work subject to passing fancies of societies, i.e. change over time.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14

Only His own sheep can hear Him and they will not follow anyone else.

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

That is because His sheep have the gift of “ears to hear.” His words come alive within us, they nourish our souls.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one. - John 10:27-30

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4

The words of God do not change because God does not change. They are spirit and life. Jesus in the following passage is not speaking of a particular papyrus in a particular language tucked away somewhere here on earth:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matthew 5:18

The words of God are not ‘fleshy.’ Truly, Jesus Christ is the living Word of God.

Therefore the presence or omission of such things as the phrase “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.” called the “doxology” in the Lord's Prayer – is irrelevant.

Lurkers: Essentially, there are two schools of the original Greek manuscripts, the Alexandrian line which excludes the doxology and the Byzantine line which includes it. The translation method called “textual criticism” excludes the doxology because the oldest available manuscript – in this case, the Chester Beatty papyri of the Alexandrian line – excludes it. However, they also recognize that both schools of Greek are not necessarily fully represented in the archeological record and that, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, more papyri may be uncovered.

The other two base manuscripts for translation - majority text (consensus) and Textus Receptus – include the doxology. The majority text surveys the general population of ancient manuscripts and looks for a consensus. The consensus includes the doxology. Biblical preservationists typically rely on the Textus Receptus, which includes it. The Biblical preservation doctrine trusts God to look after His own words and thus rejects “textual criticism” as a matter of faith.

I trust God to look after His own words and I include the doxology when I say the Lord’s Prayer or Our Father. For me, the doxology is a matter of Spiritual “Tourettes” - it is Spiritually irresistible to declare “Amen” or a doxology or a “Selah” whenever God has been praised. As another example, when something glorious has happened, we Christians often respond with words such as “Praise God!” or “Praise the Lord!”

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. - Luke 19:40

That others of my brothers and sisters in Christ exclude the doxology when they say the Lord’s Prayer or Our Father is irrelevant.

Likewise, whether my brothers and sisters in Christ interpret "debt" or "trespass" or "offense" - is irrelevant. The Spiritual Truth is that we individually build the scales whereby we will be individually judged and the hearing of our petitions is conditioned on our forgiveness (Matthew 6:9-15 Mark 11:24-26.)

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: - Luke 6:37

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. – Matthew 7:1-2

Conversely, the very tense of a verb in the words of God may be Spiritually relevant:

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. - Matthew 22:31-32

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. - John 18:6

As with all the words of God, the Truth in God's Name, I AM, can only be Spiritually discerned. No amount of signs or wisdom of men (e.g. scientific method) can reveal it.

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. – Deuteronomy 29:2-4

To God be the glory, not man, never man.