PRESERVED T. Rex Soft Tissue RECOVERED (Pic)

Star Tribune ^ | 03.24.05 | Randolph Schmid

[wallcrawlr]

WASHINGTON — For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70-million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising,'' she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.

The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.

[Right Wing Professor]

That was 70 million year old T-Rex??? Burp...Not Bad!

I call you on the telephone my voice too rough with cigarettes.
I sometimes think I should just go home but I'm dealing with a memory that never forgets
I love to hear you say my name especially when you say yes
I got your body right now on my mind and I drunk myself blind to the sound of old T-Rex
To the sound of old T-Rex - who's next?

[MitchellC]

He's arguing against 200 years of biblical scholarship.

Methinx you grossly overestimate the strength of the naturalistic position. "Biblical scholarship" is not one great big monolithic consensus that hasn't had to change much in the past 200 years - in reality, today's main-line skeptical opinion (among scholars) likely has little if anything in common with that of 1805.

I doubt some chemist from Nebraska's going to make a difference.

Um, the suggestion was as much for your own edification as it was for his.

But anyway, don't sell yourself short. I can tell just from communicating with you here that you're no more or less informed on the subject than many of the skeptics who've made a career of it.

[bondserv]

We can speculate ...

Why even bother?

We could use your keen scientific mind to analyze the Biblical Data. It is like a puzzle in that God has left us with all of the pieces to put together. The picture ends up revealing a rolled away stone before an empty tomb.

[Elsie]

He clearly relied on the missing Q gospel

Hey guys!

LOOK!!!

We got GAPS!!!!!

---

Just like the FOSSIL RECORD!!

Since it's ok for E's to jump the gaps, why can't we C's do the same???

[Elsie]

I'm waiting to see for myself, right here, what the Torah says. Like RWP, Unless I see for myself, how can I make a judgement on what ANYONE says??

They might have an agenda unbeknowenced to me.

[Elsie]

I don't dispute that Jesus was probably a historical figure. I dispute many of the details, including all of the supernatural ones.

Your first name wouldn't be Tom; would it???

---

John 20

24. Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26. A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27. Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28. Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30. Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[Elsie]

The serious scholarship I've seen does not agree.

Perhaps you should see some 'serious scholarship' from the OTHER point of veiw.

[mtbrandon49]

Bump for later

[Elsie]

Remember the Gospels were written down from an oral religious tradition well after the fact.

 

 

I get the impress that 'an oral religious tradition' means to you that, like the game we used to play, where one person would say something to the person next to them, by the time it got back to the originator, the thing would be completely different, due to changes each person had inadvertantly made in remembering.

 

 

The NT was NOT that way. 

 

When I asked my Dad about his WWII experiences, I am getting a FIRST HAND account of it.  When I go to the VFW and talk to his fellow soldiers and hear THEIR stories, I get EYEWITNESS data.

 

If I write it down in a journal for MY grandkids to read later, one of them had better NOT say, "That ain't how it was, 'cause my TEACHER told us different in school!"

[Elsie]

Oops!

Impression........

[Ditter]

I am remembering something from many years ago but I am not sure if it was true or a joke. Was an extinct critter found frozen in a glacier and the meat served up at a banquet or something? Maybe it happened (or didn't happen) in the 40's or 50's.

[Right Wing Professor]

Was an extinct critter found frozen in a glacier and the meat served up at a banquet or something? Maybe it happened (or didn't happen) in the 40's or 50's.

I know mammoth meat found frozen in Siberia has been eaten. Don't know that you'd call it a banquet. Well, maybe in the former Soviet Union in the 50s, meat thousands of years old was a banquet.

[Ditter]

The memory I have is that it was served at some kind of a fund raiser for a scientific org. But given how my memory has been failing me lately, I may have dreamed this. LOL! I think it was found in Alaska and served in the US.

[Dataman]

The serious scholarship I've seen does not agree [that the Gospels were written before 70AD]

The reason most scholars, including liberals acknowledge the early Gospels is that the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD is nowhere refrenced, not even in Acts which was written after the Gospels. Consider also P52, which is a fragment of John from the mid 50's. Now just who are these "serious" late dating scholars? If they actually do exist, I suspect they are fringe elements that think the DaVinci Code is factual.

[Right Wing Professor]

The reason most scholars, including liberals acknowledge the early Gospels is that the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD is nowhere refrenced, not even in Acts which was written after the Gospels.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[muawiyah]

Yes, you saw the article. YOu also saw the story in one of the books about the Gulag. Not sure whether it was in Gulag Archipelago or another one by Alexandr Dulgin.

These were Ice Age critters however, not 70 million year old dinosaurs.

[Lijahsbubbe]

With any kind of luck we will have Armageddon long before that happens

Those are my suspicions exactly.

[Crusher138]

At one time it was heresy to believe that the Earth was not the center of everything. You need to have more faith in God and less in a book written by fallible men sometimes way after the fact and passed down by word of mouth for generations.

I'm sorry, I just can't let this one go.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat or round or any particular shape.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of the universe.

Both of these constructs were touted by the "learned" men of their time, although many postulated that the earth was a globe long before Magellan or Columbus.

The Catholic church was upset with Galileo more for his "commentaries" than for his actual discoveries. Galileo had more issues with Aristotle's model of the universe than with the church's. Galileo wrote:

I hold that the Sun is located at the centre of the revolutions of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth rotates on itself and moves around it. Moreover ... I confirm this view not only by refuting Ptolemy's and Aristotle's arguments, but also by producing many for the other side, especially some pertaining to physical effects whose causes perhaps cannot be determined in any other way, and other astronomical discoveries; these discoveries clearly confute the Ptolemaic system, and they agree admirably with this other position and confirm it.

The church was just acting like many of the scientists of today. When exposed to a theory that contradicts their beliefs, they are initial highly skeptical, but if the new idea has merit, they eventually accept it.

To summarize, the Bible does not stand in the way of, nor contradict, most scientific thought. It actually addresses little of a scientific nature outside of creation. It is maddeningly vague, no matter what "young earthers" say, and it only takes a bit a research to discover that different men have come to different conclusions regarding the age of the earth based on scripture. I have always believed that when it is all revealed we will be surprised at just how accurate the Bible was without being specific.

[bondserv]

The serious scholarship I've seen does not agree.

Considering the finding this thread is about, you may wish to switch to the scholars who disagree with you in your search for truth. It would seem that us Creationists are making evidenciary headway despite the prevailing wisdom's refusal to reconsider.

[Right Wing Professor]

Consider also P52, which is a fragment of John from the mid 50's.

Not according the the museum that owns it.

The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.