Actual Dinosaur Flesh Discovered, Creationists Rejoice

by metatron 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • metatron

    In case you missed this, apparently real soft tissue and blood cells from a T. Rex were discovered, causing no small controversy

    as to how such survived for 65 million years.

    Creationists are turning cartwheels on this discovery. Some folks are talking about a Jurassic Park scenario, in the future

    Whatever your beliefs, it is a most amazing discovery.


  • greendawn

    Yeah that is an interesting discovery since the evolutionists were laughing at the earlier claim of creationists about blood found from a dino, it is pretty unlikely for tissues to remain soft and unfossilised for 65 million years, that is a very long time period. It's one more serious problem for them.

  • nicolaou
    It's one more serious problem for them.

    You're kidding right?

  • Clam

    I just hope that an unscupulous member of staff hasn't smuggled any T.Rex tissue out of the lab in a specially adapted whipped cream aerosol, with a view to selling it the highest bidder.

  • greendawn

    Nic, can soft tissues survive for 65 millon years? Do evolutionists believe they can? Not so long ago they were objecting to the idea that blood cells were found in dino fossils. This soft tissue in the dino means it died some hundreds of thousands of years ago rather than tens of millions.

  • DanTheMan

    Anybody see the Simpsons episode where Flanders' kids are playing Christian Clue with Bart, and the younger one thinks he's solved it: "The Secular Humanist did it in the Classroom with Misinformation!" as he holds up a card with a picture of a dino. It was classic.

  • kid-A

    This soft tissue in the dino means it died some hundreds of thousands of years ago rather than tens of millions.

    GD, just out of curiosity, do you have a doctoral degree in the fields of paleobiology, molecular chemistry or any knowledge of the ionic bonds between carbon chains? If not, I would hold off on your

    scientific analyses. The reality is that these sorts of molecular structures could easily have been preserved for millions of years in the appropriate conditions. Second, it has not even been determined if the "tissue"

    found within these bone specimens are even native to the original animal, they may just as likely represent cellular debris from other organisms that invaded the fossil long after the animal had died.

  • Leolaia
    can soft tissues survive for 65 millon years?

    They do all the time in amber. Lots of examples of preserved soft tissue in amber exist. It all depends on the way the fossil is preserved.

    BTW, it is not entirely clear how much original tissue has survived in this case and whether partial replacement has occurred. In 225-million-year-old amber fossils, "nucleated protozoan cells have been found but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material -- likely collagen -- had not survived" (Science, 25 March 2005, p. 1852). It will take further tests to see much much has actually been preserved.

  • Abaddon

    This is hysterical.

    Creationists (the Muslim, Hindu and Christian Creationists all disagree with each other, by the way) and their apologists running around like they have ever, even once proved anything), over a discovery that merely makes scientists go "Oooo, I didn't know that could happen. How does that happen?"

    An understanding of the nature of science (that it is formative and not summative) would make someone realise that this doesn't effect evolution theory in the least bit. The fact of whether soft tissues can or cannot survive millions of years in fossilised bone does not falsify the multiple methods of dating that are used to place a specimen chronologically.

    Evolution isn't about single pieces of evidence making that much difference (fosillised Nikes from the Cretaceous excepted). It is about how a vast web of evidence all fits into the theory.

    But as I have yet to meet a Creationist or ID'er who can accurately define evolution correctly, people tilting at windmills is inevitable. Additionally, the fact that their beliefs are revelatory, in other words summative, tends them to leap to unsupported conclusions.

  • RunningMan

    Creationist cartwheels must be doled out over pretty small issues these days. I really don't see anything in this story that would turn me even marginally toward God. This is definitely interesting stuff, but hardly fodder for conversion.

Share this