Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine?!

[Kenny'sID]

This thread is funny. Of course it's an astonishing find, and to say the very possible conclusions drawn from it means little or nothing, is as astonishing as the find.

Did anyone have proof just how long soft tissue remains in that state? Should be pretty simple to figure out if they aren't pretty sure already.

 

[Shemjaza]

This thread is funny. Of course it's an astonishing find, and to say the very possible conclusions drawn from it means little or nothing, is as astonishing as the find.

Did anyone have proof just how long soft tissue remains in that state? Should be pretty simple to figure out if they aren't pretty sure already.

It's an unusual circumstance of chemicals present when it was preserved.

This is evidence that it can be preserved longer then we initially suspected.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's an unusual circumstance of chemicals present when it was preserved.

This is evidence that it can be preserved longer then we initially suspected.

How long can soft tissue be preserved outside of special containment?

 

[Shemjaza]

How long can soft tissue be preserved outside of special containment?

I'm honestly not sure, but apparently 30 million years is possible:
Characterization of Organics Consistent with β-Chitin Preserved in the Late Eocene Cuttlefish Mississaepia mississippiensis

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm honestly not sure, but apparently 30 million years is possible:
Characterization of Organics Consistent with β-Chitin Preserved in the Late Eocene Cuttlefish Mississaepia mississippiensis

LOL

 

[juvenissun]

No, I love the article. It begins "Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone".

The dingus was originally hard as a rock (because it was a rock - mineralized at any rate). It was not alive. It was, like coal, something which had been alive. But isn't any longer. But like coal, it looks like something that was once alive. Because, like coal, it was once alive.

NOOO. It is found as SOFT material. That is the whole key.
The so-called mineralization is only found on the surface of the soft tissue. And they suggested that is the reason the soft tissue was able to be protected so long (which I do not agree).

 

[Shemjaza]

NOOO. It is found as SOFT material. That is the whole key.
The so-called mineralization is only found on the surface of the soft tissue. And they suggested that is the reason the soft tissue was able to be protected so long (which I do not agree).

Why?

 

[Shemjaza]

LOL

I don't follow your mirth.

"Ha! This nit-whit thinks paleontologists know about finding fossils! What a maroon."

 

[46AND2]

NOOO. It is found as SOFT material.

No, juve, it wasn't. Read the dang paper.

 

[lasthero]

No, juve, it wasn't. Read the dang paper.

That would require effort and intellectual honesty.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't follow your mirth.

"Ha! This nit-whit thinks paleontologists know about finding fossils! What a maroon."

You think he read that?

Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine! Death of Darwinism? So the Biblical Science of Creation is not pseudoscience, because it has at least one (not detracted yet - surprise!) peer-review article: Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, and John R Horner. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. B (2007), 274: 183-197.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2006.3705

Will I mumble to you that at least the cells in the dinosaur were alive, but the brain didn't work ?!

I wonder, are you deliberately trying to convey the impression that creationists are liars or do you just think that you can get away with lying and that no one will notice?

Follow up question. You obviously believe what you read in the bible, so do you feel that it's worth breaking the ten commandments, the consequences of which are clear, to promote a debateable, minority interpretation of Genesis?

I for one wouldn't want to join a club with such scant regard for moral standards.

 

[Steve Petersen]

1. Deliberate lie to promote Darwinism - was present in History of Science,
2. The dating technics are wrong (look Dr. Kent Howind lectures)

Kent Hovind? Seriously? Kent Hovind - Wikipedia

 

[juvenissun]

No, juve, it wasn't. Read the dang paper.

I will give you a much much simpler assignment: read the title of the paper.
Can't believe this. That is how evolutionist argues. No wonder evolution is full of holes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I will give you a much much simpler assignment: read the title of the paper.
Can't believe this. That is how evolutionist argues. No wonder evolution is full of holes.

Except that people have read the paper rather than just the title and it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[Shemjaza]

I will give you a much much simpler assignment: read the title of the paper.
Can't believe this. That is how evolutionist argues. No wonder evolution is full of holes.

Juvenissun.... you need to read books and papers. You can't just read the title and imagine what you'd like to be true.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Juvenissun.... you need to read books and papers. You can't just read the title and imagine what you'd like to be true.

It says "living dinosaur" in the thread title. When that feels so good inside, why bother looking for information to support it?

 

[46AND2]

I will give you a much much simpler assignment: read the title of the paper.
Can't believe this. That is how evolutionist argues. No wonder evolution is full of holes.

I've read the paper, juve. Am I supposed to ignore what the paper says based on your silly interpretation of the title?

 

[46AND2]

That would require effort and intellectual honesty.

It's amazing to me that someone can make a claim like that, dripping with condescension, without even checking to make sure he is right first.

 

[Speedwell]

It's amazing to me that someone can make a claim like that, dripping with condescension, without even checking to make sure he is right first.

Being right does not come into it. What is important is "winning" against the evil atheist conspiracy to deny God.

 

[juvenissun]

I've read the paper, juve. Am I supposed to ignore what the paper says based on your silly interpretation of the title?

Can't make sensible communication any more.
Bye.