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

[Kenny'sID]

There, with the billions hyperbole, again.

You don't know anything about a topic, but are happy to pour scorn on research?

New research demonstrated that soft tissue could be directly mineralised and be preserved for over 65 million years. Older research had soft tissue preserved for around 30 million years.

That's the evidence. The research and results.

Willfully ignorant Creationists saying: "Ha! That's impossible! I just know that can't be right." would be the real comedy if it wasn't so sad.

I'd laugh just as hard about a million yrs, and I'd hurt my sides at the suggestion of 30mil. So use that instead of the billion you object to..

 

[Speedwell]

Terrible argument.

I never commented on that one way or another but evolution and atheism go hand and hand, it's proven out here time an time again. Almost all Atheists argue for evolution.

And so do large numbers of theists.

They aren't going to believe Creation because they don't believe there is a God so, as a rule, where else are they to go? Of course they go hand and hand, at least in that respect.

Are you sure this is about creation by God? Or is it really about "biblical" creation? Because evolution does not, cannot, replace God. It can only replace biblical creationism.

it's exactly as I was saying, that's how they fill the gaps, or account what we feel takes place with creation.

As I understand it, atheists feel no need to fill those gaps. They are satisfied that there is no "who" or "why." In any case, science cannot answer those questions. Certainly "evolution" does not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And so do large numbers of theists.

Are you sure this is about creation by God? Or is it really about "biblical" creation? Because evolution does not, cannot, replace God. It can only replace biblical creationism.

As I understand it, atheists feel no need to fill those gaps. They are satisfied that there is no "who" or "why." In any case, science cannot answer those questions. Certainly "evolution" does not.

I see nothing more here to convince me I was wrong, so, like I said earlier we disagree.

 

[lasthero]

I'd laugh just as hard about a million yrs, and I'd hurt my sides at the suggestion of 30mil. So use that instead of the billion you object to..

I'd laugh just as hard about a million yrs, and I'd hurt my sides at the suggestion of 30mil. So use that instead of the billion you object to..

How long can soft tissue survive, do you say, and how did you arrive at that number?

 

[Kenny'sID]

How long can soft tissue survive, do you say, and how did you arrive at that number?

1)Less than 30million yrs. 2)Common sense.

 

[lasthero]

1)Less than 30million yrs. 2)Common sense.

‘Common sense’ isn’t an answer.

How, exactly, did you determine that soft tissue can’t survive that long?

 

[Radagast]

If not, at least in this field, are you certain soft tissue can last billions of years under normal circumstances?

The paper in the OP was about tissue which was soft after demineralisation. It wasn't "soft tissue" in the sense you're thinking of.

 

[joinfree]

The paper in the OP was about tissue which was soft after demineralisation. It wasn't "soft tissue" in the sense you're thinking of.

I'd bet, that this "soft after demineralisation" is added for sole purpose of passing peer-review and to avoid firings from the Scientific Community.

 

[Kenny'sID]

‘Common sense’ isn’t an answer.

How, exactly, did you determine that soft tissue can’t survive that long?

Man, I am sweating bullets now, how will I ever manage to get out of this one?

Go ahead and collect your teddy bear, you win, and I'm so embarrassed for even considering soft tissue would never last 30 million yrs...what WAS I thinking??



LOL!

 

[Shemjaza]

I'd bet, that this "soft after demineralisation" is added for sole purpose of passing peer-review and to avoid firings from the Scientific Community.

Care to provide evidence for this, or are you bearing false witness?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The paper in the OP was about tissue which was soft after demineralisation. It wasn't "soft tissue" in the sense you're thinking of.

In the scheme of what we're discussing, I seriously doubt it matters.

 

[Shemjaza]

Man, I am sweating bullets now, how will I ever manage to get out of this one?

Go ahead and collect your teddy bear, you win, and I'm so embarrassed for even thinking soft tissue would never last 30 million yrs...what WAS I thinking??



LOL!

It was preserved as a fossil, not just sitting there fresh.

Your pride in your ignorance is very unpleasant to view.

 

[joinfree]

Care to provide evidence for this, or are you bearing false witness?

I am a ban meat! Good bye my love!

 

[Kenny'sID]

It was preserved as a fossil, not just sitting there fresh.

Your pride in your ignorance is very unpleasant to view.

Soft tissue lasting 30 million yrs is a bit unpleasant/unsettling as well when one knows those claiming so are actually serious.

 

[USincognito]

I’ve never understood the creationist obsession with trying to prove dinosaurs lived with humans. Ultimately, all it would mean is that a species we thought was dead didn’t die. It wouldn’t even be the first time that’s happened.

They just don't get it. A living T-Rex walking down the street of Bozeman, MT would be less of a problem for evolution than a single T-Rex tooth in Triassic strata.

 

[USincognito]

Then may be the living cell in the Dino discovered is not real either.

Correct. It's not real because no living cells were found. No DNA was found. Only fragments of collagen and heme left over from blood.

 

[USincognito]

I'd bet, that this "soft after demineralisation" is added for sole purpose of passing peer-review and to avoid firings from the Scientific Community.

You would lose that bet. Evangelical Christian Mary Schweitzer describes in detail how she took the rocky bits and soaked them in acid, then washed them with water, acid, water, acid water, until she finally got the rubbery state of the collagen back.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 think you need to
1. review your working definition of "alive"

2. stop lying about the facts

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not creationists.
Not, in any way, alive.

You should apply for a position at Fox News. You'd fit right in.

Or to join the current white house staff.
I hear they are fans there of "alternative facts".

 

[Zoii]

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 ?!

Good grief - this fails fact checking - the presumption this disputes evolution or the timeframes associated with it.