Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well the same people who told you that dinosaurs died off 160 million years ago, also told us that we would never find soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and that is because soft tissue could only last for 100,000 years. Yet not that many years ago, they discovered dinosaur bones with soft tissue. Now these same people are telling us soft dinosaur tissue with elastic stretchable blood vessles, can last 160 million years. And people still believe their B.S.
Again which dinosaurs, they have being dying off and evolving for millions of years.
They didn't find SOFT tissue in dinosaur bones. Your creationist websites are lying too you, as usual.
Claim CC371:
Schweitzer et al. (1997a) found evidence of hemoglobin and red blood cells in an unfossilized Tyrannosaurus rex bone. This indicates that the dinosaur died rather recently, not millions of years ago, which in turn indicates that the earth is young. Source:
Wieland, Carl, 1997 (Sep.-Nov.). Sensational dinosaur blood report. Creation 19(4): 42-43. Dinosaur Soft Parts
Ham, K., J. Sarfati and C. Wieland, 2000. The Revised and Expanded Answers Book. Green Forest AR: Master Books, pp. 246-247. Response:
Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone is exceptionally well preserved, so much so that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but the preservation should not be exaggerated.
The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.
An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.
Soft tissues have been found on fossils tens of thousands of years old, and DNA has been recovered from samples more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.
Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone — PNAS
Schweitzer, M. H., C. Johnson, T. G. Zocco, J. H. Horner and J. R. Starkey, 1997b. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(2): 349-359.
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997. The real Jurassic Park. Earth, June, pp. 55-57.
Schweitzer, Mary Higby and John R. Horner, 1999. Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex. Annales de Paléontologie 85(3): 179-192.
Stokstad, Erik. 2003. Ancient DNA pulled from soil. Science 300: 407.
Willerslev, E. et al. 2003. Diverse plant and animal genetic records from Holocene and Pleistocene sediments. Science 300: 791-795.
LOL A new species of human found in a South African cave lived around 1.95 million years ago, and may be a transitional species between ape-like men and our direct human ancestor.
And why is this?
Because this species had (HIPS SIMILAR TO OURS), and (WALKED ON TWO LEGS LIKE US).
So, Discovery News is saying evolution could show both a human and non human blend together in one species. And eventually humankind won out. So, some believers in evolution do believe this. Well, you can't blame that belief on Creationism. And it would require ignorance to ignore what is being pushed here. And believers in evolution ignore such statements that are being made by their own people all the time. And then they pretend such statements were never made. And blame Creationism for the nonsense that was created by believers in evolution. Nothing like talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I have no doubt that is the kind of morphological differences you are referring to when you say "fish-frogs." Two distinctly separate species that are freakishly mutated together. Evolution doesn't work this way.
Finding an animal that shares similar features directly between it's direct predecessor and direct successor isn't "fish-frog."
First off which dinosaurs? They died off many times and manage to make their way back.
Artwork will never be consider scientific evidence in this context.
The artwork will never be considerd evidence even if it offers a more accurate description of a dinosaur then what we have today. Only because the artwork refutes todays science. The ancient artwork is an insult to scientific conventional thinking. Thus it must be rejected. After all, how would science be able to explain to the public at large that a primitive people that died out just thousands of years ago, had a greater knowledge and understanding of dinosaurs anatomy, than the cutting edge science of today? Science is far more intrested in protecting their pet theories, then getting to the truth of what really was. And what scientist want's to be branded by his peers for stepping outside the box? A successful career is built on following the powers that be, and not butting heads with the big boys. And that is why such evidence is always ignored, and we do not see scientific reviews on any of this evidence.
The artwork will never be considerd evidence even if it offers a more accurate description of a dinosaur then what we have today. Only because the artwork refutes todays science. The ancient artwork is an insult to scientific conventional thinking. Thus it must be rejected. After all, how would science be able to explain to the public at large that a primitive people that died out just thousands of years ago, had a greater knowledge and understanding of dinosaurs anatomy, than the cutting edge science of today? Science is far more intrested in protecting their pet theories, then getting to the truth of what really was. And what scientist want's to be branded by his peers for stepping outside the box? A successful career is built on following the powers that be, and not butting heads with the big boys. And that is why such evidence is always ignored, and we do not see scientific reviews on any of this evidence.
Sorry I don't pay much attention to baseless assertions.
Edit: Even if the artwork is more accurate then modern science, which I highly doubt that any artwork would have more knowledge then all the knowledge paleontologist have built up over the centuries about dinosaurs, it would not prove anything but that they had somehow got access to large amount of data and information (a library full of information) and compiled it into 1 art form. Which would be amazing in itself.
The artwork will never be considerd evidence even if it offers a more accurate description of a dinosaur then what we have today. Only because the artwork refutes todays science. The ancient artwork is an insult to scientific conventional thinking. Thus it must be rejected. After all, how would science be able to explain to the public at large that a primitive people that died out just thousands of years ago, had a greater knowledge and understanding of dinosaurs anatomy, than the cutting edge science of today? Science is far more intrested in protecting their pet theories, then getting to the truth of what really was. And what scientist want's to be branded by his peers for stepping outside the box? A successful career is built on following the powers that be, and not butting heads with the big boys. And that is why such evidence is always ignored, and we do not see scientific reviews on any of this evidence.
I drew a fantastic picture of a dinosaur just now that is much more correct than any other, ever. It has lasers. I hereby submit it as evidence that dinosaurs did, in fact have lasers.
And by the way, the most successful scientists are the ones who are able to refute current theories. Think about some famous scientists for a moment. Which one of those made his or her career by keeping their head down and falling in line?
Again which dinosaurs, they have being dying off and evolving for millions of years.
They didn't find SOFT tissue in dinosaur bones. Your creationist websites are lying too you, as usual.
Claim CC371:
Schweitzer et al. (1997a) found evidence of hemoglobin and red blood cells in an unfossilized Tyrannosaurus rex bone. This indicates that the dinosaur died rather recently, not millions of years ago, which in turn indicates that the earth is young. Source:
Wieland, Carl, 1997 (Sep.-Nov.). Sensational dinosaur blood report. Creation 19(4): 42-43. Dinosaur Soft Parts
Ham, K., J. Sarfati and C. Wieland, 2000. The Revised and Expanded Answers Book. Green Forest AR: Master Books, pp. 246-247. Response:
Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone is exceptionally well preserved, so much so that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but the preservation should not be exaggerated.
The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.
An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.
Soft tissues have been found on fossils tens of thousands of years old, and DNA has been recovered from samples more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.
Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone — PNAS
Schweitzer, M. H., C. Johnson, T. G. Zocco, J. H. Horner and J. R. Starkey, 1997b. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(2): 349-359.
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997. The real Jurassic Park. Earth, June, pp. 55-57.
Schweitzer, Mary Higby and John R. Horner, 1999. Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex. Annales de Paléontologie 85(3): 179-192.
Stokstad, Erik. 2003. Ancient DNA pulled from soil. Science 300: 407.
Willerslev, E. et al. 2003. Diverse plant and animal genetic records from Holocene and Pleistocene sediments. Science 300: 791-795.
It is now being reported by National Geographic published in May of 2009 that a fossilized leg of an 80 million year old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known (PROTEINS) preserved in (SOFT TISSUE)-including blood vessels and other condnective tissue, as well as perhaps (BLOOD CELL PROTEINS). So yes, they are finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. And for you to believe the oppsite, you must ignore the obvious evidence.
It is now being reported by National Geographic published in may of 2009 that a fossilized leg of an 80 million year old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest know (PROTEINS) preserved in soft tissue-including blood vessels and other condnective tissue, as well as perhaps (BLOOD CELL PROTEINS). So yes, they are finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. And for you to believe the oppsite, you must ignore the obvious evidence.
If you had read my reply you would have notice that I pointed out the fact that we have been finding soft tissue on other dinosaurs for quite sometime.
Does any of your "art work" show more information about dinosaurs then this one?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Geological_time_spiral_-_sharper.png (broken link)
I drew a fantastic picture of a dinosaur just now that is much more correct than any other, ever. It has lasers. I hereby submit it as evidence that dinosaurs did, in fact have lasers.
And by the way, the most successful scientists are the ones who are able to refute current theories. Think about some famous scientists for a moment. Which one of those made his or her career by keeping their head down and falling in line?
Well anyone can make up stories and talk nonsense. The fact is, the El Toro Figurines had more advanced knowledge of dinosaurs then then science had about some of the dinosaurs that were displayed in the collection at the time of their discovery. How could that of been possible? Especially when the figurines were time tested, and found to be thousands of years old?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
