Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Dino's (and others) Soft Tissue

69 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

'More ancient organic matter has been unearthed since Schweitzer’s original discovery.

 

Source: http://www.kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

 

Examples include:

 

    *Exoskeleton remnants discovered in 417 million year old eurypterid and 310 million year old scorpion (February 2011)[17]
    *Dark colored, soft tissue melanocytes found in 120 million year old dinosaurs[18] (May 2010)
    *Preserved ink sac from 150 million year old squid[19] (August 2009)
    *Original shell preserved from 189-199 million year old lobster[20] (September 2010)
    *Organic molecules preserved in 66 million year old hadrosaur[21] (July 2009)
    *Preservation of scaly soft tissue in 36 million year old penguin[22] (September 2010)
    *Remains of 50 million year old insects found preserved in amber[23] (November 2010)
    *Blood and eye tissues, skin and cartilage preserved in two 80 million year old mosasaurs[24],[25] (March, October 2010) and one 70 million year-old mosasaur[26](May 2011)
    *Bone marrow found in 10 million year old frog[27] (July 2006)
    *Muscle tissue found in 18 million year old salamander[28] (November 2009)
    *Original feather material found in 150 million year old archaeopteryx[29] (May 2010)'

 

 

Of Particular Note was the squid ink.....http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/200908181954/The-150-million-year-old-squid-fossil-so-perfectly-preserved-that-scientists-can-make-ink-from-its-i.html

 

"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."

 

"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."

 

"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking at all the muscle fibres."
 

:24: :24: :24:

 

 

In a study published in April 2011, researchers in Sweden subjected soft tissue from a presumed 70 million year old mosasaur to a battery of tests to determine if the material was original to the organism.[30] Not only did they confirm that the tissue was indeed original, but the fibrous tissue absorbed dye just like connective tissue from a modern bone. Additionally, as chemist Dr. Jay Wile pointed out, the results came from a small bone found in sediments that should have been soaked in water for a long time, which makes it extremely hard to believe that the fossil had any special conditions that would help keep soft tissue and proteins from decaying away relatively quickly.[31] The survival of soft tissue under such conditions clearly demonstrates the conflict between known decay rates of organic material and the fossil’s age as determined by radiometric dating.

 

 

Since Dr. Schweitzer's accidental discovery...why accidental?....  Well it appears that; "why should we look inside, these are Millions of Years Old" for 100 or so years a priori Mantra, they've been finding it everywhere they turn.  Now it goes from "why should we be looking because it's Preposterous"  To..... "What mechanism has preserved these tissues for so long?"

 

But it never occurs to them to question the ASSUMED AGE!!!!!!!!!!  Wonder Why? :mgdetective:

 

 

DinoSofttissueT-Rex3_zpsfc19258f.jpg  DinoSoftTissueT-Rex2_zpsdfeb1553.jpg

 

 

 

T-Rex Soft Tissue Images Above

 

Lets see here:

 

You come home from work and your wife has a note on the frig...it says "I made the chicken earlier today go ahead and eat without me, I'm shopping".
You sit down and the chicken on your plate is black/grey, stinks from here to Christmas, and has maggots crawling on it.  Will you dismiss your wife's claim of "I made it earlier today" and dig in? Or throw the infested pile of puke away and seriously question your wife's "time of meal prep/Dating" acumen?

What's your answer??

 

 

This is well past Exponentially Absurd Territory!!
 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes, I had heard that they were finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones assumed to be millions of years old.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oops~!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oops~!

 

Well Done Joe,

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So much for the dinosaurs going extinct 65 million years ago, lol

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying, what would make it decay later that it could not exist for a longer period of time?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Enoch

    I really liked your little scenario of the "stinky chicken",,,,,that was a good one.I can't believe they are still singing that same old song since radiometric & carbon dating has since proved to be in err on many occasion,,,,I suppose that is why they cannot answer (was it #4?)sactisfactorily with a "yes" answer............the rate of error cannot even come close to zero,therefore is inadmissble as scientific evidence for puposed dating..................there are many new tests available in the amazing scientific world but they don't seem to talk much about it,I would imagine because it is leading them down the path of discovery that these fossils are much younger than they had speculated earlier...............Glory to God,LOL

                                                                                                                        With love,in Christ-Kwik

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying, what would make it decay later that it could not exist for a longer period of time?

that was going to be my next post neb.       Not that I think they are millions of years old, but I don't see how they could even be 5,000 years old and were just in the ground.  something would have had to keep bacteria away, and that really isn't easy to do even if you are trying...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying, what would make it decay later that it could not exist for a longer period of time?

that was going to be my next post neb.       Not that I think they are millions of years old, but I don't see how they could even be 5,000 years old and were just in the ground.  something would have had to keep bacteria away, and that really isn't easy to do even if you are trying...

 

 

Sorry guys and gals missed this.

 

"Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying,"

 

No there wasn't any "without decaying" all are decayed to a point.

 

Time is the enemy here (among other things). Just do the math:  65,000,000 divided by 6,000 to get a sense of the orders of magnitude difference.

 

Also, bear in mind...

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying, what would make it decay later that it could not exist for a longer period of time?

that was going to be my next post neb.       Not that I think they are millions of years old, but I don't see how they could even be 5,000 years old and were just in the ground.  something would have had to keep bacteria away, and that really isn't easy to do even if you are trying...

 

 

Sorry guys and gals missed this.

 

"Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying,"

 

No there wasn't any "without decaying" all are decayed to a point.

 

Time is the enemy here (among other things). Just do the math:  65,000,000 divided by 6,000 to get a sense of the orders of magnitude difference.

 

Also, bear in mind...

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

 

well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?

 

I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue.

Could it be that like our government today....  that no one really knows what they are talking about...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying, what would make it decay later that it could not exist for a longer period of time?

that was going to be my next post neb.       Not that I think they are millions of years old, but I don't see how they could even be 5,000 years old and were just in the ground.  something would have had to keep bacteria away, and that really isn't easy to do even if you are trying...

 

 

Sorry guys and gals missed this.

 

"Question: If the tissue lasted for 5000 - 6000 yrs without decaying,"

 

No there wasn't any "without decaying" all are decayed to a point.

 

Time is the enemy here (among other things). Just do the math:  65,000,000 divided by 6,000 to get a sense of the orders of magnitude difference.

 

Also, bear in mind...

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

 

well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?

 

I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue.

Could it be that like our government today....  that no one really knows what they are talking about...

 

 

"well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?"

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

 

and, I don't mean to be disrespectful here nor am I implying you lack this....but Common Sense needs to be reckoned with here, IMHO

 

 

"I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue."

 

I couldn't disagree more Sir.  It's been a Blessing to Me and has strengthened my Faith....if that is even possible  :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

"well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?"

 

'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years'

Sykes, B., The past comes alive, Nature 352(6334):381–382, 1991.

 

and, I don't mean to be disrespectful here nor am I implying you lack this....but Common Sense needs to be reckoned with here, IMHO

 

 

"I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue."

 

I couldn't disagree more Sir.  It's been a Blessing to Me and has strengthened my Faith....if that is even possible  :)

 

 

Has the above quote been proven via repeatable experiments?   What repeatable experiments have been done to prove that DNA would not last much more than 10,000 years?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?

 

I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue.

Could it be that like our government today....  that no one really knows what they are talking about...

 

 

We have to remember we are just reading the thoughts and findings of other humans.......fallible humans.  Only God knows for sure; after all, He was there.  :mgcheerful: 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

well if it would be intact for 6,000 years how do we know it would not be intact for much longer than ten thousand years?

 

I gotta tell you that these threads over the past couple of weeks makes one start to question everything on both sides of the issue.

Could it be that like our government today....  that no one really knows what they are talking about...

 

 

We have to remember we are just reading the thoughts and findings of other humans.......fallible humans.  Only God knows for sure; after all, He was there.  :mgcheerful: 

 

I think my problem is that I don't really agree with all of either side of question...   but there's things I have to reconcile that I wouldn't dream of adding to the discussions in this kind of environment.....   it would just really muddy up things...

 

That's the reason that I had the thought that none of us know the real whole story.

 

But I do fully agree with whoever brought it up in one of the threads in that it is detrimental to seekers to drag it out the way we are.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well what makes you think it has to be over 6,000 years old.  The flood was 4,000 years ago (I think) and I'm sure pairs of dinosaurs made it on the Ark, hence being mentioned throughout the bible, especially in Job.  People like Alexander the Great had encounters with raptor like creatures (science considers pure myth, but what do they know?)  they have found T-Rex bones in soft sand here in the America's.  They didn't all die off in the flood.  Most of them did, but I believe they struggled to survive in the much cooler climate that persisted afterward.  Some would still say there are still dinos hidden in the rainforests in Central and South America.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

But I do fully agree with whoever brought it up in one of the threads in that it is detrimental to seekers to drag it out the way we are.

 

Nah..   It's just the argument that is used to intimidate YEC'ers into silence.  If everyone were on here supporting the OEC or evolutionist worldviews, there wouldn't be this insistence that we are hurting seekers.  It is the YECers that are being told that their view hurts seekers.   If there were no controversy and everyone here embraced OEC we would one happy little family and there would be no worries about what seekers think.

 

It those nasty little YECers with their troublesome notion that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted...  They are the problem. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand.

Well said. We should agree to disagree and no one should resort to "my interpretation is God inspired and yours isn't." This is bullying and arrogant, and definitely filled with gentleness and humility. The apostle paul even warned Timothy about such conversation.

Gray matter issues should be discussed in LOVE. What is love? All Christians should know how to apply such, yes?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science.  

 

Christians are mistakenly putting their faith in an assumption that has not been proven and are trying to pencil that assumption into the Word of God.  I don't have to work near as hard as others do, twisting and contorting the Word of God to accommodate silly fairytales about pre-adamite civilizations that the Bible doesn't mention, quoting physicists who don't know Hebrew while knowingly misrepresenting them Hebrew scholars, because they can't find a real Hebrew scholar that will validate these silly stories.

 

I can simply go by what the Bible says and I don't have to draw from assumptions created by fallible little men when I have the word of an all-knowing God to draw from.  OEC is rooted in the Bible and cannot be supported by the Bible.

 

So yes, I believe that the YEC model is the closest to a faithful understanding of God's word and I won't apologize for saying so.  At least the YEC model doesn't have a heritage of unbelief as its primary source. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand.

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science.  

 

Christians are mistakenly putting their faith in an assumption that has not been proven and are trying to pencil that assumption into the Word of God.  I don't have to work near as hard as others do, twisting and contorting the Word of God to accommodate silly fairytales about pre-adamite civilizations that the Bible doesn't mention, quoting physicists who don't know Hebrew while knowingly misrepresenting them Hebrew scholars, because they can't find a real Hebrew scholar that will validate these silly stories.

 

I can simply go by what the Bible says and I don't have to draw from assumptions created by fallible little men when I have the word of an all-knowing God to draw from.  OEC is rooted in the Bible and cannot be supported by the Bible.

 

So yes, I believe that the YEC model is the closest to a faithful understanding of God's word and I won't apologize for saying so.  At least the YEC model doesn't have a heritage of unbelief as its primary source.

Not true again- you are misrepresenting the OEC model and casting us in a false light.....again.

The OEC model is based on the word of God too. We interpret Genesis 1 different than you and we do not agree with your exegesis. Sorry.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not true again- you are misrepresenting the OEC model and casting us in a false light.....again.

The OEC model is based on the word of God too. We interpret Genesis 1 different than you and we do not agree with your exegesis. Sorry.

 

No, I am not.  OEC was part of the view of those living in the age of reason, long before modern science and it was,like Evolution, based on an attempt to dmythologize the Bible.  The six day creation was rejected just like Noah's flood, the crossing the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus, etc.

 

The OEC has no roots in the Bible.   It has been penciled into how some people read the Bible, but even the staunchest atheist is more honest about the Bible and what is says that are some Christians.   That is why atheists embrace old earth and evolutionist theories.  They provide an alternative to the Genesis account.  If Genesis or the rest of the Bible supported the claims of unbelievers that the earth is old, it would remove one of their chielf objections to the Bible.  As it stands, in the eyes of unbelievers, the old age of the earth serves as one of their chief of objections to the Bible.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Not true again- you are misrepresenting the OEC model and casting us in a false light.....again.

The OEC model is based on the word of God too. We interpret Genesis 1 different than you and we do not agree with your exegesis. Sorry.

 

No, I am not.  OEC was part of the view of those living in the age of reason, long before modern science and it was,like Evolution, based on an attempt to dmythologize the Bible.  The six day creation was rejected just like Noah's flood, the crossing the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus, etc.

 

The OEC has no roots in the Bible.   It has been penciled into how some people read the Bible, but even the staunchest atheist is more honest about the Bible and what is says that are some Christians.   That is why atheists embrace old earth and evolutionist theories.  They provide an alternative to the Genesis account.  If Genesis or the rest of the Bible supported the claims of unbelievers that the earth is old, it would remove one of their chielf objections to the Bible.  As it stands, in the eyes of unbelievers, the old age of the earth serves as one of their chief of objections to the Bible.

 

 

The heliocentric model is part of the view of those living in the age of reason, long before modern science, yet oddly you do not deny it.  you are not very consistent with what you blindly accept and do not blindly reject.  

 

 

As it stands, in the eyes of unbelievers, the old age of the earth serves as one of their chief of objections to the Bible.

 

 

So, would you then agree that a young age of the earth serves as one of the main issues keeping people from God?  If it is, as you said, one of their chief of objections it only stands to reason it is also what is keeping them from salvation. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science. 

 

:bored-1: And you complain about OEC'ers being bullies for claiming that pushing YEC is harmful to seekers.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

 

Now, is there a way we can discuss things without anyone using intimidating theology or tactics on each other?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science. 

 

:bored-1: And you complain about OEC'ers being bullies for claiming that pushing YEC is harmful to seekers.

 

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

 

 

Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0