Dino's (and others) Soft Tissue

[Enoch2021]

'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:

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

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!!
 

[Guest shiloh357]

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

[Guest]

Oops~!

[Enoch2021]

Oops~!

 

Well Done Joe,

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Guest shiloh357]

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

[nebula]

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?

[kwikphilly]

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

[other one]

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...

[Enoch2021]

 

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.

[other one]

 

 

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...